- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5277 RSA No. 100028 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100028 OF 2023 (PAR/POS-) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI RAVIKUMAR MALLIKARJUN RACHANNAVAR, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. KARADIGUDDI VILLAGE, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-591103. 2. SHRI IRANGOUDA MALLIKARJUN RACHANNAVAR, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. KARADIGUDDI VILLAGE, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-591103. 3. SHRI. RAJANGOUDA MALLIKARJUN RACHANNAVAR, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KARADIGUDDI VILLAGE, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-591103. 4. SHRI. BASANGOUDA MALLIKARJU RACHANNAVAR, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE R/O. KARADIGUDDI VILLAGE, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-591103. &APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI RAJKUMAR SHIVASHANKAR RACHANNAVAR, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. CTS NO.7424, KANBARGI ROAD, MALMARUTI EXTENSION, BELAGAVI-590017. 2. SHRI SOMASHEKHAR SHIVASHANKAR RACHANNAVAR, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. CTS NO.7424, KANBARGI ROAD, Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.03.25 16:02:40 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5277 RSA No. 100028 of 2023 MALMARUTI EXTENSION, BELAGAVI-590017. &RESPONDENTS THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 PRAYING THAT THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.03.2021 PASSED IN R.A.NO.67/2019 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BELAGAVI IN DISMISSING THE SAID REGULAR APPEAL AND THEREBY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.03.2019 PASSED IN O.S. NO.782/1996 BY THE V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC BELAGAVI WITH COSTS, BE KINDLY SET ASIDE, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND THEREBY DECREEING THE SAID SUIT IN O.S.NO.782/1996, AS PRAYED THEREIN, THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2021 in R.A.No.67/2019 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi1 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2019 in O.S.No.782/1996 on the file of the V Additional Civil Judge, Belagavi2 dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 1 hereinafter referred to as 8First Appellate Court9 2 hereinafter referred to as 8Trial Court9 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5277 RSA No. 100028 of 2023 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property was allotted in favour of Shivashankar Rachannavar (husband of defendant No.1). It is stated in the plaint that, the suit schedule property was purchased by the deceased Shivashankar through the joint family funds and therefore the plaintiffs have sought for share in the suit schedule property. It is also stated that Shivashankar had given a varadi to the CTS Officer to enter the names of the defendants and thereafter the plaintiffs realized that they are entitled for half share in the suit schedule property. It is also averred that, the defendant No.1 herself has given a varadi dated 07.01.1994 to enter the names of the plaintiffs. It is also stated that the father of the defendants No.2 to 4 3 Shivashankar died on 01.07.1995 and therefore, the plaintiffs have filed suit in O.S.No.782/1996 seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule property. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5277 RSA No. 100028 of 2023 4. After service of notice, the defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement and pleaded that the husband of defendant No.1 3 Shivashankar was working in the Police Department and as such allotment of suit schedule property was made in favour of the said Shivashankar as per the lease-cum-sale agreement dated 07.06.1979 and thereafter City Corporation has executed registered sale deed in faovur Shivashankar on 07.03.1999 and accordingly the defendants have sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. The Trial Court based on the pleadings on record, has framed issues for its consideration. In order to establish their case, the plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW.1 and produced 13 documents and same were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.13. The defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1 and got marked 18 documents as Exs.D.1 to D.18. 6. The Trial Court after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 01.03.2019, dismissed the suit and feeling aggrieved by the same, the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5277 RSA No. 100028 of 2023 plaintiffs have preferred R.A.No.67/2019 on the file of the First Appellate Court and same was resisted by the defendants. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 31.03.2021, dismissed the appeal, consequently confirmed the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2019 in O.S.No.782/1996. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 7. I have heard Sri.Sanjay S Katageri, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 8. Sri.Sanjay S Katageri, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that both the Courts below have committed an error in not considering the fact that the schedule property is the joint family property of the appellants and the respondents herein and further contended that the defendant No.1 herself has given a varadi to enter the names of plaintiffs in the revenue records and the said aspect of the matter was - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5277 RSA No. 100028 of 2023 ignored by both the Courts below and accordingly sought for interference of this Court. 9. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, I have carefully examined the findings recorded by both the Courts below. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs and defendants are related to each other and the genealogy of the parties is extracted below: Rudrappa Rachannavar Mallikarjun Rachannavar (Dead) Shivashankar (Dead) Ravikumar Irangouda Rajangouda Basangouda (P-1) (P-2) (P-3) (P-4) Shshiladevi Rajkumar Vijayalaxmi Somshekhar (D-1) (D-2) (D-3) (D-4) 10. Perusal of the same, would indicate that Rudrappa Rachannavar was the original propitious having - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5277 RSA No. 100028 of 2023 two children namely Mallikarjun Rachannavar and Shivashankar. Plaintiffs are the children of Mallikarjun Rachannavar and defendant No.1 is the wife of the Shivashankar and defendants No.2 to 4 are the children of Shivashankar and defendant No.1. It is not in dispute that the suit schedule property was allotted in favour of the Shivashankar as per the lease-cum-sale agreement dated 07.06.1979 and after the completion of ten years of lease period, City Corporation has executed a registered sale deed in favour of Shivashankar on 07.03.1999. 11. It is also to be noted that the said Shivashankar has filed O.S.No.171/1981 against his brother 3 Mallikarjun Rachannavar (father of the plaintiffs) seeking relief of partition and separate possession and the said suit came to be ended with compromise on 28.02.1984. Indisputably the subject matter of the suit schedule property is not the subject matter in O.S.No.171/1981. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the finding recorded by both the Courts below, I am of the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5277 RSA No. 100028 of 2023 view that the suit schedule property is the self acquired property of Shivashankar as he was working in the Police Department and had acquired the same during 1979 independently and therefore both the Courts below have rightly arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiffs are not entitled for share in the suit schedule property. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission as the appellants have not made out a case for formulation of substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of CPC. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SH CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26