- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7203 RFA No. 100154 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100154 OF 2018 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: 1. VEERANGOUDAR S/O. VENKANAGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GOUDER ONI, GULAGANJIKOPPA, DHARWAD-580001. 2. SMT. TIRAKABAI W/O. VENKANAGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GOUDER ONI, GULAGANJIKOPPA, DHARWAD -580001. SINCE EXPIRED ON 09.06.2020 AND LEGAL HEIR ALREADY ON RECORD AS APPELLANT NO.1. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B. K. MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SMT. BALABAI W/O. VENAKANAGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. GOUDER ONI, GULAGANJIKOPPA, DHARWAD-580001. DELETED V/O. DATED 07.03.2023. 2. SRI. VEBANAIK S/O. IRANAIK PATIL, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIKKAMALLIGAWAD, TQ: DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD-580004. Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.05.28 10:34:14 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7203 RFA No. 100154 of 2018 3. SRI. BHIMANAIK S/O. IRANAIK PATIL, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIKKAMALLIGAWAD, TQ: DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD-580001. 4. SRI. DESAINAIK S/O. IRANAIK PATIL, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIKKAMALLIAGWAD, TQ: DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD-580001. 5. SMT. SAVITARANI W/O. SOMALINGAPPA ANTARDANI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. H.NO.193, 2ND MAIN, RANI CHANNAMMA NAGAR, DHARWAD-580001. 6. SMT. SANGEETHA W/O. RAMALINGAPPA ANTARADANI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. H.NO.193, 2ND MAIN, RANI CHANNAMMA NAGAR, DHARWAD-580001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. V. M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6; R1 DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED 07.03.2022; NOTICE TO R2 & R4 ARE SERVED) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.01.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DHARWAD IN O.S. NO.113/2018 (ANNEXURE-A) AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6 TO EFFECT PARTITION BY EXECUTING A REGISTERED PARTITION DEED AND PUT THE APPELLANTS IN TO THE SEPARATE POSSESSION OF THEIR SHARE IN PLAINT SCHEDULE PROPERTIES. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7203 RFA No. 100154 of 2018 THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 21.03.2025 FOR JUDGMENT AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) 1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No.113 of 2013, on the file of the II-Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Dharwad (for short “the trial Court”), filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 30th January 2018, passed in the said case. 2. The parties herein are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. 3. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the original propositus was one Veeranagouda, who had four sons, namely Venkanagouda, Vabanaik (defendant No.2), Bhimanaik (defendant No.3), and Desainaik (defendant No.4). Venkanagouda was the husband of defendant No.1 as well as plaintiff No.2. From the wedlock of Venkanagouda and plaintiff No.2, plaintiff No.1 was born. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7203 RFA No. 100154 of 2018 The suit schedule properties were ancestral joint family properties and in the partition between Venkanagouda and his brothers, the suit properties were allotted to the share of Venkanagouda. He was murdered. Plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are his legal heirs to succeed the suit properties. 4. During the life time of Venkanagouda, plaintiffs were residing with him at Chikkamalligawada. After his death the plaintiffs started residing at Gulaganjikoppa. Defendant No.1, taking undue advantage of the absence of the plaintiffs in the village and in collusion with the revenue authorities, got her name mutated in the revenue records, in respect of the suit schedule properties. Plaintiff No.2 being an illiterate rustic villager, was unaware of these facts. 5. Defendant No.5 and 6 are the purchaser of the suit properties. Since the plaintiffs were not parties to the said sale transactions, the same will not bind their rights. The plaintiffs are entitled to a share in the suit schedule - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7203 RFA No. 100154 of 2018 properties. The plaintiffs sought their share from defendant Nos.1 to 4, who refused to effect the partition. Therefore the plaintiffs filed this suit for partition. 6. Defendant No.2 filed a written statement, which was adopted by defendant Nos.3 and 4. They admitted genealogy of the family except the relationship of plaintiffs with Venkanagouda as his wife and son. According to them, defendant No.1 was the legally wedded wife of Venkanagouda. He had no issues from the said wedlock. They admitted that suit properties were allotted to the share of Venkanagouda in the partition between the sons of Veeranagouda. 7. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 further contended that since the date of partition, defendant No.2 to 4 have been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of 9 acres and 16 guntas, including 2 acres and 20 guntas of land in Block No.195/3B, standing in the name of defendant No.1; Defendant Nos.2 to 4 have been in peaceful and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the suit - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7203 RFA No. 100154 of 2018 properties, with the knowledge of defendant No.1, and have perfected their title by adverse possession. The plaintiffs and other defendants had no right over the suit properties. Plaintiffs are not legal heirs of deceased Venkanagouda and have no right to claim partition. With these reasons, they prayed for dismissal of the suit. 8. Defendant Nos.5 and 6 filed common written statement. They contended that the suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiffs are not related to the deceased Venkanagouda. The plaintiffs never exercised their rights over the suit properties. Defendant No.1 is the widow of the deceased Venkanagouda and the only legal heir of said Venkanagouda. She was unable to cultivate the land. She had executed agreement of sale in favour of third party that was not acted upon. Thereafter Defendant No.1 sold suit property item No.(I) to (III) to defendant No.5 and Pushpa Hanchin, by registered sale deed dated 10.04.2003. The said Pushpa Hanchin sold property purchased by her i.e., Sl.No.(II) & (III) to Smt. Sumitra - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7203 RFA No. 100154 of 2018 Hurali, i.e., mother of defendant No. 6, by registered sale deed dated 07.03.2005. Smt. Sumitra gifted said properties to her daughter, defendant No.6 under registered gift deed dated 18.07.2005 and delivered the possession of said properties. Defendant No. 5 and 6 have made lot of improvements to the respective lands held by them. Defendants No. 2 to 4 never objected for their enjoyment of the said lands. From the year 2003 defendant No.5 and predecessor of defendant No.6 have been in possession and enjoyment of the said lands. After lapse of more than 12 years suit was filed and it is barred by time. With these reasons they prayed to dismiss the suit. 9. From the rival contentions of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: “ISSUES 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit properties are the joint family property of plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 4? - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7203 RFA No. 100154 of 2018 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are having 1/3rd share each in the suit property? 3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for mesne profits? 4. Whether the defendant No.5 and 6 prove that they are the bonafide purchasers of the suit property? 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief sought? 6. What order of decree? ADDITIONAL ISSUES 1. Whether the defendant Nos.2 to 4 proves that suit is barred by law of limitation? 2. Whether the defendant Nos.2 to 4 proves that they are the owners of the entire suit property bearing block No.195/3 measuring 9 acres 16 guntas, including 2 acres 20 guntas (new block No.195/4 measuring 2 acres 20 guntas) standing in the name of defendant No.1?” 10. To prove their case, the plaintiffs examined PW1 to PW3, and marked 15 documents as per Exs.P1 to P15. On the other hand, defendant Nos.3, 5 and 6 examined seven witnesses as DW1 to DW7 and marked Exs.D1 to D42 and Exs.C1 to C6. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7203 RFA No. 100154 of 2018 11. The trial Court, after hearing the arguments of both the side and appreciating the pleadings and evidence on record, answered issue Nos.1 to 3 & 5, and addl. issue Nos.1 & 2 in the negative, and issue No.4 in the affirmative and dismissed the suit by the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.01.2018. The same is challenged in the present appeal by the plaintiffs. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 have not challenged the findings against them. 12. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and anxiously perused the records. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants argued in lines with the grounds of appeal. He further submitted that PW1 in his examination-in-chief stated the facts of the case and in support of his contentions he examined two witnesses and produced documents. In the cross- examination, especially in the suggestions made by the defendants to PW1, it was repeatedly asked that his father - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7203 RFA No. 100154 of 2018 was Venkanagouda, thereby impliedly the defendants admitted Venkanagouda as his father. He also contended that plaintiff No.2 was the second wife of Venkanagouda, and defendant No.1 was his first wife. After the murder of the father of plaintiff No.1, due to threats to their lives, they started residing in Gulaganjikoppa, leaving Chikkamalligwad. Taking advantage of this, defendant Nos.1 to 4 created records and sold the properties behind their back. 14. Learned advocate for Plaintiffs further contended that plaintiffs had signed on the agreement of sale executed by defendant No.1. If they had no relationship with the family of Venkanagouda, then there was no need to take their signatures as witnesses. The trial Court failed to consider these facts and erroneously dismissed the suit. 15. In support of his contention, the learned advocate for appellant has relied upon the following - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7203 RFA No. 100154 of 2018 judgments and prayed to allow the appeal and to decree the suit. (i) Sri Rajakumar Vs. Smt. Renawwa and others1 (ii) Sham Lal Vs. Sanjeev Kumar and Ors.2 (iii) Veerayya Mahantayya Koppad and Ors. Vs. Geetha and Ors.3 (iv) Laxmibai (Dead) thr. L.Rs. and Ors. Vs. Bhagwantbuva (Dead) thr. L.Rs. and Ors.4 (v) Ahalya H.Shetty Vs. Vathsala S. Shetty5 (vi) R. Dorai Babu Chetti and another Vs. T.Gopalkrishna Chetty and another6 16. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 contended that it is the primary duty of the plaintiffs to prove their relationship with the deceased Venkanagouda. No reliable evidence was led by the plaintiffs to prove the marriage of plaintiff No.2 with Venkanagouda, or that she was residing with him during his life time and that plaintiff No.1 was born during that time. He also contended that no 1 RFA No.1362/2004 C/w. RFA No.113/2005, DD: 05.07.2011 2 (2009) 12 SCC 454 3 ILR 2008 Kar 1773 4 (2013) 4 SCC 97 5 AIR 2024 Kant. 47 6 1960 SCC OnLine Mad 58 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7203 RFA No. 100154 of 2018 oral and documentary evidence was led in this regard. Plaintiff No.2, who is said to be the second wife of Venkanagouda, did not enter the witness box to prove her marriage. Even in the pleadings, it is not stated that plaintiff No.2 was second wife of Venkanagouda. These facts were developed only during the course of trial. Hence the said evidence has no legs to stand. The evidence of PW2 and PW3 are of no assistance to the case of plaintiffs. They never stated that any rituals were performed at the time of the marriage between Venkanagouda and plaintiff No.2. There is utterly no evidence to believe that Venkanagouda married plaintiff No.2, they lived together and during that period, the plaintiff No.1 was born. Hence, presumption under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act does not help the plaintiffs to prove their contention. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants are of no assistance to his arguments. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7203 RFA No. 100154 of 2018 17. It is further contended that, according to the plaintiff, Venkanagouda was murdered in the year 1978. Plaintiff No.2 never tried to enter her name in revenue records. During 1978 plaintiff No.1 might be minor. He did not try to enter his name even after he attained the age of majority. The plaintiffs contend that their signatures were taken at the time of executing the agreements of sale, which indicates that they had knowledge of the said transaction, yet at no point of time they objected to the said alienation. Smt. Pushpa Hanchin and defendant No.5 purchased the property by registered sale deed dated 10.04.2003. Said Pushpa sold the property to the mother of defendant No.6 on 07.03.2005. Mother of defendant No.6 executed a gift deed in favour of defendant No.6 on 18.07.2005. From the year 2003 family of Venkanagouda are out of possession of suit property. Till filing of the suit plaintiffs never objected for the same. All these transactions were carried out through registered documents. Despite having knowledge of the intention of defendant No.1 to alienate the property, the plaintiffs did - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7203 RFA No. 100154 of 2018 not take any action or file a suit for partition if really they had any right. All these facts indicate that, only to grab the property or extract money from the defendants No.5 and 6, the plaintiffs are contending that they are the son and wife of the deceased Venkanagouda and claiming share in the suit property. The trial Court properly considered these facts and rightly dismissed the suit, which does not call for any interference by this Court. With these reasons prayed to dismiss the suit. 18. Based on the contentions of the parties, the following points arise for consideration: (i) Whether the trial Court erred in not holding that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased Venkanagouda and members of joint family and are entitled to a share in the suit properties? (ii) Whether the learned trial Judge erred in dismissing the suit, and interference with the said finding is required? - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7203 RFA No. 100154 of 2018 Re: Point No.1 and 2: 19. Relationship of Plaintiffs with Venkanagouda is seriously disputed by his own brothers. Defendants stoutly deny the relationship of plaintiffs with Venkanagouda as his son and wife. They contend that defendant No.1 is wife of Venkanagouda. Plaintiffs during the trial, admitted that defendant No.1 is wife of Venkanagouda. Therefore to establish their right over suit property it is necessary for the plaintiffs to prove the marriage of plaintiff No.2 with Venkanagouda; she lived with Venkanagouda during his life time as husband and wife under the same roof and from the said physical relationship, plaintiff No.1 was born. 20. Plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW1. In his evidence he has reiterated plaint averments. He introduced new case which was not pleaded, that plaintiff No.2 was second wife of Venkanagouda. Defendant No.1 was the first wife. Venkanagouda could not get any issues from defendant No.1 therefore he married plaintiff No.2 for - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7203 RFA No. 100154 of 2018 the second time, with consent of defendant No.1 and she herself arranged the marriage. In his cross examination these facts are disputed and denied by the defendants. PW1 is not competent witness to prove marriage between plaintiff No.2 and Venkanagouda. He was not born and whatever he has stated is hearsay evidence and hence his evidence does not help to prove the case of plaintiffs. 21. To prove the marriage, plaintiffs examined PW2 and PW3, who have stated that the marriage of Venkanagouda with plaintiff No.2 was performed in Gulaganjikoppa. Both of them have not stated date or place of marriage or presence of relatives, friends and villagers during the marriage. They have also not stated performance of any rituals at the time of marriage. PW2 even has not stated that he was present at the time of the marriage. 22. PW3 is said to be a resident of Chikkamalligwad and he had attended the marriage. He stated that the deceased Venkanagouda married plaintiff No.2 and that - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7203 RFA No. 100154 of 2018 the marriage was arranged by the defendant No.1. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not know the contents of his affidavit evidence and at the time of marriage of Venkanagouda he was only aged about 14 years. As per his deposition he was aged about 58 years at the time of his evidence. It also show that he was a boy of below 14 years. He was not mentally matured to understand the ceremonies of marriage. Such a witness was examined to prove the marriage of deceased Venkanagouda with plaintiff No.2. In addition to that he also stated that the marriage was arranged by the defendant No.1. His evidence show that he was tutored witness. Evidence of PW 2 and 3 do not inspire confidence to prove the marriage of plaintiff No.2 with Venkanagouda. 23. Most competent and relevant witness to prove the marriage and leading marital life with Venkanagouda is plaintiff No.2. She was alive during pendency of the suit. She did not enter the witness box to prove her contention that she was married to Venkanagouda and from the said - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7203 RFA No. 100154 of 2018 marital relationship plaintiff No.1 was born. Material witness was not examined without any justifiable reasons. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that she was aged and therefore unable to enter the witness box. The said explanation is not believable. In the cause title of the appeal memo, her age is mentioned as 60 years. The suit was filed during the year 2013, and at that time, she must be aged around 55 years. It was not an advanced age due to which she was unable to enter the witness box. It appears that her evidence was deliberately with held by the plaintiff No.1, with a fear that if she was examined then real facts may come out. Hence adverse inference shall be drawn. Non-examination of plaintiff No.2 is fatal to the case of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also not examined any relatives or elders of the family of plaintiff No2, to prove her marriage with Venkanagouda. Marriage invitation or any other materials are not produced to prove the marriage. Absolutely there are no reliable materials to prove the marriage of plaintiff No.2 with Venkanagouda. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7203 RFA No. 100154 of 2018 24. In the pleadings, the date, place and details of the marriage ceremony are all absent. When the relationship was seriously disputed, plaintiffs No.2 ought to have disclosed the said facts in the pleadings. It is not pleaded in the plaint that defendant No.1 was the first wife and plaintiff No.2 was the second wife of Venkanagouda. The defendant No.1 had arranged the marriage of Venkanagouda with plaintiff No.2, since she could not give birth to a child. It appears that since the defendant No.1 remained absent, these facts were developed during trial of the case. 25. The plaintiffs have produced birth certificate of plaintiff No.1 issued by the School Authorities, wherein, the name of the student is mentioned as Iranna Venkanagouda Patil. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the name of the plaintiff No.1 is not Iranna, but Veeranagouda, and even in Ex.P11, his name is mentioned as Iranagouda and not Iranna. Therefore, Ex.P9 does not pertain to plaintiff No.1. It cannot be ruled - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7203 RFA No. 100154 of 2018 out. For the sake of discussion, even assuming that Ex.P9 belongs to plaintiff No.1, then mere mention of the name of Venkanagouda as his father is not sufficient to hold that plaintiff No.1 is the son of Venkanagouda. School certificate is not proof of paternity. Had plaintiffs proved that plaintiff No.2 married Venkanagouda, it might be helpful to corroborate the said evidence. The person who issued it is also not examined, to prove that it is belonging to plaintiff No.1. Hence it does not of any help to prove the case of plaintiffs. 26. Defendant No.3 was examined as DW1. He has stated genealogy of the family and denied the relationship of Plaintiffs with their family. In his cross-examination, nothing was brought out to prove that plaintiff No.2 was the wife and plaintiff No.1 was the son of Venkanagouda. Learned counsel for the appellants attempted to rely on the cross-examination of DW1, wherein DW1 has stated that “it might be true that Venkanagouda married to plaintiff No.2, as Venkanagouda did not have any issue - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7203 RFA No. 100154 of 2018 from defendant No.1”. However, based on such stray sentence, it cannot be accepted that plaintiff No.2 was the wife of Venkanagouda in the absence of any reliable evidence of the plaintiffs. 27. Conduct of plaintiffs is also necessary to consider truth in their case. It is not in dispute that Venkanagouda died on 10.04.1978. Thereafter plaintiff No.2 did not try to enter her name in the revenue records to succeed to his properties. If defendant No.1 herself arranged marriage of plaintiff No.2 with Venkanagouda, to have a successor to his family, then why she would deny to enter names of plaintiffs in the revenue record? Hence the case of Plaintiffs that defendant No.1 behind the back of plaintiffs entered her name in the revenue records is not believable. Even after attaining majority, plaintiff No.1 did not attempt to mutate his name in the revenue records with respect to the suit properties. There are no justifiable reasons for failure to enter their names in the revenue records, particularly when the properties were partitioned - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7203 RFA No. 100154 of 2018 and allotted to the share of Venkanagouda. Of course it will not decide the relationship of plaintiffs with Venkanagouda, but it only show the conduct of the plaintiffs. If the plaintiffs were legal heirs of Venkanagouda, quite naturally they would have tried to mutate their names in the revenue records. 28. Plaintiffs contend that they have right over the suit properties therefore their signatures were obtained in an agreement of sale executed by defendant No.1. Original agreement of sale was placed on record. Plaintiff No.1 signed as a witness in the said agreement. If he were considered as son of Venkanagouda then he should have taken part in executing the document and not as witness. A person signed on a document as witness does not mean that he has any right over said property. If plaintiffs were owner of the said property then why he agreed to sign as a witness instead of executants of document? Even it is not the case of plaintiffs that part of sale consideration was paid to them. Recitals of the document also do not - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7203 RFA No. 100154 of 2018 support the contention of the plaintiffs that he was considered as owner of said property. 29. It is also worth to note that at the time of execution of the agreement of sale, he was aware that defendant No.1 was attempting to alienate the properties. If the plaintiffs had right over the said properties, then why they kept quiet and not raise any objections? At that time also they should have taken steps to have their name entered in the revenue records to protect their interest. However, no such steps were taken, and no plausible explanation has been offered for this inaction. These conducts of the plaintiffs unequivocally supports the contention of defendant Nos.5 and 6 that the plaintiffs’ have not approached the Court with clean hands and just to grab the suit properties from the defendants No.5 and 6 or blackmail them, contending that they have right in the suit properties, which was sold about 12 years prior to the suit. - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7203 RFA No. 100154 of 2018 30. There is no legal evidence to prove that Veeranagouda married plaintiff No.2; they lived together as husband and wife under same roof; and during that period, Plaintiff No.1 was born. The conduct of plaintiffs as discussed above also show that it is difficult to believe that they are related to Venkanagouda as averred in the plaint and they had any right over suit properties. Plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove their case and their right over the suit properties. 31. The presumption available under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act can be attracted only when marriage is proved by the cogent evidence so also by showing that the woman and the man lived together under the same roof, and during that period, a child was born. It should be valid marriage. In this case, such evidence is absent and marriage is not proved. Moreover according to the case developed by the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.2 was the second wife of Venkanagouda. Therefore, there was no valid marriage between Venkanagouda and plaintiff No.2. - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7203 RFA No. 100154 of 2018 Under these circumstances, it cannot be presumed that plaintiff No.1 is the son of Venkanagouda only on the basis of presumption under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned Trial Judge has discussed these facts in detail and arrived at proper conclusion, which does not warrant any interference by this Court. 32. The plaintiffs have failed to prove that they had any relationship with Venkanagouda. They have not established the marriage of plaintiff No.2 with Venkanagouda or that plaintiff No.1 was born from such a relationship. In the absence of proof of such relationship, the question of claiming share in the properties belonging to Venkanagouda does not arise. 33. It is an admitted fact that defendant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of Venkanagouda and after his death she became absolute owner of suit properties. She sold the properties in favour of defendant No.5 and Smt. Pushpa under registered sale deed, notwithstanding an earlier agreement of sale with others. The execution of the - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7203 RFA No. 100154 of 2018 sale deed in favour of defendant No.5 and Smt. Pushpa Hanchin are not disputed by defendant No.1 Smt. Pushpa sold the property purchased by her infavour of mother of defendant No.6 is also not in dispute. She had gifted and handed over possession of property purchased by her in favour of defendant No.6 is also not in dispute. To prove these transactions defendants examined DW-2 to DW-7 and marked documents. The oral evidence of defendants and documents marked by the defendants are discussed by the learned trial judge. Therefore there is no need to discuss them in detail. The documents placed on record by the defendants corroborate the case of defendant Nos.5 and 6. Defendants Nos.2 to 4 did not dispute the said evidence. During course of arguments plaintiffs do not dispute these documents but according to them they were not party to the said documents and hence it does not bind their rights. Therefore there is no necessity for a detailed discussion on these documents, since point No.1 is answered in the negative. Similarly discussion of evidence of DW-2 to DW-7 is also not necessary. Their - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7203 RFA No. 100154 of 2018 evidence in respect of documents executed in favour of defendant Nos.5 and 6 as well as Smt. Pushpa Hanchin. The trial Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, rightly held that Plaintiffs have no right in the properties in question; they do not belong to the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs have no share in the suit properties. This finding does not call for any interference by this Court. 34. As submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, the series of decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants are not relevant to the present case. Facts of the present case are different. In point No. 1 this facts are discussed in detail. Firstly marriage is not proved. Secondly it was not a valid marriage. According to plaintiffs’ contention, it was a second marriage performed during the lifetime of the first wife. Therefore it was not a valid marriage. The plaintiff No.2, being second wife has no right over the properties held by her husband. Since her marriage is not proved - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7203 RFA No. 100154 of 2018 with Vekanagouda, her son is also not entitled to the benefit under Section 16(3) of the Hindu Succession Act, to claim share in the property of Venkanagouda. Hence detailed discussion of judgments relied by the parties is not necessary. 35. Some of issues were answered against defendants Nos.2 to 4. They did not file any appeal or cross objections. During course of arguments also nothing brought out to show that findings of trial court are erroneous. Hence no need to relook the same. For above said discussion point No.1 & 2 is answered in the negative and proceed to pass fallowing: ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed. (ii) The judgment and decree dated 30th January 2018, passed in O.S. No.113 of 2013 by the II-Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Dharwad is confirmed. - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7203 RFA No. 100154 of 2018 (iii) Send back TCR along with copy of this judgment to the trial court. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE Vnp / CT-AN