- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7291 RFA No. 100088 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100088 OF 2019 (DEC) BETWEEN: 1. YALLAPPA HULYAL A/F GADIYAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LEGAL HEIRS SMT. YAMANAVVA HULYAL @ NAGARAL W/O YALLAPPA, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE/HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: GIDDANAIKNAL, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587 101. 2. SMT. MALLAVVA @ MALLAMMA KODATAGERI W/O SHRIKANT, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: GIDDANAIKNAL, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587 101. 3. SMT. BHEEMAVVA @ SHASHIKALA TALIGERI W/O BASAVARAJ, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE/HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: GIDDANAIKNAL, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT, NOW AT ILKAL, TQ: HUNAGUND-587 101. APPELLANT NO.1 TO 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA SRI. SHRIKANT S/O BEERAPPA KODATAGERI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: GADAG, DIST: GADAG-582 101. … APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ASHOK R. KALYANSHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: BHEEMAPPA NAGARAL S/O SHIVAPPA, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GIDDANAIKNAL, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587 101. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.A. SONDUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7291 RFA No. 100088 of 2019 THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 OF CPC, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 08.01.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.44/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, BADAMI. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This Regular First Appeal is filed by the plaintiff/appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.01.2019 passed in O.S No.44/2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Badami (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’), thereby, the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction is dismissed with costs. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 3. The plaintiffs have shown the genealogy as follows: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7291 RFA No. 100088 of 2019 Shivappa (dead) Bheemavva (dead) Mangalavva Yallappa Hanamappa Ningappa Bheemappa (Dead) (Plaintiff) (Defendant) 4. It is the case of plaintiff that he is the adopted son of one Gadiyappa Hulyal (Hereinafter referred to as ‘Gadiyappa’). The said Gadiyappa was the owner of suit land. He has a wife by name Mallavva. Gadiyappa and Mallavva had a son by name Hanumappa. The said Hanumappa died without marriage. After the death of Gadiyappa, his wife Mallavva was in possession of the suit land and the said Mallavva adopted the plaintiff on 01.02.1960 under a registered adoption deed. Thereafter, the name of plaintiff was entered into suit land under M.E.No.1310. Therefore, the plaintiff became absolute owner in possession of the suit land. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7291 RFA No. 100088 of 2019 5. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant being genitive brother of plaintiff is interfering with the possession of plaintiff. It is pleaded that the defendant by bogus relinquishment deed is claiming ownership over the suit schedule land. Therefore, under these factual aspects and the cause of action pleaded is that the defendant has started interference with the possession of plaintiff. Hence, filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. 6. The defendant appeared through his advocate and filed the written statement contending that the plaintiff has relinquished the suit land in favour of defendant. Therefore, the defendant has become absolute owner of the suit land. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 7. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court has framed the following issues: 1. “Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner in lawful possession of suit schedule-B property as contended in the plaint? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that D.No.3503 dated 21.07.1992 is not binding on him and the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7291 RFA No. 100088 of 2019 same is liable to be cancelled as contended in the plaint? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the alleged interference of the defendant over the suit schedule-B property? 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the reliefs as sought for in the plaint? 6. What order or decree?” 8. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff died and his legal heirs, who were wife and two daughters have come on record. The General Power of Attorney holder of legal heirs of plaintiff is examined as PW.1(a) and two witnesses have been examined as PW.2 and PW.3 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P36. The defendant was examined as DW.1. But documentary evidence were not produced and marked. 9. The Trial Court, upon appreciating the evidence on record, has dismissed the suit on the reason that the plaintiff could not claim ownership over the suit schedule - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7291 RFA No. 100088 of 2019 land, on the reason that the title of property is tracing back from Mallavva, who is the adoptive mother of plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff could not make claim on the unregistered relinquishment deed. Therefore, on these reasons the Trial Court has dismissed the suit with costs. 10. Being aggrieved by it, the plaintiff has preferred the instant appeal by raising various grounds stating that the defendant has executed relinquishment deed and it was acted upon. Therefore, the defendant shall not claim ownership over the suit schedule land. Further raised a ground that plaintiff is the adopted son of Mallavva and the said Mallavva is the absolute owner of the suit schedule land. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to title and ownership over the suit schedule land, as it would be inherent to the plaintiff. Thus, on these grounds, prays to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 11. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant submitted that the defendant has relinquished his suit schedule land and accordingly it was entered in the mutation - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7291 RFA No. 100088 of 2019 entry, which was acted upon. But now the defendant is falsely claiming his ownership over the suit schedule land and started interference with the possession of plaintiff, which is not appreciated by the Trial Court. Further submitted that the plaintiff is the adopted son of Mallavva wife of Gadiyappa. Thus, he is entitled to make claim over the entire suit schedule land. Therefore, on these two grounds, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration, but the Trial Court has not considered these aspects, resulted into erroneous judgment and decree. Therefore, prays to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant submitted that relinquishment deed (Ex.P18) is unregistered one. Therefore, the title could not be conveyed on the basis of unregistered relinquishment deed, which is correctly appreciated by the Trial Court. Further submitted that the genetic mother of plaintiff has four other children and after death of her mother Mallavva, the property devolved upon other children of Bheemavva. Therefore, the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7291 RFA No. 100088 of 2019 plaintiff is not entitled for relief of declaration to the entire extent of land. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 13. Heard arguments from both sides and perused records. The following points arise for consideration: i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiff is entitled to claim ownership over the entire suit schedule land in exclusion of the other children of Bheemavva wife of Shivappa? ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiff proves that the defendant has relinquished the title over suit schedule land in favour of the plaintiff? iii) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court requires any interference by this Court? 14. Upon considering the pleadings and documentary evidence on record, the admitted fact is that originally the suit schedule land belongs to Gadiyappa. Mallavva is wife of Gadiyappa. After death of Gadiyappa, Mallavva inherits the suit schedule land. Therefore, Mallavva become absolute owner of suit schedule land. Since son of Gadiyappa and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7291 RFA No. 100088 of 2019 Mallavva was pre-deceased and there were no other male issues. Therefore, Mallavva has taken the plaintiff in adoption through registered adoption deed dated 01.02.1960. Thus, the plaintiff has become adopted son of Mallavva. These factual matrix are not disputed. 15. Mallavva has one daughter by name Bheemavva wife of Shivappa. The said Bheemavva has five children including the plaintifff. The plaintiff is the son of the said Bheemavva. The other children of Bheemavva are Mangalavva, Hanamappa, Ningappa and Bheemappa. These factual matrix are also not disputed. Genetically plaintiff is the grandson of Mallavva. The plaintiff is the son of Bheemavva. The plaintiff has gone adoption to Mallavva. Thus, the plaintiff has become adopted son of Mallavva. 16. Therefore, because of adoption of the plaintiff by Mallavva, the plaintiff became adopted son of Mallavva, whose genetic mother is Bheemavva. But, by virtue of adoption, as per Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, both the plaintiff and Bheemavva have succeeded to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7291 RFA No. 100088 of 2019 the property of Mallavva equally to the extent of half share. Since, the plaintiff is claiming ownership through the relinquishment deed (Ex.P-18), which is an unregistered one and the defendant is disputing the said relinquishment deed, the title could not be conveyed in favour of plaintiff. Therefore, the Trial Court is correct in holding that Ex.P-18-relinquishment deed could not have conveyed the title in favour of the plaintiff. 17. Further, the defendant in the written statement claims that the plaintiff has relinquished the suit property in favour of defendant, but this is also not proved, since it was an unregistered relinquishment deed. Therefore, the mutual rival claims between the plaintiff and defendant based on the relinquishment deed is not proved. Hence, the Trial Court is correct in holding that the title in favour of plaintiff could not be conveyed, because the relinquishment deed is unregistered one. This finding of fact by the Trial Court is correct, which needs no interference. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7291 RFA No. 100088 of 2019 18. As discussed above, Bheemavva has five children, among them plaintiff is her son, who has become adopted son of Mallavva. Mallavva’s daughter is Bheemavva wife of Shivappa. Therefore, the plaintiff and Bheemavva have equally succeeded to the suit schedule land to the extent of half share. Consequently, the plaintiff is entitled to declaration only to the extent of half share in the suit schedule land. The defendant and other three children of Bheemavva namely Mangalavva, Hanamappa and Ningappa are entitled to a half share together in the suit schedule land. 19. When this being the fact, the plaintiff is entitled to half share in the suit schedule land. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to half share in the suit schedule land and the defendant and other children of Bheemavva namely Mangalavva, Hanamappa and Ningappa are entitled to half share together in the suit schedule land. Accordingly, I answer - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7291 RFA No. 100088 of 2019 point No.(i) in ‘partly affirmative’ and (ii) in the ‘negative’ and point No.(iii) in the ‘affirmative’. 20. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed-in-part. ii. The judgment and decree dated 08.01.2019 passed in O.S.No.44/2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Badami, is hereby set aside. iii. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed in part. iv. The plaintiff is entitled to declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of suit schedule land to the extent of half share; the remaining half share shall be held by the defendant and three children of Bheemavva namely - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7291 RFA No. 100088 of 2019 Mangalavva, Hanamappa and Ningappa together. v. The parties shall workout their respective shares as above declared in appropriate proceedings, either by filing an execution petition or in final decree proceedings. vi. The Trial Court shall demarcate the land as expeditiously as possible. vii. No order as to costs. viii. Draw decree accordingly. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PMP para 1 to 15 SRA para 16 to end CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 26