- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38327 RSA No. 206 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.206 OF 2024 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT DEVIRAMMA W/O LATE DODDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, 2. SRI. RANGAPPA S/O LATE DODDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURIST BOTH ARE RESIDING AT KAGATHURU VILLAGE, CHANBNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANGERE DISTRICT, PIN : 577 007 &APPELLANTS (BY SRI HANUMANTHAPPA B. HARAVIGOWDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI VEERABHADRAPPA S/O LATE DODDAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/AT KAGATHURU VILLAGE, CHANBNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANGERE DISTRICT, PIN 577 007 2. SMT. SHANKARAMMA W/O BASAVARAJAPPA D/O LATE DODDAPPA Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38327 RSA No. 206 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD WORK R/AT CHIKKANAKATTE VILLAGE, RAMANGHATTA POST, HOLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT PIN 577 008 3. SMT. THULASAMMA W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA DEAD BY HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE 3(a) SRI. VEERAPPA S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURIST R/O DANDIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANGERE DISTRICT, PIN 577 007 4. SRI. RUDRAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS, 4(a) SMT. CHANDRAMMA W/O LATE RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 4(b) SMT.DEVAKI W/O ANJANEYA D/O LATE RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OCC: HOUSE WIFE 4(c) SRI KUMAR .K.R S/O LATE RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS DEAD BY HIS LRS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38327 RSA No. 206 of 2024 4(c)(i) SMT.KARIBASAMMA W/O LATE KUMAR K.R AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 4(c)(ii) KUM. PRAKRUTHI D/O LATE KUMAR.K.R STUDENT REPRESENTED BY MOTHER GUARDIAN SMT.KARIBASAMMA 4(c)(iii) KUM PAVANI D/O LATE KUMAR.K.R STUDENT REPRESENTED BY MOTHER GUARDIAN SMT.KARIBASAMMA RESPONDENT NO.4(a) AND (b) 4(c)(i) to 4(c)(iii) ARE RESIDING AT KAGATHUR VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PIN 577 007 4(d) KUMAR BHEEMESH K.R S/O LATE RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST ARE RESIDING AT KAGATHUR VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PIN-577 007 &RESPONDENTS [BY SRI T.B.RAMANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI G.J.SUNKAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3(a); R2, R4(a), R4(b), R4(c)(i), R4(d) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; R4(c)(ii) and (iii) ARE MINORS AND REPRESENTED BY R4(c)(i)] - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38327 RSA No. 206 of 2024 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.12.2023. PASSED IN RA NO.18/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.04.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.30/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Hanumanthappa B. Haravigowdar, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri G.J.Sunkapur, learned counsel for the respondent No.3(a). 2. Plaintiffs are the appellants challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.30/2018 dated 06.04.2021 on the file of the Senior civil Judge and JMFC, Channagiri, whereby, suit of the plaintiffs came to be dismissed on the ground on non inclusion of all properties and non inclusion of necessary parties. 3. Facts of the case in brief that are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38327 RSA No. 206 of 2024 A suit for partition came to be filed by the plaintiffs claiming to be the members of the joint family, in respect of the following properties: 1. The land bearing Reg. Sy.No.22/11, measuring 23 guntas, situated at Kagathuru village, Santhebennuru Hobli, Channagiri Taluk, is bounded by: East : Land of Kadleppara Vedamurthy, West : Land of Kadleppara Vedamurthy, North : Land of Danderalokeshappara, South : Road. 2. The land bearing Reg. Sy.No.22/4, measuring 1 acre 12 guntas, situated at Kagathuru village, Santhebennuru Hobli, Channagiri Taluk, is bounded by: East : Land of Rudrappa Doddappa, West : Land of Ballala, North : Land of K.G.Basalingappa, South : Road. 3. The land bearing Reg. Sy.No.47/2, measuring 1 acre 8 guntas, situated at Kagathuru village, Santhebennuru Hobli, Channagiri Taluk, is bounded by: East : Land of K.G.Shankarappa, West : Land of Doddappara (gift deed land), North : Land of K.G.Shankarappa, South : Land of K.G.Shankarappa. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38327 RSA No. 206 of 2024 4. The land bearing Reg. Sy.No.47/8, measuring 16 guntas, situated at Kagathuru village, Santhebennuru Hobli, Channagiri Taluk, is bounded by: East :Road, West :Land of Doddappa, North :Land of Corner house of Marula Siddappa, South :Land of Dandera Chandrappa. 5. The land bearing Reg. Sy.No.22/5, measuring 1 acre 33 guntas, situated at Kagathuru village, Santhebennuru Hobli, Channagiri Taluk, is bounded by: East :Land of Uramundlara Muthappa, West :Land of Doddappa, North :Land of K.G.Basalingappa, South :Road. 6. The land bearing Reg. Sy.No.67/4, measuring 23 guntas, situated at Kagathuru village, Santhebennuru Hobli, Channagiri Taluk, is bounded by: East :Road, West :Land of Kotellara Eshappa, North :Land of Kotellara Papappa, South :Land of Yashodamma. 7. The land bearing Reg. Sy.No.180/9, measuring 36 guntas, situated at Hirevuda village, Santhebennuru Hobli, Channagiri Taluk, is bounded by: East :Land of M.T.Thippeshappa, West :Road, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38327 RSA No. 206 of 2024 North :Land of M.T.Thippeshappa, South :Land of Deviramma Channagiri. 8. The land bearing Reg. Sy.No.4/1, measuring 1 acre 38 guntas, situated at Dandigenahalli village, Santhebennuru Hobli, Channagiri Taluk, is bounded by: East :Road, West :Land of Gowaramma, North :Land of Gollara Jameenu, South :Land of Bhairappa. 9. The land bearing Reg. Sy.No.4/7, measuring 1 acre 10 guntas, situated at Dandigenahalli village, Santhebennuru Hobli, Channagiri Taluk, is bounded by: East :Land of Gowramma, West :Land of Maheshwarappa, North :Land of Lakshmanappa, South :Land of Maheshwarappa. 10. The land bearing Reg. Sy.No.5/2, measuring 38 guntas, situated at Dandigenahalli village, Santhebennuru Hobli, Channagiri Taluk, is bounded by: East :Land of Dasappa, West :Government land, North :Land of Muddappara Nandyappa, South :Land of Dasappa. 11. The land bearing Reg. Sy.No.5/3, measuring 26 guntas, situated at Dandigenahalli village, Santhebennuru Hobli, Channagiri Taluk, is bounded by: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38327 RSA No. 206 of 2024 East :Land of Dasappa, West :Government Land, North :Land of Muddappara Nandyappa, South :Land of Dasappa. 12. The land bearing Reg. Sy.No.8/p3, measuring 39½ guntas, situated at Dandigenahalli village, Santhebennuru Hobli, Channagiri Taluk, is bounded by: East :Land of Kulerudrappa, S/o Rangappa & Bylappamelappa, West :Land of Government Brook, North :Land of Hucchappara Rudrappa, South :½ Guntas in the same survey number. 13. The land bearing Reg. Sy.No.4/3, measuring 1 acre, situated at Dandigenahalli village, Santhebennuru Hobli, Channagiri Taluk, is bounded by: East :Land of Hanumanthappa, West :Land of Maheshwarappa, North :Land of Hanumanthappa, South :Land of Lakkappa. 4. Plaintiffs contended that, plaintiffs and defendants constitute a Hindu Undivided Joint Family and the genealogical tree is as under: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38327 RSA No. 206 of 2024 ¥Ëw PÀÄgÉà gÀAUÀtÚ ©£ï ¥Ëw ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ¥Àà ºÉAqÀw ¥Ëw ®PÀëöäªÀÄä ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ 1. «ÃgÀ¥Àà 2.gÀAUÀ¥Àà(¥Ëw) 3.»jAiÀĪÀÄä(¥Ëw) ºÉAqÀw ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄPÀÌ(¥Ëw) 2 d£À ºÉAqÀwAiÀÄgÀÄ («ªÁ»vÉ) 1.gÀAUÀªÀÄä(¥Ëw) «ªÁ»vÉ 2.®PÀëöäªÀÄä(¥Ëw) 3.zÉÆqÀØ¥Àà(¥Ëw) 4.UÀAUÀªÀÄä(¥Ëw)-«ªÁ»vÉ 1.®PÀ̪ÀÄä(¥Ëw) 2.VqÀØ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄPÀÌ(¥Ëw) ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ 1.gÀÄzÀæ¥Àà 2.£ÁUÀªÀÄä(¥Ëw) 3.®PÀ̪ÀÄä(¥Ëw) (5£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢) («ªÁ»vÉ) («ªÁ»vÉ) 1.vÉƼÀ¸ÀªÀÄä(¥Ëw) 2.ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ¥Àà(¥Ëw) «ªÁ»vÉ (2d£À ºÉAqÀwAiÀÄgÀÄ) 1.¨ÉÊ®ªÀÄä(¥Ëw) 2.vÉƼÀ¸ÀªÀÄä-65ªÀµÀð(3£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢) ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ FgÀªÀÄä(¥Ëw) ªÀÄUÀ-«ÃgÀ¥Àà(4£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢) 2d£À ºÉAqÀwAiÀÄgÀÄ 1. PÉAZÀªÀÄä(¥Ëw)(ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ) 2.zÉëÃgÀªÀÄä-75 ªÀµÀð (1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢) 1.«ÃgÀ¨sÀzÀæ¥Àà-62ªÀµÀð 2.±ÀAPÀæªÀÄä-«ªÁ»vÉ 1.gÀAUÀ¥Àà-49 ªÀµÀð (1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢) 2£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ (2£Éà ªÁ¢) - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38327 RSA No. 206 of 2024 5. Suit properties are the ancestral and joint family properties. Sri Kure Rangappa being the common propositus, had two sons and one daughter viz., Veerappa, Rangappa and Hireyamma, who are no more. Veerappa had four children viz., Rangamma, Laxmamma, Doddappa and Gangamma. They are also no more. 6. Doddappa, S/o Veerappa had two wives viz., Kenchamma and Deviramma. Among them, first wife of Doddappa i.e., Kenchamma had two children viz., Veerabhadrappa (defendant No.1) and Shankaramma (defendant No.2). Deviramma being the second wife of Doddappa had a son by name Rangappa (plaintiff No.2). 7. When they prayed for their share to be partitioned, the defendants have refused for partition of the suit properties which necessitated to filing of the suit. 8. Pursuant to suit summons, defendants entered appearance and pointed out to the Trial Court that all the properties of joint family are not included, so also all the sharers are not impleaded as parties to the suit. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38327 RSA No. 206 of 2024 9. Learned Trial Judge after raising issues and recording evidence of the parties, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. 10. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs filed an appeal in R.A. No.18/2021 and in the said appeal also, they did not chose to implead all the sharers as parties and failed to include all the properties to the suit. 11. Therefore, left with no alternative, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the dismissal of the suit by the learned Trial Judge. 12. Being further aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs have filed the present Second Appeal on the following grounds and substantial questions of law: ø The impugned judgment and decree passed by the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge & JMFC at Channagiri in O.S.No.30/2018 dated 06.04.2021 and judgment and decree rendered by the Principal District and sessions Judge Court at Davanagere in R.A.No.18/2021 dated 02.12.2023 in sofar as the operative portion of the order that appeal is dismissed, in the last paragraph of the judgment and decree of the appellate court, the findings of the trial court dismissing the suit on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties and non-inclusion of all the properties is - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38327 RSA No. 206 of 2024 unsustainable and hence set aside it means appeal shall be presumed that allowed, but in the operative portion the word appeal is dismissed was incorporated whether it is on technical ground but findings of the trial court was set aside this is crux of the matter. ø It Is submitted that in the light of the findings were set aside of the trlal court as recorded in O.S.No.30/2018 by the appellate court in R.A. No.18/2021 it shall mean that appeal is allowed but it was signed left without recourse under law the appellants are approaching this Hon'ble Court for setting aside the order insofar as the appeal is dismissed because the Hon'ble Appellate Court has set aside the findings of the trial court therefore this Hon'ble Court shall clarify the findings of the appellate court with regard to dismissal of appeal in the operative portion, hence the appellants are filing this appeal before this Hon'ble Court. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW. i) Whether First Appellate Court is justified appeal is dismissed as per judgment at page No.50 of the R.A. 18/2021 dated 02.12.2023 on the ground that the finding of the Trial Court dismissing the suit on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties and non- inclusion of all properties is unsustainable and hence set aside? ii) Whether the First Appellate Court is justified that Trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties and non-inclusion of the properties and same - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38327 RSA No. 206 of 2024 cannot be confirmed however on analyzing the evidence of both the parties oral and documentary evidence Appellate Court has re-appreciated the evidence and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their case that there was no partition and the partition already effected in the year 2012 is not binding on them, on these findings of the First Appellate Court the appeal is dismissed is justifiable? iii) Whether the Trial Court in O.S.No.30/2018 is justified in dismissing the suit of the Appellants on the ground that despite all the joint family properties have been mentioned in the plaint inspite that and all the family members have been made to the lis the court below is justifiable dismissing suit of the appellants (plaintiffs) is it justifiable?= 13. Sri Hanumanthappa B.Haravigowda, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, vehemently contended that the approach of the Trial Court in dismissing the suit is incorrect and if any other properties were to be added to the suit and if any sharers are to be added as parties, opportunity ought to have been given to the plaintiffs to implead the additional parties and include the additional properties. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38327 RSA No. 206 of 2024 14. He further contended that without affording such an opportunity, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the appeal for further consideration. 15. Per contra, Sri G.J.Sunkapur, learned counsel for the respondent No.3(a) supports the impugned judgments. 16. Having heard both sides, this Court perused the material on record, meticulously. 17. Admittedly, as could be seen from the genealogical tree as well as the cause title and the suit schedule properties, all properties of the joint family are not included in the suit, so also all the sharers are not made as parties. 18. Under such circumstances, suit is defective which has been rightly considered by both the Courts and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs which requires no interference in this appeal. 19. Hence, the following: - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38327 RSA No. 206 of 2024 ORDER (i) Appeal is meritless and is hereby dismissed. (ii) However, dismissal of the suit may not terminate the rights of the plaintiffs and if permitted in accordance with law, they may obtain necessary remedy in appropriate proceedings. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63