- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9342-DB RFA No. 100083 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100083 OF 2020 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. CHANNABASAPPA S/O. SANGAPPA SALAGATTI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GAMANAGATTI-58, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 2. SHRI. MAHESH S/O. SANGAPPA SALAGATTI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GAMANAGATTI-58, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 3. SHRI. KALLAPPA S/O. SANGAPPA SALAGATTI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GAMANAGATTI-58, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SRI. SANGAPPA, S/O. KALLAPPA SALAGATTI, AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH 2025.08.06 14:14:46 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9342-DB RFA No. 100083 of 2020 R/O: GAMANAGATTI- TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. A.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. SOMALINGAPPA S/O. HARISCHANDRA CHIKKUMBI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. NO. L/F 58/12, PWD QUARTERS, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560091. 2. SHRI. HARISHCANDRA S/O. KALLAPPA CHIKKUMBI, AGE: 82 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: EKTANAGAR, SAI NAGAR, UNKAL-58, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GANGADHAR S.HOSAKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.12.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.287/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, DHARWAD, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR POSSESSION, PARTITION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9342-DB RFA No. 100083 of 2020 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) The present first appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081 calling in question, the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2019 passed in O.S.No.287/2012 by the Court of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad2, whereunder, the Trial Court has decreed the suit for partition and declared that the plaintiff is entitled half share in the suit property. 2. The parties will be referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court, for the sake of convenience. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that, the first defendant is the father of the plaintiff and that the suit property was the joint family property, which was acquired by the plaintiff and the first defendant through partition effected amongst the brothers of the first defendant. That the first defendant called the plaintiff to sign sale agreement to sell the suit property to defendant Nos.2 to 4. But the plaintiff did not agree for the same and also prevented the first defendant from selling the 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘the Trial Court’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9342-DB RFA No. 100083 of 2020 same. Hence, the suit was filed seeking for partition claiming ½ share in the suit property. 4. The first defendant (father of the plaintiff) entered appearance in the suit and filed written statement denying the case of the plaintiff, as also contended that the suit property is his self acquired property. It is further averred that the plaintiff and the first defendant sold the suit property to defendant Nos.2 to 4 vide registered sale agreement executed on 20.05.2011. That the plaintiff received money from defendant Nos.2 to 4 through cheques, despite which, the suit has been filed. Hence, the first defendant sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 filed a written statement denying the plaint averments and contending that the suit property was the self acquired property of the first defendant. It is further averred that, the plaintiff and the first defendant executed a registered sale agreement on 20.05.2011 and received various amounts. That the first defendant using the consideration amount purchased another property and also kept the balance amount in fixed deposit in the name of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9342-DB RFA No. 100083 of 2020 plaintiff. Hence, defendant Nos.2 to 4 sought for dismissal of the suit. 6. Consequent to the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues and additional issues. “ISSUES 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit property is the joint family property of himself and the defendant? 2. Whether the defendant proves that the suit property is his self acquired property? 3. Whether the defendant proves that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the suit properties and for separate possession thereof? If so, what is the share to which the plaintiff is entitled? 5. What order or decree? ADDITIONAL ISSUES 1. Whether defendant No.2 to 4 proves that they are bonfide purchaser of suit property ? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9342-DB RFA No. 100083 of 2020 2. Whether plaintiff proves that sale deed executed by defendant No.1 infavour of defendants No.2 to 4 is not binding on their share?” 7. The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.5 were marked in evidence. The GPA holder of defendant Nos.2 to 4 was examined as DW.1 and Exs.D.1 to D4 were marked in evidence. 8. The Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 21.12.2019, decreed the suit and passed the following order: ORDER Suit filed by plaintiff is decreed with cost. It is hereby declared that the plaintiff is entitled to half share in the suit property. Draw preliminary decree accordingly. 9. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by defendant Nos.2 to 4. 10. It is vehement contention of learned counsel for the appellants/defendant Nos.2 to 4 that, the statement recorded - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9342-DB RFA No. 100083 of 2020 by the Police Authorities of the GPA holder of defendant Nos.2 to 4 as well as the first defendant (Ex.D.3 and D4) clearly demonstrating that, the amount have been received, the Trial Court ought not to have decreed the suit. It is further contended that, PW.1 in the cross-examination admits receipt of certain amounts, however, subsequently denies receipt of the amount. It is also contended that there are various other suits that have been filed consequent to the registered agreement of sale dated 20.05.2011, that was executed by the plaintiff and the first defendant and defendant Nos.2 to 4 being bona fide purchasers having parted with valuable consideration, the decree passed by the Trial Court is required to be set aside. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the first respondent/ plaintiff justifying the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court contends that, the Trial Court having rightly noticed that defendant Nos.2 to 4 have not been produced any material on record, has rightly decreed the suit, which ought not to be interfered with by this Court in the present appeal. 12. The submissions of both the learned counsel have been considered and material on record have been perused - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9342-DB RFA No. 100083 of 2020 including the records of the Trial Court. The questions that would arise for consideration by this Court are; (i) Whether the Trial Court was justified in recording a finding that the suit property is the joint family property as averred in the plaint? (ii) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is liable to be interfered with? Regarding question No.(i) :- 13. The Trial Court while considering issue Nos.1 and 2 as to whether the suit property is joint family property as averred in the plaint or as to whether the suit property was the self acquired property of the first defendant, has noticed that the application in Form No.7 filed by defendant No.1 (Ex.P.3) as well as the certified copies of the orders dated 03.09.1976 and 06.01.1978 of the Land Tribunal, Dharwad (Exs.P.4 and P5) were produced, wherein, in the application filed by the first defendant in Form No.7 it is stated that, the suit property was earlier cultivated by his father and after his demise, it is being cultivated by himself and two brothers. Hence, the suit property was granted jointly to the first defendant and his two - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9342-DB RFA No. 100083 of 2020 brothers. Noticing the said documents, the Trial Court has recorded a finding that the suit property is the joint family property of the plaintiff and the first defendant. 14. It is also noticed that, despite the first defendant having raised a contention that, the suit property is his self acquired property, he has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in support of the said contention. Hence, the Trial Court was justified in recording a finding that the suit property is the joint family property as averred by the plaintiff. Hence question No.(i) framed for consideration is answered in the affirmative. Regarding Question No.(ii) :- 15. It is forthcoming that although defendant Nos.2 to 4 contended that they were the bona fide purchasers for value, they have not produced any documents to demonstrate that they have acquired right, title or interest in the suit property. It is pertinent to note that, the GPA holder of defendant Nos.2 to 4 has examined himself as DW.1. However, no documents have been produced demonstrating any acquisition of title by defendant Nos.2 to 4 nor have any documents been produced - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9342-DB RFA No. 100083 of 2020 to demonstrate that the said defendant Nos.2 to 4 have paid any consideration either to the first defendant or to the plaintiff. The reliance placed by defendant Nos.2 to 4 on Ex.D.3 and D.4, i.e., the statements recorded by the Police Authorities will not aid the case of defendant Nos.2 to 4 having regard to the admitted position that the said defendants having failed to produce any documents to demonstrate acquisition of right, title or interest in the suit property, mere production of the statements recorded by the Police Authorities, will not demonstrate that the said defendants are bona fide purchasers as is sought to be contended by them. 16. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 have failed in demonstrating that, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court has been recorded by not noticing any specific material on record and is liable to be interfered with by this Court in the present appeal. Hence, question No.(ii) is answered in the negative. In view of the aforementioned, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9342-DB RFA No. 100083 of 2020 (ii) The judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.287/2012 by the by the Court of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad is affirmed. Sd/- (S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE EM Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63