- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6623-DB RFA No. 100495 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100495 OF 2023 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: SHRI. CHANNAPPAAGOUDA S/O. HUCCHANAGOUDA SHIVANAGOUDRA, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. AMARAGOL, TQ: NAVALGUND, DIST: DHARWAD-582208. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHIVASAI M.PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. DEVAKKA W/O. MUTTANAGOUDA HUDED AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK /AGRICULTURIST, R/O. BELAVATAGI, TQ: NAVALGUND, DIST: DHARWAD-582208. 2. SRI. DYAMANAGOUDA S/O. HUCCHANAGOUDA SHIVANAGOUDRA, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. AMARAGOL, TQ: NAVALGUND, DIST: DHARWAD-582208. 3. SMT. PUSHPAW/O. NINGANAGOUDA SHIVANAGOUDRA, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. PETEDARI, HOSAPETE ONI, ANNIGERI, TQ: ANNIGERI (NAVALGUND), DIST: DHARWAD-582201. 4. SMT. PARVATI W/O. SHANKARAGOUDA SHIVANAGOUDAR, AGE: 89 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. OPPOSITE TO MINI VIDHANASOUDHA, NAVALGUND, TQ: NAVALGUND, DIST: DHARWAD-582208. 5. SHRI. SHASHIDHARGOUDA S/O. SHANKARAGOUDA SHIVANAGOUDAR, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED RAILWAY EMPLOYEE, R/O. AMARAGOL, TQ: NAVALGUND, DIST: DHARWAD-582208. 6. SMT. SHARADA W/O. NINGANAGOUDA PATIL, Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6623-DB RFA No. 100495 of 2023 AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HALLOLLI, TQ: RAMADURGA, DIST: BELAGAVI-591123. 7. SHRI. BASANAGOUDA S/O. SHANKARAGOUDA SHIVANAGOUDA, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HEALTH DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE, R/O. OPPOSITE TO MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, NAVALGUND, TQ: NAVALGUND, DIST: DHARWAD-582208. 8. SMT. GIRIJA W/O. VEERANAGOUDA AYANGOUDAR, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD/AGRI, R/O. BELAVADI, TQ. AND DIST: GADAG-582103. 9. SHRI. VEERANAGOUDA S/O. SHANKARAGOUDA SHIVANAGOUDAR, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER, R/O. OPPOSITE TO MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, NAVALGUND, TQ: NAVALGUND, DIST: DHARWAD-582208. 10. SMT. RATNA W/O. BASANAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SUNNAL, TQ: RAMADURGA, DIST: BELAGAVI-591123. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.B.DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE TO R1, R5 AND R10 ARE SERVED; NOTICE TO R2, R4, R6, R7, R8 AND R9 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 25.07.2024) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 96 OF CPC 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.06.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.336/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, NAVALGUND, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6623-DB RFA No. 100495 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) Since the captioned appeal is by defendant No.3 / purchaser, who is assailing the preliminary decree drawn in O.S. No.336/2022 wherein suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed and 1/3rd share is granted in item no.3 which is the subject matter of the captioned appeal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court. 3. Family tree is as under: Hucchanagouda Shankargouda Shankravva Devakka Dyamangouda Ningangouda Channappagouda Pushpa (Wife) Parvati 1) Shashidargoud 2) Sharda 3) Basangoud 4) Girija 5) Veerangoud 6) Ratna - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6623-DB RFA No. 100495 of 2023 4. Plaintiff – Devakka, eldest daughter of one Hucchanagouda filed a partition suit seeking relief of partition and separate possession. Defendant No.3 on receipt of summons, tendered appearance and admitted the relationship. Defendant No.3, however, asserted that he has purchased the property from defendant No.2 – Pushpa, who is the widow of third son Ninganagouda and hence, chose to contest the suit. The Trial Court referring to the pleadings of the parties decreed the suit granting 1/4th share in item No.3. 5. Present appeal is filed by defendant No.3 by seeking production of additional documents namely the sale deed obtained from defendant No.2 – Pushpa. The third defendant’s primary contention before this Court is that since defendant No.3 failed to produce the registered sale deed executed by defendant No.2 on 01.06.2006, the grant of 1/4th share to the plaintiff and other defendants in item No.3 suffers from perversity and therefore warrants interference. 6. Having heard the learned counsels, the following point that would arise for our consideration is: “Whether the judgment and decree of the Trial Court granting 1/4th share to the plaintiff in item - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6623-DB RFA No. 100495 of 2023 No.3 ignoring the sale deed obtained by defendant No.3 from defendant No.2 suffers from perversity and warrants interference at the hands of this Court?” 7. The principal contention raised by Defendant No.3 is that the Plaintiff has, by implication, admitted the alienation made by Defendant No.2, at least to the extent of Item No.3 of the suit schedule property. However, upon a closer scrutiny of the admitted family tree — which forms the genealogical basis for determining the shares and which has not been seriously disputed by any party, including Defendant No.3 — it is evident that the relationship between the parties is largely undisputed. The family tree clearly indicates that the Plaintiff, along with Defendant Nos.1 and 2, belong to the branch of one Hucchanagouda, while Defendant No.5, namely Shashidhargouda, traces his lineage to a different branch, that of Shankaragouda. It is thus clear that Hucchanagouda and Shankaragouda were brothers, each of whom had an equal (i.e., half) share in the ancestral joint family property. 8. In light of this factual matrix, it necessarily follows that the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos.1 and 2, being the legal heirs of Hucchanagouda, collectively held a half (1/2) undivided - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6623-DB RFA No. 100495 of 2023 share in Item No.3. The Trial Court, upon examining the documentary evidence placed on record, including revenue records and other supporting materials, reached the conclusion that Items No.3 and 4 were, in fact, the exclusive properties of Hucchanagouda. On that basis, the Trial Court rightly held that Plaintiff and Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were each entitled to one- third of Hucchanagouda’s half share in Item No.3, which amounts to a 1/4th share each in the entire property, and accordingly awarded the same. 9. Defendant No.3, who claims to have purchased the entire extent of Item No.3 from Defendant No.2 under a registered sale deed, has sought to rely on this conveyance to challenge the allotment of shares made in favour of the Plaintiff. However, such a contention is untenable in law. It is well-settled that in a joint family property, no individual co- parcener has the legal competence to unilaterally alienate or dispose of the entire extent of the undivided property. The right of a co-parcener is confined to his or her undivided interest, which itself is subject to quantification through partition proceedings. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6623-DB RFA No. 100495 of 2023 10. In the instant case, Defendant No.2, having only an undivided interest in the suit schedule properties, including Item No.3, had no authority to alienate the entire property. Therefore, the sale transaction entered into between Defendant No.2 and Defendant No.3 cannot convey title beyond the share that would eventually be allotted to Defendant No.2 in final decree proceedings. The Trial Court, having already declared that the Plaintiff is entitled to a 1/4th share in Item No.3, renders the sale deed in favour of Defendant No.3 effective only to the extent of the share legally attributable to Defendant No.2. Consequently, Defendant No.3, as a purchaser, can be considered to have stepped into the shoes of Defendant No.2 to the extent of the latter's share and no more. The sale, therefore, does not and cannot bind the Plaintiff and other co- sharers to the remaining 3/4th share in Item No.3. 11. It is a settled proposition of law that the rights of a purchaser of an undivided share in joint family property can only be worked out in the final decree proceedings, and not at the stage of preliminary decree. Defendant No.3, having acquired his interest through Defendant No.2, is already participating in the pending final decree proceedings and has, - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6623-DB RFA No. 100495 of 2023 through his counsel, filed objections therein. As such, the appropriate course of action for Defendant No.3 is to assert and work out his equitable rights, if any, in the final decree proceedings by seeking allotment of the share that would fall to Defendant No.2. It is further emphasized that a purchaser from a co-parcener cannot claim any independent locus standi to challenge the preliminary decree, which is declaratory in nature and binds the parties inter se regarding their shares. 12. Moreover, the fact that Defendant No.2 who is a widow of a predeceased son purported to alienate the entirety of Item No.3 in favour of Defendant No.3, does not confer any additional or independent rights upon the purchaser. Defendant No.3’s rights, if any, are wholly derivative in nature and traceable only to the share of Defendant No.2. Therefore, we find no merit in the challenge sought to be raised against the preliminary decree by Defendant No.3. However, in the interest of justice, liberty is reserved for Defendant No.3 to pursue his equitable rights and seek partition and allotment of the share attributable to Defendant No.2 in the final decree proceedings. Beyond this, no further relief or indulgence is warranted. The - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6623-DB RFA No. 100495 of 2023 point under consideration is accordingly answered in the negative. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is devoid of merits and the appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE RSH / Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8