- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8377 RSA No. 100157 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100157 OF 2022 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: 1. IRAPPA S/O. CHINNAPPA ALAGODI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BASIDONI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. SRI. KALLAPPA S/O. CHINNAPPA ALAGODI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BASIDONI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. SRI. RUDRAPPA S/O. CHINAPPA ALAGODI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BASIDONI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. SRI. BASAPPA S/O. CHINNAPPA ALAGODI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BASIDONI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 5. SRI. BASALINGAPPA S/O. CHINNAPPA ALAGODI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BASIDONI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 6. SRI. LAXMAN S/O. CHINNAPPA ALAGODI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8377 RSA No. 100157 of 2022 OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BASIDONIM TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. G. I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. NEELAGANGAVVA W/O. MARUTI ALAGODI, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YARIKITTUR, TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. SMT. BALAVVA W/O. SHIDDAPPA MUDENUR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YARIKITTUR, TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. SMT. KALLAVVA W/O. FAKIRAPPA GUNAPPANAVAR, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YARIKITTUR, TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GIRISH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.09.2020 MADE IN R.A.NO.6/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SAUNDATTI AND ALSO IN RESPECT OF IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.02.2016 MADE IN O.S.NO.206/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAUNDATTI; SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.09.2020 MADE IN R.A.NO.6/2017 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SAUNDATTI AND ALSO THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.12.2016 MADE IN O.S.NO.206/2011 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAUNDATTI AND FURTHER DISMISS THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFFS. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8377 RSA No. 100157 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) 1. This appeal is by the defendants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2016 passed in OS No.206/2011 on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Saundatti (for short, ‘Trial Court’), which is confirmed and modified by the judgment and order dated 24.09.2020 passed in RA No.6/2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti (for short, ‘First Appellate Court’). 2. The above suit is filed by the plaintiffs/respondents herein seeking partition and separate possession of suit schedule properties namely land bearing Sy.Nos.126/2, 127/2 and a house property bearing VPC No.34/A situated in Basidoni village, Tq. Saundatti. 3. The case of the plaintiffs is that one Irappa Alagodi was the owner of suit schedule properties who had a son by name Chinnappa. The said Chinnappa was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8377 RSA No. 100157 of 2022 married to one Kallavva and Basavva. The said Kallavva expired about 42-45 years ago and thereafter, he married Basavva. The defendants are the children of Basavva. Out of the marriage with Kallavva, Maruti (the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3) was born. Though they resided initially together in Basidoni village, due to certain difference in the family plaintiff No.1 and her husband Maruti started to live in Yarikittur village separately. The said Maruti the husband of the plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 passed away in the year 1990. After his demise, defendants and father of Maruti neglected the plaintiffs. That without their knowledge mutation in respect of the suit schedule properties was effected in the names of defendants, which plaintiffs learnt during the month of June -2011. Plaintiffs being entitled for 1/7th share in the suit properties requested for partition and separate possession of the properties, which is declined and consequently, they filed a suit for partition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8377 RSA No. 100157 of 2022 4. Defendant No.1 filed written statement denying the plaint averments and also denied the relationship of plaintiffs with the family of the defendants. It is contended that Chinnappa married only to Basavva, who is the defendant No.7 in the suit and defendant Nos.1 to 6 are the sons born to Chinnappa from defendant No.7. The claim of the plaintiffs that Maruti was born to Chinnappa from his first wife Kallavva, is denied. It is contended that since the said Maruti the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 was no way concerned with the family of the defendants, they have no share, right, title and interest in the suit schedule properties. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. Based on the pleadings on record, the Trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that Kallawwa was legally wedded wife of deceased Chinnappa? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties? 3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for partition and separate possession - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8377 RSA No. 100157 of 2022 of the suit properties? If so, what would be their share? 4. What decree or order? 6. Plaintiff No.1 examined herself as PW1 and another witness as PW2. On behalf of the plaintiffs 22 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to P22. On the other hand defendants were examined five witnesses as DW1 to DW5 and got marked 12 documents as Ex.D1 to D12. The Trial Court on appreciation of evidence on record, answered the issue No1 to 3 in the affirmative and consequently, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs holding that plaintiffs jointly being entitled for 1/7th share in the suit properties. 7. Being aggrieved, the defendants preferred regular appeal in RA No.6/2017. The First Appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration: 1. Whether the finding of trial court on issue No.1 is correct? 2. Whether the quantum of share defined by the trial court to the parties court is legitimate one? - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8377 RSA No. 100157 of 2022 3. Whether the valid grounds are available to interfere with the judgment and preliminary decree of the trial court passed in O.S.no.206/2011 dated 16.12.2016? 4. What order or decree? 8. On re-appreciation of the evidence on record, the First Appellate Court answered point No.1 in the affirmative and point Nos.2 and 3 partly in the affirmative and consequently, allowed the appeal in part and modified the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2016 passed by the Trial Court in OS No.206/2011 holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/8th share in the suit properties. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendants are before this Court. 9. Sri. G. I. Gachchinamath, learned counsel appearing for the defendants / appellants at the outset points out to the averments made in the plaint at paragraph Nos.2 and 3 wherein, the plaintiffs have described themselves as the wife and children of Maruti born to Chinnappa from his wife Basavva. He submits that contrary to the very own pleading of the plaintiffs, in the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8377 RSA No. 100157 of 2022 evidence they have claimed themselves to be the wife and children of Maruti born to Kallavva. He submits that in the light of the very own admission of the plaintiffs of they being the wife and children of Maruti born to Basavva wife of Chinnappa, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court ought not to have accepted their case of they being the wife and children of Maruti born to Kallavva. He submits that the pleadings and evidence on record being contradictory the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court based on such contradictory evidence and pleadings cannot be accepted and the same give rise to substantial question of law for consideration. 10. Sri. Girish S. Hirematha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand submits that the description of the name of mother of Maruti as Basavva instead of Kallavva at paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint was an error inadvertently crept in the plaint which has been taken note of by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and have thereby ignored the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8377 RSA No. 100157 of 2022 same. He submits that Basavva the mother of defendant Nos.1 to 6 is arrayed as party defendant No.7. This itself goes to show that the description of mother of Maruti as Basavva at paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint was an bona fide mistake. He submits that since the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court based on the documentary evidence led by the parties, having come to the conclusion regarding the relationship of the plaintiffs with Chinappa, have rightly decreed the suit in granting share to the plaintiffs in suit schedule properties. No substantial question of law would arise for consideration, hence, seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Heard and perused the records. 12. The fact that the suit properties belonged to Irappa who had a son by name Chinnappa is not in dispute. Plaintiffs claim that the said Chinnappa married to one Kallavva and Basavva. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants in the plaint at paragraph Nos.2 and 3 that the plaintiffs have indeed described Maruti who is the husband and father of plaintiff - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8377 RSA No. 100157 of 2022 Nos.1 to 3 respectively as having been born to Chinnappa from his first wife Basavva. However, in the cross examination of plaintiff who has deposed as PW1 has specifically deposed that Maruti was born to aforesaid Chinnappa from his wife Kallavva. 13. Cause title of the plaint would also show that the plaintiffs have arrayed Basavva the other wife of Chinnappa as defendant No.7 and have also described that as the mother of defendant Nos.1 to 6. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have taken note of this aspect of the matter. The First Appellate Court at paragraph No.16 of its judgment has dealt with this factual aspect in detailed and has come to just conclusion that the discrepancy crept in the plaint is ignorable and the defendants have not raised any plea in this regard earlier and that plaintiffs cannot be unsuited on this technical error. 14. The Trial Court and First Appellate Court have also appreciated the documentary evidence in the nature of Ex.P4, P5 to P7, P9, P11 and P12 to ascertain the fact - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8377 RSA No. 100157 of 2022 that Maruti, the husband and father of the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 respectively was indeed the son of said Chinnappa. This fact was emanating from the records which have come into existence at an undisputed point of time. Also necessary to note clearly the parties were aware of their pleading and case and accordingly, they have gone into the witness box to justify their claims. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court having adverted to this aspect of the matter have rightly come to the conclusion that the error in the plaint paragraph Nos.2 and 3 is of no consequences and this Court do not see any reason to interfere with the same. No error can be found in the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. This being the only point/ground urged in this appeal nothing further required to be looked into. 15. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court having answered the case of the plaintiffs with regard to their relationship with the family in the affirmative, based on the facts and documentary evidence, this Court do not see any reason to interfere with the same. Therefore, the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8377 RSA No. 100157 of 2022 appeal is lacks of merit. No substantial question of law would arise for consideration. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the Firs Appellate Court. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SMM/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1