- 1 - RSA No. 100244/2019 Reserved on : 23.09.2025 Pronounced on : 26.09.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REUGLAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100244 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1 . CHANDRASING S/O RAMASING SHEREGAR AGE:59 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O:TUMMINAKATTI VILLAGE, TQ:RANEBENNUR, DIST:HAVERI 2. SHIVASING S/O RAMASING SHEREGAR AGE:51 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O:TUMMINAKATTI VILLAGE, TQ:RANEBENNUR, DIST:HAVERI 3. LAKSHMANSING S/O RAMASING SHEREGAR, AGE45 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O TUMMINAKATTI VILLAGE, TQ:RANEBENNUR, DIST:HAVERI 4. SUSHILAMMA W/O FAKKIRAPPA MARIGONNEPPANAVAR AGE:67 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O TUMMINAKATTI VILLAGE, TQ:RANEBENNUR, DIST:HAVERI ...APPELLANTS Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.09.26 15:08:16 +0530 - 2 - RSA No. 100244/2019 (BY SRI., ADVOCATES) AND: HANUMANTHSING S/O NARASAPPA SHEREGAR AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: TUMMINAKATTI VILLAGE, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI, NOW @ MANGALURU. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.) THIS RSA FILED U/SEC.100 OF CPC, 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT DECREE DATED 15.12.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.35/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RANEBENNUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD 06.07.2017, PASSED IN O.S. NO.270/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, RANEBENNUR, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. IN THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 14.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR “PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS”, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) The appellant has preferred this appeal against judgment and decree dated 6th July 2017, passed in OS No.270 of 2010 by the Principal Civil JUDGE, I Additional JMFC, Ranebennur (for short “the trial Court”), which is confirmed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranebennur (for short “the first appellate - 3 - RSA No. 100244/2019 Court”) in Regular Appeal No.35 of 2017 dated 15th December, 2018. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition and separate possession of their respective shares in the suit schedule property. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff and defendants constitute Hindu Joint family and as such suit properties are their joint family properties and it belongs to their family propositor namely Nararasappa @ Narasingh. Plaintiff and defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the same and no partition is effected in their family. Such being the case, plaintiffs requested the defendants to effect partition, but the defendants have failed to do so. Hence, plaintiffs have filed the suit. 4. After summons, defendants appeared through their Counsel and filed written statement, denying the entire case of the plaintiffs except the relationship as pleaded by the plaintiffs. The contention of the defendants is that their father late Ramsingh purchased the suit schedule property during the lifetime of their family propositor Narasappa. They contended that their parents have paid the premium amount and have - 4 - RSA No. 100244/2019 acquired the suit schedule properties under the tenancy. It is further contended that suit schedule properties are not joint family properties and plaintiff are not in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties as pleaded in the plaint. It is also contended that one Sundaramma is the daughter of Hemsingh and she has not been made as a party in the suit. It is further contended that late Poonasingh who is the son of Narasing is having four female children and Hemsingh, i.e. Plaintiff No.11 is also having five children and they have not been arrayed as parties in the suit. Further, it is contended that plaintiffs have also not included the properties that are situated at Ranebennur, Ukkadagatri of Harihar, Taluk, Davangere and Shivamogga and accordingly sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. Based on the pleadings, trial Court framed as many as seven issues. Thereafter, issue No.3 three was deleted as plaintiff has paid proper court fee. To prove the case of the plaintiff one witness was examined as PW1 and got marked to fifteen documents as Exhibits P1 to P 15. On closure of plaintiff side evidence, defendants have adduced evidence of five witnesses as DWs1 to 5 and marked nine documents as Exhibits D1 to D9. Having heard the arguments on both sides, - 5 - RSA No. 100244/2019 trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, defendants preferred appeal before the first appellate Court in RA No.35 of 2017, which came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 15th December 2018. IA.No.2 filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure also came to be rejected. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts, the defendants have preferred this second appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the court below are against the facts, evidence and circumstances of the case. He would submit that the first appellate Court without re- appreciating the documents and evidence produced by the appellants in its rights perspective, had dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court which is highly illegal, capricious and has led to miscarriage of justice. PW1 in his cross-examination has admitted that he had no knowledge about the coparceners of his family as to where they reside? what are the properties? where they situate? are all not known to him and he further admitted in his cross- examination that there was no joint family status continued - 6 - RSA No. 100244/2019 between the plaintiffs and defendants and he further deposed that they were residing separately for more than thirty years and there was no family as also the financial relationship among the plaintiffs and defendants. He has further deposed in his cross-examination that about 35 to 40 years back his brother Venkatsingh was residing separately from the family of plaintiffs and defendants and she further admitted that there was no joint family status between the plaintiffs and the defendants. He has also admitted that property bearing VPC No.771 was sold by Ramsingh in the year 1969 in favour of one Basavaraj Kathare and the said property is in possession of Basavaraj Kathare and he is not made party to the suit. Under such circumstances, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has produced Exhibit D1 i.e. the oral partition deed executed between the coparceners of the joint family of both plaintiff and defendants and some of the coparceners have relinquished their rights in favour of the father of defendants and as such, they are not entitled for any share in the suit properties. On all these grounds, it was sought to frame the substantial question of law. 7. I have examined the materials placed before me. With regard to non-joinder of the parties is concerned, in - 7 - RSA No. 100244/2019 paragraph 19 of its judgment, the first appellate Court has assigned reasons that DW1 has deposed that Hemsing had two daughters by name Saroja and Sundaramma, Narasing had four daughters, Plaintiff No.1 had five children. They are also necessary parties to the suit. Admittedly, propositus Narasingh had seven sons and among them, Muddusingh died issueless. The branches of other children of Narasingh are parties to the suit. Their branches have been substantially represented. The first appellate Court, after relying on the ruling reported in the case of BALAGOUDA ALAGOUDA PATIL And Others v. BABASAHEB RAMANAGOUDA PATIL reported in ILR 1990 KAR. 831 has held that the plaint is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. I do not find any error or illegality in this regard. 8. With regard to non-joinder of necessary properties is concerned, the trial Court has observed that defendants have not placed any material to show that the plaintiff has not included in all the properties which are situated at Ranebennur, Ukkadagatri of Harihara, Davanagere and Shimoga. Hence, in this regard, the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted. - 8 - RSA No. 100244/2019 9. With regard to Exhibit D1-unregistered partition deed dated 25th April, 1993 is concerned, the trial Court has rightly observed that there is no pleading as to the contents of Exhibit D1. The revenue entries have not been changed on the basis of Exhibit D1. It is also observed that there is no specific, pleading and proof as required and prescribed by law. Accordingly, the trial Court has properly appreciated the Exhibit D1 and had come to the conclusion that the production of unregistered partition deed does not serve the purpose of defendants, and it will not come to their aid lawfully in any manner. 10. On examination of the material on record, I do not find any error or illegality in the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court which is confirmed by the first appellate Court. I also do not find any ground to formulate substantial question of law as sought for. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R In the result, Appeal is liable to be dismissed, accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn / CT-CMU