- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5556-DB RFA No. 100165 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100165 OF 2019 (PAR) BETWEEN: BASAVARAJ A/F SANGAPPA WADDIN AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HUILGOL, TQ AND DIST: GADAG. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H.N.GULARADDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ANNAPURNA W/O. KALAKAPPA RONAD AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: YAKALASPUR, TQ: MUNDARAGI, DIST: GADAG. 2. SHANTA W/O. JAYANAGOUDA PATIL (DEAD) NAGAWWA W/O. KALLAPPA HALLAD AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: KALLIMATH ONI, NAVALGUND, TQ: NAVALGUND, DIST: DHARWAD. 3. PUSHPA W/O. BASAVARAJ SHETTIKERI AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KASAB ONI, NARAGUND, TQ: NARAGUND, DIST: GADAG. Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.04.07 15:52:21 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5556-DB RFA No. 100165 of 2019 4. RATNAWWA W/O. SHEKHARAGOUDA DIDDIMANI, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/O: HUILGOL, TQ AND DIST: GADAG. 5. RENUKA W/O. CHANNABASAPPA HULAGUR AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/O: BANKERS COLONY, GADAG, TQ AND DIST: GADAG. 6. DYAMANAGOUDA S/O. SHEKHARAGOUDA DIDDIMANI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HUILGOL, TQ AND DIST: GADAG. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. J.S.SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R3; SRI. DEEPAK MAGANUR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF C.P.C., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.01.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.176/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GADAG, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, 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:5556-DB RFA No. 100165 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) The captioned appeal is filed by defendant No.1, who is questioning the preliminary decree dated 09.01.2019 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gadag in O.S.No.176/2012, thereby granting 1/6th share each to plaintiff Nos.1, 3 and 4 in the suit schedule properties. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial court. 3. Before we proceed to examine the rival contentions, we deem it appropriate to take cognizance of the family tree, which is as under: Sangappa (Propositus died on 01-01-1968) Girijavva (Wife died on 23-09-2012) Basavaraj Ratnawwa Annapurna Shanta Nagawwa Renuka Pushpa D-1 D-2 P-1 P-2 P-3 D-3 P-4 4. The plaintiffs, namely Annapurna and Shanta, who are sisters, instituted a suit for partition and separate - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5556-DB RFA No. 100165 of 2019 possession in O.S.No.176/2012, asserting their rightful share in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs vehemently disputed the status of Basavaraj (defendant No.1) as the legally adopted son of their parents, Sangappa and Girijavva. They contended that the suit schedule properties are ancestral joint family properties and that they, along with the other defendants, except defendant No.1, form an undivided Hindu joint family. The plaintiffs specifically challenged the validity of the adoption deed, arguing that their mother, Girijavva, in collusion with defendant No.1, had fabricated the said deed to deprive them of their legitimate share in the ancestral properties. Furthermore, the plaintiffs alleged that as the youngest sisters of defendant No.2, they were unfairly targeted in this fraudulent act, orchestrated by defendant No.2 solely to deny them their rightful portion in the joint family estate. The plaintiffs reiterated that all the suit schedule properties were jointly owned ancestral assets and, as coparceners, they were entitled to an equitable share along with defendant Nos.2 and 3. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5556-DB RFA No. 100165 of 2019 5. Upon receipt of the summons, defendant No.1 entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement, vehemently denying each and every allegation made in the plaint. He asserted that he was the lawfully adopted son of Sangappa and Girijavva, and as such, he was entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties. While the defendants conceded that certain properties listed as Schedule A(I), (VIII), and (IX) were indeed ancestral properties, they took a strong stand that the properties enumerated under Schedule A(II) to (VIII) were not ancestral but rather the self-acquired properties of Girijavva. It was specifically contended that these properties had been conferred upon Girijavva through the occupancy rights granted by the Land Tribunal, Gadag. As the absolute owner of these properties, Girijavva had lawfully transferred them to defendant No.1 by executing a varadi in his favor. Consequently, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs had no rightful claim over the properties listed under Schedule A(II) to (VIII) and sought the dismissal of the suit to that extent. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5556-DB RFA No. 100165 of 2019 6. In support of their respective claims, both the plaintiffs and the defendants presented oral as well as documentary evidence. Defendant No.1, in particular, produced the original adoption deed to substantiate his claim that he was the legally adopted son of Sangappa and Girijavva. The trial court, after a thorough evaluation of the evidence on record, framed several issues, including the fundamental question of whether the suit schedule properties were joint family ancestral properties. Upon examining the materials placed before it, the trial court answered Issue No.1 in the affirmative, holding that the plaintiffs had successfully established their assertion that the suit schedule properties were indeed part of the ancestral joint family estate. However, during the pendency of the suit, plaintiff No.2 passed away without any legal heirs. Taking this fact into consideration, the trial court proceeded to pass a preliminary decree, granting a 1/6th share in the suit schedule properties to each of the plaintiffs and the defendants. Aggrieved by this judgment, defendant No.1, claiming to be the legally adopted son, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5556-DB RFA No. 100165 of 2019 has challenged the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.176/2012. 7. Heard the learned counsel for defendant No.1, learned counsel for the plaintiffs and learned counsel for the other defendants. The following point would arise for our consideration: Whether the judgment and the decree rendered by the trial court granting 1/6th share each to plaintiff Nos.1, 3 and 4 suffers from perversity and warrant interference at the hands of this court? Finding on point: 8. The nature of the relationship between the parties is not a matter of contention in the present case. The trial court, while adjudicating upon Issue No.4, rendered a finding in the affirmative regarding the validity of the adoption deed. Notably, this finding has remained unchallenged by the plaintiffs, signifying their acceptance of the same. Consequently, the primary issue that now - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5556-DB RFA No. 100165 of 2019 necessitates adjudication by this court is whether the contention raised by Defendant No.1 that the properties described in Schedule A(II) to (VIII) are not subject to partition holds merit. Defendant No. 1 has asserted that these properties are his self-acquired assets, having been granted as occupancy rights to Girijavva by the Land Tribunal and subsequently transferred to him through a document referred to as "varadi." However, after careful consideration of the legal principles governing the transfer of immovable properties, we emphatically reject this contention. 9. It is well-established legal doctrine that the transfer of immovable property cannot be effectuated through a varadi. Under the settled position of law, any transfer of immovable property valued above Rs.100/- must be effectuated through a registered instrument in compliance with statutory requirements. In the present case, Defendant No.1 has resisted the plaintiffs’ claim for partition solely concerning the properties listed in - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5556-DB RFA No. 100165 of 2019 Schedule A(II) to (VIII), relying on the assertion that Girijavva had transferred these properties to him by way of varadi. However, such a mode of transfer is legally impermissible and does not confer valid title upon Defendant No.1. This court, in a plethora of precedents, has consistently reiterated that a valid and lawful transfer of immovable property cannot be accomplished through a mere varadi. Furthermore, the plaintiffs have successfully substantiated their claim that the suit schedule properties constitute joint family ancestral properties. In the absence of any cogent rebuttal evidence from Defendant No.1 to disprove the plaintiffs’ claim with respect to Schedule A(II) to (VIII), we find no reason to interfere with the trial court’s determination on Issue No.1. The trial court's finding that all the suit schedule properties constitute joint family ancestral properties is well-founded in law and does not suffer from any legal infirmities. Therefore, the conclusions reached by the trial court on Issue No.1 stand affirmed, and the point formulated for consideration is accordingly answered in the negative. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5556-DB RFA No. 100165 of 2019 10. For the forgoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE MBS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21