- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3232 RSA No. 100661 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100661 OF 2015 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. HANAMANTAPPA SHIVAPPA BATAKURKI, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. INAMHONGAL, TQ. SAUNDATTI, DIST.BELAGAVI-591126. SINCE DECEASED BY LRS 1A) SEETAWWA W/O. HANUMANTAPPA BATAKURKI, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. INAMHONGAL-591126, TQ. SAUDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 1B) AKKAMMA W/O. DHARMAPPA LACHMANNAVAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLDWORK, R/O. INAMHONGAL-591126, TQ. SAUDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. CHANNAWWA W/O. RAYAPPA MANAGANNAVAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. KOTUR, TAL: DIST. DHARWAD. 2. SMT. ANASAWWA W/O. DEVAPPA AGASIMANI, AGE:47 YEARS, OCCU: HOUSEHOLD WORK AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. KOTUR, DIST. DHARWAD. 3. MANJAWWA D/O. BASAPPA KURAGUND, AGE:39 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KOTUR, TAL & DIST. DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3232 RSA No. 100661 of 2015 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.07.2015 IN R.A.NO.204/2010 PASSED BY VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, WHEREIN THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT HAS CONFIRMED THE JDUGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.77/2001 DATED 15.04.2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SAUNDATTI AND IT IS PRAYED THAT SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFFS BE DISMISSED BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AS PRAYED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the defendant No.1 assailing the judgment and decree dated 01.07.2015 in R.A.No.204/2010 passed by the VI-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi (for short “the First Appellate Court”) dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2010 in O.S.No.77/2001 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti (for short “the Trial Court”) decreeing the suit in part. 2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff No.1 and 2 and the mother of plaintiff No.3-Ningawwa as well as the defendant are the children of Shivappa. It is the case of the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3232 RSA No. 100661 of 2015 plaintiffs that the plaintiffs and defendants became joint owners of the suit schedule properties after the death of their father- Shivappa on 02.02.1985. It is further averred in the plaint that the defendant has given a Varadi to the Revenue Authorities to enter the name of the defendant in revenue records and also it is stated that his father had purchased portion of the suit schedule property as per the registered sale deed dated 17.04.1972 and in this connection, the defendant has contributed towards the sale consideration and accordingly, the defendant sought for dismissal of the suit. 2.1. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, formulated issues for consideration. In order to establish their case, the plaintiffs have examined three witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and produced 7 documents, which were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. The defendant has examined two witnesses as DW1 and DW2 and produced 16 documents, which are marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D16. 2.2. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 15.04.2010 decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff No. 1 to 3 and defendant are - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3232 RSA No. 100661 of 2015 entitled for 1/4th share each in respect of the suit schedule properties. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred an appeal in R.A.No.204/2010 before the First Appellate Court and same was resisted by the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 01.07.2015 dismissed the appeal and consequently confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.77/2001. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred this appeal. 3. This Court vide order dated 10.09.2024 framed the following substantial question of law: i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, both the trial Court and First Appellate Court are justified in not applying Section 9 of the Transfer of Property Act while appreciating documentary evidence Ex.D9 and Ex.D10, by holding suit properties Sy.No.164 and Sy.No.163 of Inamhongal village are also joint family and ancestral properties? ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, Ex.D9 and Ex.D10 are partition deeds which require compulsory - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3232 RSA No. 100661 of 2015 registration or family arrangement which need not be registered compulsorily? iii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, both the Trial Court and the first appellate Court are justified in decreeing the suit for partition granting 1/4th share each to the plaintiffs so far as the land Sy.No.163 and Sy.No.164 of Inamhongal village? 4. I have heard Smt. Shaila Bellikatti, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri. Shriharsh A Neelopant, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. It is contended by Smt. Shaila Bellikatti, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that both the Courts below have committed an error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs without considering the fact that the defendant herein has contributed towards purchase of portion of the suit schedule property by his father-Shivappa. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant by referring to Ex.D9 and argued that there was a partition in the family of Shivappa and the defendant, on 19.09.1983 and in this regard a Varadi was given to the revenue authorities to enter the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3232 RSA No. 100661 of 2015 name of the defendant in the revenue records and the said Ex.D9 was ignored by both the Courts below and accordingly sought for interference of this Court. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below. 7. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and in order to understand the relationship between the parties, the genealogy of the parties is reproduced, as under: Shivappa Hanamantappa Ningawwa Channawwa Anasawwa Appellant/deft. dead R-1/Pltf-1 R-2/Pltf-2 Manjawwa D/o. Basappa Kuragund (R-1/Platf-3) 8. Perusal of the genealogy would indicate that the original propositus-Shivappa had four children i.e. defendant, plaintiff No.1 and 2 and the mother of the plaintiff No.3. Perusal - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3232 RSA No. 100661 of 2015 of the finding recorded by the Courts below would indicate that Shivappa had inherited portion of the suit schedule property as per the partition effected between himself with his brothers and accordingly, the finding recorded by both the Courts below that the suit property is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs is just and proper. Insofar as submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant with regard to Ex.D9 is concerned, on careful examination of the finding recorded by both the Courts below and the oral and documentary evidence it is evident that nothing is produced by the defendant to establish the partition between the defendant and his father- Shivappa and therefore, as no acceptable evidence has been produced before the Trial Court to establish prior partition as stated in Ex.D9, I am of the view that the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant cannot be accepted. 9. 9. Insofar as submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the portion of the suit property has been purchased by Shivappa it is forthcoming from the records that as on the date of the purchase of the portion of the suit property by Shivappa, the defendant was minor and - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3232 RSA No. 100661 of 2015 therefore, the said aspect of the matter cannot be accepted. Accordingly the appeal fails. The substantial question of law framed above favours the plaintiffs and accordingly, plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and the defendant are entitled to 1/4th share each and defendant No.3 and 4 together are entitled for 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. 10. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YAN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26