- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1725 RSA No. 100422 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100422 OF 2019 (PAR-) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SATYAPPA S/O MALLAPPA KOKATANUR AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/AT TERDAL, TQ:RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, (JAMKHANDI), DIST:BAGALKOTE-587315. 2. SMT. TANGEWWA W/O. SATYAPPA KOKATNUR, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/AT TERDAL, TQ: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, (JAMKHANDI), DIST:BAGALKOTE-587315. 3. SMT. BHARATI W/O. RAJENDRA TAKADE AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK, C/O:R.B.TAKADE, POLICE WIRELESS OPERATOR, KOLHAPUR, HOUSE NO.866, MARATHA COLONY, BEHIND MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOLHAPUR, DIST:KOLHAPUR, MAHARASTRA-401411. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE) MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.01 11:43:08 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1725 RSA No. 100422 of 2019 AND: 1. KUMARI CHAITRA D/O. BAHUBALI KOKATANUR, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT, R/AT TERDAL, TQ:RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, (JAMKHANDI), DIST:BAGALKOTE-587315. 2. SMT. PADMAVATI @ PADMASHREE W/O. BAHUBALI KOKATNUR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD, R/AT TERDAL, TQ:RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, (JAMKHANDI), DIST: BAGALKOTE-587315. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS DECEASED AND R1 IS TREATED AS THE SOLE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE BY ORDER DT: 29.01.2025 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN C. HUKKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 -SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 16.02.2019 PASSED IN R.A.NO.92/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT, TO SIT AT JAMKHANDI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.10.2014, PASSED IN O.S. NO.198/2005 DATED 28.10.2014 AND DISMISS THE SUIT BY ALLOWING PRESENT WITH COSTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1725 RSA No. 100422 of 2019 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is preferred by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2019 in R.A.No.92/2014 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot (sitting at Jamkhandi)1 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2014 in O.S.No.198/2005 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi2 decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.1 is the grand daughter and plaintiff No.2 is the daughter-in- law of defendants No.1 and 2 and further defendant No.3 is the daughter of defendants No.1 and 2. It is further stated that, father of plaintiff No.1 and husband of plaintiff 1 hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’ 2 hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1725 RSA No. 100422 of 2019 No.2 – Bahubali S/o Satyappa Kokatnur died on 29.06.2005 at Terdal and defendant No.3 is married. It is also stated that, the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the parties and accordingly plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of suit schedule properties. 4. On service of notice, the defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and accordingly sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. The Trial Court based on the pleadings on record, has formulated issues for its consideration. In order to establish their case, plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW.1 and produced 11 documents and the same were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.11. Defendant No.1 was examined DW.1 and got marked four documents as Exs.D.1 to D.4. 6. The Trial Court after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 28.10.2014 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1725 RSA No. 100422 of 2019 decreed the suit in part holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/4th share together in the suit schedule properties. Feeling aggrieved by the same, defendants No.1 and 2 have filed appeal in R.A.No.92/2014 before the First Appellate Court and the said appeal was resisted by the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court after re- appreciating the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 16.02.2019, dismissed the appeal, and as such confirmed the judgment and decree in O.S.No.198/2005. Feeling aggrieved by the same, defendants No.1 and 2 have preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 7. By consent of parties, the appeal was taken for admission. 8. I have heard Sri.Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.Mallikarjun C Hukkeri, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1725 RSA No. 100422 of 2019 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that both Courts below have committed an error in granting right in favour of granddaughter of defendant No.1 who has no right insofar as claim in respect of suit schedule properties are concerned and therefore sought for interference of this Court. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Courts below. 11. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. Defendants No.1 and 2 have two children namely defendant No.3 and one Bahubali. The said Bahubali died on 29.06.2005 leaving behind the plaintiffs. It is also not in dispute with regard to the fact that suit schedule properties are joint family properties of the parties and on perusal of finding recorded by the both Courts below, it is not in dispute that plaintiffs are entitled for 1/4th share - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1725 RSA No. 100422 of 2019 together in respect of suit schedule properties. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the finding recorded by both Courts below, I am of the view that no interference is called for in this appeal. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as the appellants herein have not made out a case for formulation of substantial question of law as required under law. In the result, Appeal fails. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6