- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2936 RSA No. 100753 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100753 OF 2014 (PAR-) BETWEEN: B. N. HULUGAPPA, S/O. LATE NEELAKANTAPPA, AGE: 34 YEARS, HINDU, AGICULTURIST CUM BUSINESSMEN, R/O. COWL BAZAAR, BELLARY, DIST: BELLARY-583101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. HANUMANTHREDDY SAHUKAR (NOC), ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. NINGAMMA W/O. B. N. MALLESHAPPA, AGE. 54 YEARS, 2. B. N. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O. LATE B. N. MALLESHAPPA, AGE. 34 YEARS, 3. B. N. SHAMBULINGAPPA, S/O. LATE B. N. MALLESHAPPA, AGE. 32 YEARS, 4. B. N. NAGARAJ S/O. LATE B. N. MALLESHAPPA, AGE. 30 YEARS, 5. B. N. LAXMIDEVI D/O. LATLE B. N. MALLESHAPPA, AGE: 28 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 ARE R/O : RAMNAGAR, WARD NO.29, BANDIHATTI, BELLARY, DIST. BELLARY – 583101. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2936 RSA No. 100753 of 2014 6. SMT. DURUGAMMA W/O. RAMANJINI, AGE: 52 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O: NO.88, MUDDALAPUR, BASAVANGUNJA ROAD, TAYAMMA TEMPLE, WARD NO.II, HOSPET-583201, DIST: BELLARY. 7. SMT. MANJAMMA W/O. THIPPAIAH, AGE. 46 YEARS, 8. N. T. PURUSHOTHAM S/O. THIPPAIAH, AGE. 30 YEARS, 9. N. T. NAGARAJ S/O. THIPPAIAH, AGE: 28 YEARS, 10. N. T. SANNA NAGARAJ S/O. THIPPAIAH, AGE. 26 YEARS, 11. N. T. PARASHURAM S/O. THIPPAIAH, AGE. 24 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO. 7 to 11 R/O. RAMANAGAR, WARD NO.29, BANDIHATTI, BELLARY, DIST: BELLARY – 583101. 12. SMT. HULIGAMMA W/O. HULUGAPPA, AGE: 46 YEARS, R/O : PDL QUARTERS, CHITWADIGI, HOSPET -583201, DIST. BELLARY. 13. SMT. TAYAMMA @ PARVATHI W/O. B. N. SHIVALINGAIAH, AGE: 36 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. NEAR SUNKALAMMA TEMPLE, BANDIHATTI, BELLARY, DIST: BELLARY-583101. 14. N. S. SWATHI D/O. LATE B. N. SHIVALINGAIAH, AGE: 18 YEARS, R/O. NEAR SUNKALAMMA TEMPLE, BANDIHATTI, BELLARY, DIST: BELLARY – 583101. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2936 RSA No. 100753 of 2014 15. N. S. GEETA D/O. LATE B. N. SHIVALINGAIAH, AGE: 16 YEARS, MINOR REPTD THROUGH MINOR GUARDIAN HER MOTHER, RESPONDENT NO.13, SMT. TAYAMMA @ PARVATHI, R/O : NEAR SUNKALAMMA TEMPLE, BANDIHATTI, BELLARY, DIST: BELLARY – 583101. 16. SMT. ISWARAMMA W/O. RAMANNA, AGE: 39 YEARS, HINDU, HOUSEWIFE, R/O: NEAR SUNKALAMMA TEMPLE, BANDIHATTI, BELLARY, DIST. BELLARY – 583101. 17. SMT. B. N. SHIVALINGAMMA W/O. RAMANJINI, AGE. 36 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. NEAR T.B.SANITORIUM SCHOOL, RAMANJINEYA NAGAR, BELAGAL CROSS, BELLARY, DIST: BELLARY – 583101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNASWAMY B HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1-5 R6 –R12 AND R16 & R17 – NOTICE DISPENSED WITH; R13 & R15 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; R14 – PARTY LEFT) ----- THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.09.2014, PASSED BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BELLARY IN R.A.NO.44/2012 CONFRIMED WITH MODIFICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATD 04.06.2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., BELLARY, IN O.S.NO.293/2009, AND DISMISS THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEALCOMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2936 RSA No. 100753 of 2014 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by defendant No.13 challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.09.2014 passed in R.A.No.44/2012 on the file of the I Additonal Senior Civil Judge, Bellary allowing the appeal in part and modified the shares of the parties as per judgment and decree dated 04.06.2012 in O.S.No.293/2009 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bellary decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in part. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. The plaint averments are that the plaintiffs have filed suit in O.S.No.293/2009 on the file of the Trial Court seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff that, original propositus Neelakantappa died leaving behind 8 children, namely, B.N.Malleshappa, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2936 RSA No. 100753 of 2014 (husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5), Ramanji, (husband of defendant No.1), Tippaiah (husband of defendant No.2 and father of defendant No.3 to 6), Huligemma (defendant No.1) B. N Shivalingaiah (wife of defendant No.8 and father of defendant No.9 and 10), Smt. Eshwaramma (defendant No.11) and defendant No.12 and defendant No.13. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property is belong to Neelakantappa and as such, the plaintiffs have share in the suit schedule property. Hence, plaintiffs have filed suit seeking relief of partition and separate possession. 4. After service of summons, the defendants entered appearance, however, defendant No.7 placed ex- parte. It is the case of defendant Nos.1, 3 to 6, 8 to 10 and 12 including the defendant No.2 that, the plaintiffs are not entitled for share in the suit property and defendants are entitled for 1/8th share each in the suit schedule property. It is the contention of defendant No.13 in the written statement that the plaintiffs have filed suit for - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2936 RSA No. 100753 of 2014 declaration and also stated that, the suit property is not an ancestral property and one Smt.Beemakka wife of elder brother of late Neelakantappa was the owner of the property and the said Beemakka had given the property in question to defendant No.13 and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court has formulated issues for its consideration. 6. In order to establish the case, plaintiff examined three witnesses as PW.1 to PW.3 and got marked 14 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.14. On the other hand, defendants have examined three witnesses as DW.1 to DW.3 and produced 13 documents and same are marked as Exs.D.1 to D.3. 7. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 04.06.2012 decreed the suit of the plaintiff in part holding that plaintiffs are entitled for 9/40th share in the suit schedule - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2936 RSA No. 100753 of 2014 property and being aggrieved by the same, the defendant No.13 has preferred Regular Appeal in RA No.44/2012 on the file of First Appellate Court. 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 01.09.2014 modified the shares of the parties and being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.13 has preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 8. I have heard Sri.Hanumanthreddy Sahukar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B Hiremath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 9. Sri.Hanumanthreddy Sahukar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that both the Courts below have committed an error in not considering the fact that the suit schedule property belongs to Beemakka, wife of the elder brother of – Neelakantappa. He also argued that after the death of the said Smt.Beemakka revenue records were mutated in favour of defendant No.13 and - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2936 RSA No. 100753 of 2014 therefore it is submitted that the both the Courts below have committed an error in arriving at a conclusion that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of late Neelakantappa. 10. Having taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and in order to understand the relationship between the parties, genealogy of the parties is extracted below: Neelakantappa (Died on 06.04.1998) B.N. Malleshappa Ramanji Thippaiah Huligamma B.N. Shivalingaiah Wife Wife Wife (Def.7) Wife Smt. Ningamma Durugamma Manjamma Thayamma (Plaintiff – 1) (Def. -1) (Def.2) (Def.8) B.N.Hanumanthappa (Pt-2) N.T. Purushotham (Def.-3) N.S. Swathi (Def.9) B.N. Shambulingappa (Pt-2) N.T. Nagaraj (Def.-4) N.S. Geeta (Def.10) B.N. Nagaraj (Pt-4) N.T. Sanna Nagaraj (Def. 5) B.N. Lakshmidevi (Pt-5) N.T. Parashuram (Def.6) Smt. Eswaramma Smt. B.N. Shivalingamma B.N. Hulugappa (Def. 11) (Def. 12) (Def. 13) 11. Perusal of the genealogy would indicate that original propositus Neelakantappa died leaving behind 8 children, namely, B.N.Malleshappa, (husband of plaintiff - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2936 RSA No. 100753 of 2014 No.1 and father of Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5), Ramanji, (husband of defendant No.1), Tippaiah (husband of defendant No.2 and father of defendant No.3 to 6), Huligemma (defendant No.1) B. N Shivalingaiah (wife of defendant No.8 and father of defendant No.9 and 10), Smt. Eshwaramma (defendant No.11) and defendant No.12 and defendant No.13. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property is an ancestral property and it is the case of defendant No.13 – appellant herein that the suit property is belong to Beemakka – wife of elder brother of Neelakantappa. The plaintiffs have produced the record of rights as per Exs.P.8 and P.9 to P.14 to establish that the suit property is belong to Neelakantappa and on the other hand, the defendant No.13, though contended that the said property is not the ancestral property, however, has not produced any document before the Trial Court to establish how the property in question was given to defendant No.13 by Beemakka – wife of elder brother of Neelakantappa. In the absence of the transfer of title from said Beemakka to the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2936 RSA No. 100753 of 2014 defendant No.13 as required under law, mere mutation of entries would not confer any title to defendant No.13. 12. In this regard, it is relevant to cite the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (Dead) Through legal representatives vs. Arthur Import & Export Company and Others reported in 2019 (3) SCC 191 and in the case of Union Of India and Others vs. Vasavi Co-Op. Housing Society Limited and Others reported in 2014 (2) SCC 269, wherein it is held that the plaintiffs name in the revenue record do not confer title. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the appellant has not made out a case for formulation of substantial question of law. 13. Hence, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB,SH CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13