- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8511-DB RFA No. 100454 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100454 OF 2024 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. DILLEPPA S/O. NEELAPPA SHANBHOGAR AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MEDLERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. 2. SRI. KARIYAPPA S/O. NEELAPPA SHANBHOGAR AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MEDLERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. 3. SHRI. ASHOK S/O. DILLEPPA SHANABHOGAR AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MEDLERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. 4. SRI. NEELAPPA S/O. DILLEPPA SHANABHOGAR AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MEDLERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S.K.KAYAKMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. GOURAVVA W/O. NAGAPPA JAGATI AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE /HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MEDLERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, Digitally signed by CHANABASAPPA K KALLUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.07.22 11:22:58 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8511-DB RFA No. 100454 of 2024 DIST: HAVERI-581115. 2. SMT. KANNAVVA W/O. KARIYAPPA BHISTANNANAVAR SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’s. SRI. MALLAPPA S/O. KARIYAPPA BHISTANNANAVAR AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MEDLERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. 3. SRI. MAILAPPA S/O. KARIYAPPA BHISTANNANAVAR AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MEDLERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. 4. SRI. SHEKAPPA S/O. KARIYAPPA BHISTANNANAVAR, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MEDLERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. 5. SRI. NEELAPPA S/O. KARIYAPPA BHISTANNANAVAR, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MEDLERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. 6. SRI. KUBERAPPA S/O. KARIYAPPA BHISTANNAVAR, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MEDLERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. 7. SMT. SAVAKKA W/O. GUDDAPPA CHOUDI (SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’s.) SRI. MALLESHAPPA S/O. GUDDAPPA CHOUDI AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MEDLERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8511-DB RFA No. 100454 of 2024 DIST: HAVERI. 8. SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O. GUDDAPPA CHOUDI AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MEDLERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. 9. SRI. PARAMESH S/O. GUDDAPPA CHOUDI AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MEDLERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. 10. SMT. BASAMMA W/O. RAMESHAPPA DEVARGUDDA, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MEDLERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. 11. SMT. RENUKA W/O. SHIVAPUTRAPPA SHANABHOGAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MEDLERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. 12. SMT. SHIVAGANGAVVA W/O. BEERALINGAPPA MUDIGOUDAR, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE /HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MEDLERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. 13. SMT. NINGAVVA W/O. BASAVARAJAPPA YALAMANNANAVAR (SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’s.) SMT. SUJATHA W/O. MUKAPPA PUJAR AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MEDLERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8511-DB RFA No. 100454 of 2024 14. SRI. SURESH S/O. BASAVARAJAPPA YALAMANNANAVAR, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HARAVI, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI-586127. 15. SRI. MALLIKARJUN S/O. BASAVARAJAPPA YALAMANNANAVAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HARAVI, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI--581115. 16. SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O. PRAKASH SHANABHOGAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MEDLERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. 17. SRI. NAGAPPA S/O. NEELAPPA SHANABHOGAR (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’s.) SRI. SHIVAPUTRAPPA S/O. NAGAPPA SHANABHOGAR, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MEDLERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. 18. SRI. FAKIRAPPA S/O. NAGAPPA SHANABHOGAR, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MEDLERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. 19. SRI. PRAKASH S/O. NAGAPPA SHANABHOGAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MEDLERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8511-DB RFA No. 100454 of 2024 DIST: HAVERI-581115. 20. SRI. JAGADISH S/O. NAGAPPA SHANABHOGAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MEDLERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. 21. SMT. HUCHAVVA W/O. MALLAPPA BISHTANNANAVAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOSUEHOLD, R/O. KUDARIHAL, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. 22. SMT. KAMAVVA W/O. KARIYALLAPPA DEVARAGUDDA, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MEDLERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. 23. SMT. GUTTEVVA W/O. MALLESHAPPA CHOUDI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MEDLERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. 24. SMT. PUTTAVVA W/O. BASAVARAJAPPA CHOUDI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MEDLERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. 25. SRI. MUKAPPA S/O. NEELAPPA SHANABHOGAR (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’s.) SMT. KALAVVA W/O. MUKAPPA SHANABHOGAR AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MEDLERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8511-DB RFA No. 100454 of 2024 26. SRI. SURESH S/O. MUKAPPA SHANABHOGAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MEDLERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. 27. SMT. MAILAVVA W/O. KARIYAPPA GUDDALAVAR, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: HARAVBI, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI-581115. 28. SMT. GEETHAVVA W/O. SURESH YALAMANNANAVAR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HORAVBI, TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI-586127. 28. SRI. MALLAPPA S/O. NEELAPPA SHANABHOGAR, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MEDLERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. …RESPONDENTS THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.07.2024 PASSED IN O.S.NO.29/2019 BY THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, RANEBENNUR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8511-DB RFA No. 100454 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ) Defendants No.4, 5, 6 and 7 in O.S. No.29/2019 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Ranebennur, are before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.07.2024, by which the Court decreed the suit for partition and declared that plaintiffs No.1 and 4, defendant Nos.3 to 5 are entitled to 1/10th share each, plaintiff No.2(a) to (e) are jointly entitled to 1/10th share, plaintiffs No.3(a) to (e) are jointly entitled to 1/10th share, plaintiffs No.5(a) to (d) are jointly entitled to 1/10th share, defendant No.1(a) to (h) are jointly entitled to 1/10th share, and defendant Nos.2(a) to 2(d) are jointly entitled to 1/10th share in the suit properties. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy understanding, the parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. 3. i) The suit in O.S. No.29/2019 was filed for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs’ share in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs claimed that Neelappa was their propositus who had two wives named Huchchavva and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8511-DB RFA No. 100454 of 2024 Mallavva. The plaintiffs No.1 to 3 and defendant No.1 are the children of Neelappa from the first wife Huchchavva, and defendant Nos.2 to 5, plaintiff Nos.4 and 5 are the children of Neelappa from the second wife Smt. Mallavva. For the sake of convenience, the genealogy of the family, as stated by the plaintiffs, is extracted below: Neelappa (died) Huchchavva (1st wife-dead) Mallavva (2nd wife-dead) Nagappa Gouravva Kannavva Savakka (Def.1) (Pltf.1) (Pltf.2) (Pltf.3) Mookappa Shivagangavva Mallappa Ningavva Dilleppa Kariyappa (Def.2-dead) (Pltf.4) (Def.3) (Def.4) (Def.5) Suresh Mailavva Geetavva (Def.2(b)) (Def.2(c)) (Def.2(d)) ii) Plaintiffs claimed that the suit property i.e., Sy.No.92 measuring 7 acres 20 guntas, Sy.No.92 measuring 4 acres, and Sy.No.93/1A measuring 4 acres 10 guntas situated at Medleri village of Ranebennur Taluk, was purchased by Neelappa, and the plaintiffs and defendants were in joint possession of the properties as members of the joint family. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8511-DB RFA No. 100454 of 2024 The plaintiffs, therefore, contended that the suit properties belonged to the joint family properties. They claimed that Neelappa died on 15.07.1992. The defendants No.1 to 5, without the knowledge of the plaintiffs, created false documents and got their names entered in the revenue record. The defendant No.4 taking advantage of the mental ill-health of defendant No.5, transferred the property from his name to defendants No.6 and 7, who are his children, by submitting a false wardi. Therefore, the plaintiffs claimed that they are not bound by the mutation in the names of defendants No.6 and 7. The plaintiffs claimed that they repeatedly requested the defendants to partition the suit properties and allot their legitimate share. However, the defendants denied the request which compelled the plaintiff to claim for their share in the suit properties. 4. The defendants No.5 to 7 and 2(b) filed their written statement. They denied the genealogy furnished by the plaintiffs in the plaint and denied that the suit properties were the ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. They contended that the plaintiffs and the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8511-DB RFA No. 100454 of 2024 defendants did not constitute a joint family, and plaintiffs were never in joint possession of the suit schedule properties. They claimed that, as per the partition deed dated 19.03.2010, a 11E sketch was prepared by the Taluka Surveyor on 14.04.2011 in the presence of Nagappa, Mallappa, Mookappa, Kariyappa, Ashok and Dilleppa and the witnesses-Lakamappa and Nagappa were also present. As per the said partition deed and 11 E sketch, Sy.No.92 was transferred to the names of Mallappa, Dilleppa, Kariyappa and Nagappa after issuance and service of notice to all concerned. Defendant No.5 released his right on 22.04.2013 in favour of defendants No.5 to 7 and correspondingly, revenue entries were transferred to their names as per M.R. No.57/2012-13. The plaintiffs did not object to the said mutation. Therefore, the defendants claimed that the plaintiffs were bound to challenge the revenue entries under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Hence, they contended that the plaintiffs had no right, title or interest over the suit property. They, further contended that Sy.No.93 stood in the name of Nagappa, Son of Mookappa, who was not a party to the suit and hence, the suit against the suit properties was not maintainable. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8511-DB RFA No. 100454 of 2024 5. Based on these contention, the Trial Court framed the following issues and additional issues: “ISSUES 1. Whether plaintiffs prove that, the suit properties are the ancestral joint family properties of both plaintiffs and defendants? 2. Whether defendants prove that, the genealogy is incorrect? 3. Whether defendants prove that, the suit properties are partitioned on dt. 19-03-2010 by metes and bounds as contended at paragraph No.9 of their written statement? 4. Whether plaintiffs prove that, they are having 1/10th share each in the suit properties? 5. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the relief as sought for? 6. What decree or order? ADDITIONAL ISSUES 1. Whether defendant No.2, 4 to 7 prove that, the court fee paid by the plaintiff is incorrect and not sufficient ? 2. Whether defendant No.2, 4 to 7 prove that the suit is barred by law of limitation?” Plaintiff No.5 was examined as P.W.1 and she marked Exs.P.1 to P.19. Defendant No.6 was examined as D.W.1. He also - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8511-DB RFA No. 100454 of 2024 examined three independent witnesses as D.W.2, 3 and 4, and marked Ex.D.1. 6. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff had proved that the suit schedule properties were ancestral joint family properties of both the plaintiffs and the defendants. It held that the plaintiffs were entitled to 1/10th share in the suit schedule properties. It negatived the claim of the defendants that the suit properties were partitioned in terms of the deed dated 19.03.2010 and consequently, decreed the suit and declared that all the children of Neelappa are entitled to 1/10th share in the suit properties and assigned said shares to the legal heirs of some of the defendants and plaintiffs who had expired. 7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants No.4 to 7 are before this Court. 8. i) Learned counsel for the defendants contends that the parties had already partitioned the suit properties and revenue proceedings were initiated in M.R.No.4/2011-12 and all the members of the family including the plaintiffs had - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8511-DB RFA No. 100454 of 2024 consented to get their names entered as per the partition. He, therefore, contends that once there was a partition amongst the coparceners, the properties lost the status of joint family property and hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled to sue again for partition. He also contends that the plaintiffs knew about the mutation entries effected based on the partition and that they had also consented to the same. Therefore, the plaintiffs are estopped from challenging the correctness of the revenue entries or claim there was no partition of the suit schedule properties. ii) He also contends that the prior partition was in the year 2010, while the instant suit was filed in the year 2019 and therefore, the suit is highly belated and hence barred under the Limitation Act, 1963. He contends that the propositus Neelappa died on 15.07.1992; that P.W.1, in the course of cross-examination, deposed that the plaintiffs had demanded partition of the suit properties about 27 years back. However, the plaintiffs did not take any steps whatsoever and hence, the suit is highly belated. He also contends that, apart from the suit properties, there are four residential properties which are not - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8511-DB RFA No. 100454 of 2024 included in the suit and therefore, the suit for partial partition is not maintainable. 9. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the defendants and we have also perused the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. The only point that arises for our consideration in this appeal is, Whether the Trial Court was right in decreeing the suit for partition? 10. i) It appears from the revenue records, which are marked as Exs.P.1 to P.3 that the suit properties stood in the name of the propositus. The names of the defendants No.1 to 5 were entered in respect of one of the items of the suit property pursuant to the acceptance of mutation in M.R. No.4/2011-12 based on a partition. Later on, the revenue records were transferred to the names of defendants No.6 and 7 jointly. ii) Though the contesting defendants denied the correctness of the genealogy furnished by the plaintiffs, nothing worthwhile was stated as to how the genealogy was incorrect. On the contrary, the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.4 established the correctness of the genealogy as stated by the plaintiffs. A - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8511-DB RFA No. 100454 of 2024 perusal of the plaint shows that the propositus had ten children from his two wives and that he died on 15.07.1992. Some of the defendants had unilaterally got their names entered in the revenue records based on M.R. No.4/2011-12. During the course of cross-examination of D.W.1, he deposed that the defendants No.1 to 5 had got their names entered in respect of the suit properties. However, they left out the daughters on the ground that they were given gold and silver articles at the time of their marriage. He also deposed that the plaintiffs had given up their right in respect of the suit properties by signing certain documents. However, no such documents were produced before the Trial Court to establish that the plaintiffs had released their right in the suit properties. iii) The defendants, who claimed that there was a partition in the year 2010, did not produce any document except 11E sketch to show that the properties are partitioned. It is now well settled that partition cannot be effected by 11E sketch or through a vardi submitted to the revenue authorities. There should be a physical division of the properties and all the members of the family should be consensus ad idem over the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8511-DB RFA No. 100454 of 2024 division of the properties. Therefore, though the defendants claimed that there was partition and they were placed in possession of the suit properties, nothing worthwhile was produced before the Trial Court to establish it. The Trial Court was, therefore, right in decreeing the suit for partition and declaring that all the ten children of the propositus were entitled to an equal share in the suit schedule properties. Accordingly, we hold that the Trial Court was thoroughly justified in decreeing the suit. There is no error either on facts or in the application of law by the Trial Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE KMS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20