- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9536 RFA No. 100023 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100023 OF 2018 (PAR/POS-) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHANTAWWA W/O. PARAMANAND MUDAKANNAVAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KONNUR-587121, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 2. KUMAR SHIVAPPA S/O. PARAMANAND MUDAKANNAVAR, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KONNUR-587121, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 3. KUMARI. SHOBA D/O. PARAMANANDA MUDAKANNAVAR, AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KONNUR-587121, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 4. KUMAR SIDDAPPA S/O. PARAMANAND MUDAKANNAVAR, AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KONNUR-587121, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. A.S PATIL, ADV) AND: 1. SMT. SHANKAREWWA W/O. SHIVAPPA MUDAKANNAVAR, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KONNUR-587121, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 2. SMT. MANGALA W/O. MALLAPPA MUDAKANNAVAR AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KONNUR-587121, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.16 12:12:18 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9536 RFA No. 100023 of 2018 3. SHRISHAIL S/O. MALLAPPA MUDAKANNAVAR AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. KONNUR-587121, TQ:JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 4. SAGAR S/O. MALLAPPA MUDAKANNAVAR AGE: 12 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT, R/O. KONNUR-587121, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 5. 6. SMT. MAHJADEVI W/O. DUNDAPPA HALAGANNAVAR AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. JEERAGAL-587313, TQ:MUDHOL, DIST:BAGALKOT. SHRI. MALLAPPA S/O KALLEPPA GADAG AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: KONNUR, TQ. JAMKHANDI-587301 DIST. BAGALKOTE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRIYUTHS. MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR AND VINUTA M. KHANNUR, ADVS FOR R6; NOTICE TO R2 & R5 ARE SERVED; R3 & R4 ARE MINORS R/BY R2; R1-DECEASED) THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC. 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.09.2017 PASSED IN OS.NO.93/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JAMKHANDI, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9536 RFA No. 100023 of 2018 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellants, challenging the judgment and preliminary decree dated 22.09.2017 passed in O.S.No.93/2013 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, and the respondents were the defendants. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this regular first appeal, are as follows: 4. The Plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for the relief of partition and separate possession. It is the case of the plaintiff that one Guralingappa was the original propositus, and he had a son by the name Shivappa. Shivappa had a wife named Shankarewwa, i.e., Defendant No.1. Shivappa and Shankarewwa had two sons namely, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9536 RFA No. 100023 of 2018 Paramanand and Mallappa and one daughter. The original Plaintiff is the son of Shivappa Mudakhannavar. Defendant No.2 is the wife and Defendant No.3 and 4 are the sons of Mallappa while Defendant No.5 is the daughter of Shivappa. The Suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendants, and no partition is effected between the parties to the suit regarding the suit schedule property. The plaintiff demanded partition and separate possession, but the defendants refused to effect the partition. It is contended that the suit schedule property is in joint possession of the plaintiff and defendant No.2, and not in the possession of defendant No.5. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to defendant Nos.1 and 5, and hence, they do not have any share. They have given up their share in the suit schedule property. It is further contended that, in May 2013, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to defendant Nos.1 and 5 and requested to make an entry in the name of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 4, and allotted their - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9536 RFA No. 100023 of 2018 shares. But the defendants refused to grant a share. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 5. Defendant Nos.1 to 5 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property as on the date of filing of the suit, and admitted the relationship between the parties to the suit. It is contended that the suit schedule property was acquired from the joint family funds by the propositus Shivappa, who is the father of the plaintiff and husband of defendant No.1. It is contended that the suit land originally measuring 6 acres 4 guntas, but ten years back, defendant No.1 has sold 3 acres 30 guntas to the uncle of the plaintiff, namely, Guralingappa Mudakannavar. It is contended that the plaintiff and defendants have a share in the suit land. It is denied that the plaintiff has given an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to defendant Nos.1 and 5. It is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9536 RFA No. 100023 of 2018 contended that defendant Nos.1 and 5 also have an undivided legitimate share in the suit schedule property. It is contended that the plaintiff does not have a half share in the suit schedule property. It is also contended that the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of all the properties. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit against defendant Nos.1 to 5. 6. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues as follows: 1. Whether plaintiff proves that suit schedule property is joint family property and acquired from joint family? 2. Whether plaintiff further proves that she had paid Rs.2,50,000/- to defendant No.1? 3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed? 4. What order or decree? 7. The plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit. His legal representatives were brought on record. One of the legal representatives of plaintiff i.e. Plaintiff No.1A was - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9536 RFA No. 100023 of 2018 examined as P.W.1, and marked two documents as Exs.P1 and P2. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined as D.W.1, defendant No.2 was examined as D.W.2, and marked 8 documents as Exs.D1 to D8. 8. The trial court, after assessing verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the negative and issue No.4 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 22.09.2017. The legal representatives of the plaintiffs, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.93/2013, filed this Regular First Appeal. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the legal representatives of plaintiff and the learned counsel for respondent No.6. i.e., the subsequent purchasers. 10. Learned counsel for the legal representatives of plaintiff submits that there is no dispute regarding the relationship between the parties to the suit, and the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9536 RFA No. 100023 of 2018 nature of the suit schedule property. He submits that the plaintiff and the defendants are members of a Hindu undivided joint family, and no partition is effected between the parties to the suit. He also submits that the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to defendant Nos.1 and 5, and they have relinquished their share in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff became the owner of the share of defendant Nos.1 and 5. Hence, he submits that the trial Court did not adequately consider the said aspect, and it has committed an error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 11. During the pendency of the suit, defendant Nos.1 and 5 have sold Sy.No.122 in favour of respondent No.6 herein. Therefore, respondent No.6 filed an application for impleading. 12. Per Contra, Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that there was a prior partition in the family of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9536 RFA No. 100023 of 2018 plaintiff, and defendant Nos.1 to 5. She submits that respondent No.6 herein had purchased Sy.No.122 after the dismissal of the suit, and before the filing of the appeal. She submits that respondent No.6 herein is a bona fide purchaser for a value without notice. She further submitted that there was a prior partition in the family of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 5, and based on the partition effected between the parties, the revenue records were changed. To buttress her arguments, she placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Digamber Adhar Patil vs Devram Giridhar Patil (died) and Another reported in AIR 1995 SC 1728. She submits that the property purchased by respondent No.6 fell to the share of defendant No.1, and she has sold the said property for a family and legal necessity. She further submits that P.W.1, during her cross-examination, admitted regarding the prior partition. She submits that as per Section 58 of the Evidence Act, the facts admitted need not be proved. She submits that - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9536 RFA No. 100023 of 2018 there was a severance of status and the trial court was justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the appeal. 13. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 14. The points, that would arise for my consideration, are as follows; 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule property is the ancestral joint family property of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 5? 2) Whether the defendants prove that there was a prior partition between the plaintiffs and the defendants? 3) Whether the plaintiff proves that the judgment and the preliminary decree passed by the trial court is arbitrary and erroneous? 4) What order or decree? Point No.1. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9536 RFA No. 100023 of 2018 15. The plaintiff has filed a suit for partition and separate possession against defendant Nos.1 to 5. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff died, and his legal representatives were brought on record. The Plaintiff’s wife was examined as P.W.1. She deposed that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and the defendants, and the plaintiff and defendants are the members of a Hindu undivided joint family, and no partition has been effected between the parties. She also deposed that the plaintiff has given Rs.2,50,000/- to defendant Nos.1 and 5, and they have relinquished their rights in the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to the share of defendant Nos.1 and 5 in the suit schedule property. It is deposed that the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 5 in May 2013. The plaintiff requested the defendants to effect a partition, but the defendants refused to effect a partition. To prove that the suit schedule property is the ancestral joint family - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9536 RFA No. 100023 of 2018 property, produced documents at Exs.P1 and P2, which are the RTC extracts regarding suit property standing in the name of defendant No.1. During cross-examination, P.W.1 has admitted regarding prior partition in 2007, and the trial court has re-produced the admission of P.W.1 in paragraph 10, which reads as under: ‘1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ £À£Àß CvÉÛ, £ÀªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§PÉÌ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖAvÉ PÉÆtÆÚgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄgÉUÀÄ¢ÝAiÀÄ°è D¹ÛUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀÄvÀÛªÉ. PÉÆtÆÚgÀ°è 2 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀÄ EzÉ. ªÀÄgÉUÀÄ¢ÝAiÀÄ°è PÀÆqÁ 2 JPÀgÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. »jAiÀÄgÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼ÀÄ. ªÀÄÆ® ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄ°AUÀ¥Áà. UÀÄgÀÄ°AUÀ¥Àà¤UÉ 4 d£À UÀAqÀÄ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ. FgÀ¥Àà, UÀAUÀ¥Àà, CrªÉ¥Àà, ²ªÀ¥Àà, ºÉtÄÚªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ 5 d£À, §¸ÀªÀé, PÀ®èªÀé, ¨sÁUÀªÀé, UÀAUÀªÀé ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÉÆãÀªÀé ²ªÀ¥Àà £À£Àß ªÀiÁªÀ. £À£Àß ªÀiÁªÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DvÀ£À CtÚvÀªÀÄäA¢gÀÄ AiÀiÁªÁUÀ ¨ÉÃgÉ DVzÁÝgÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. £À£Àß ªÀiÁªÀ¤UÉ ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è 10 JPÀgÉ §A¢zÉ 4 JPÀgÉ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ. PÉÆtÆÚgÀ°è 6 JPÀgÉ, ªÀÄgÉUÀÄ¢ÝAiÀÄ°è 2 JPÀgÉ 30 UÀÄAmÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÀÄgÉUÀÄ¢Ý ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÁªÁ d«ÄãÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§zÀ D¹Û CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ªÀÄgÉUÀÄ¢Ý d«Ää£À ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gÀ UÉÆwÛ®è. PÉÆtÆÚgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ d«ÄãÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.172. ªÀÄgÉUÀÄ¢Ý d«ÄãÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ E£ÀÄß ªÁ¸Áð ªÀiÁrPÉÆAr®è. 1 JPÀgÉ 10 UÀÄAmÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. G½zÀ 1 JPÀgÉ 20 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀÄ 2 jAzÀ 4 £Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ »jAiÀÄgÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼ÀÄ CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. F d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÁªÁzÀ°è ¸ÉÃj¹®è. UÉÆwÛ®èzÀÝPÉÌ ¸ÉÃj¹®è’. ‘2,50,000/- gÀÆ PÉÆlÖ §UÉÎ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £À£ÀUÉ ºÉý®è. 2000 E¹é¬ÄAzÀ E°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ ºÀPÀÄÌ ©lÄÖ PÉÆr CAvÁ £Á£ÀÄ PÉýPÉÆAr®è. ¸ÁAiÀÄĪÀªÀgÉ £ÀªÀÄä CvÉÛ Hl ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä EvÀÄÛ, ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀß - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9536 RFA No. 100023 of 2018 ªÀiÁrzÀÝPÉÌ zÁªÁ ªÀiÁrzÉÝãÉ. ¨Á¬ÄªÀiÁw£À°è PÀgÁgÀÄ DVvÀÄÛ. zÁR¯É DV®è. zÁªÁ D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £À£Àß CvÉÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £Á¢¤UÉ ¥Á°UÉ ElÖ d«ÄãÀÄ CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj C®è, Hl ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ªÀiÁvÀæ EqÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. F «ZÁgÀ ¸ÀļÀÄî ºÉüÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj C®è. zÁªÁ D¹ÛUÉ £À£Àß CvÉÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £Á¢¤ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj C®è. 2007gÀ°èAiÉÄà ¨sÁUÀ DVzÀÄÝ ªÀÄgÉUÀÄ¢Ý d«ÄãÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ §A¢zÉ ¥Á®Ä vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÉÝÃ£É CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £À£Àß CvÉÛUÉ ªÀAiÀĸÁìzÀ PÁgÀt ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV DPÉUÉ »A¸É PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj C®è. £À£Àß CvÉÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £Á¢¤UÉ 5 ®PÀë PÉÆnÖzÉÝÃ£É CAvÁ £Á£ÀÄ J®Æè §gɹ®è. zÁªÁ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¥ÀǪÀðzÀ°è »jAiÀÄgÀ£ÀÄß PÀÆr¹®è'. 16. From the perusal of the cross-examination of P.W.1, she admits that there was a prior partition in 2007 and based on the oral partition, the names of the parties were mutated in the revenue records. It is also elicited that 4 acres of land was sold before her marriage. P.W.1 has admitted regarding the prior partition between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 5. When there was a severance in the family of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 5, the plaintiff ought to have filed a suit for reopening of partition; however, the plaintiff did not file a suit for reopening of the partition and, on the contrary, filed a suit for partition and separate possession. The partition effected between the parties is supported by - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9536 RFA No. 100023 of 2018 mutations and corroborated by admission of PW1. The Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Digambar Adhar Patil (Supra) held that the factum of partition was evidenced by entries in the Record of Rights, which was maintained in the official course of business, is a relevant piece of evidence. From perusal of the records produced by the parties, it discloses that there was a prior partition, and the plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit schedule property was the ancestral and joint family property as on the date of filing of the suit. 17. Defendant No.1 was examined as D.W.1. She reiterated the written statement averments in her examination-in-chief. It is deposed that there was a prior partition between the parties to the suit, and based on the oral partition, the names of the respective parties were entered in the revenue records. To substantiate the same, she produced the documents. Ex.D1 is the RTC extract regarding the property bearing Sy.No.228/2A/1 of Mareguddi village standing in the name of defendant No.3. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9536 RFA No. 100023 of 2018 Ex.D2 is the RTC extract regarding of land bearing Sy.No.228/2A/2 of Mareguddi village standing in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.D3 is the RTC extract regarding of the land bearing Sy.No.229/4 of Mareguddi village standing in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.D4 is a certified copy of the sale deed of Sy.No.122/4, which discloses that, before the partition, the said property was sold by the family in favour of the purchasers. Ex.D5 is a certified copy of the mutation, which discloses that mutation entry was effected as per varadi given by Defendant No.1. Exs.D6 and D7 are the certified copies of the mutation extract, which discloses that, based on the prior partition, the names of the respective parties were mutated in the revenue records. Ex.D8 is a certified copy of the mutation extract, which discloses that the plaintiff’s name was mutated in Sy.Nos.228/2A/1 and 228/2A/2. Further, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of this witness to disbelieve the evidence. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9536 RFA No. 100023 of 2018 18. Defendant No.2, was examined as D.W.2. She has reiterated the examination-in-chief of D.W.1, and also placed reliance on the documents marked as Exs.D1 to D8. From the perusal of the entire evidence on record, it is clear that the plaintiff has failed to establish that the suit schedule property was ancestral and joint family property as of the date of filing of the suit. The Plaintiff, in her evidence, has clearly admitted that there was a prior partition between the plaintiff and the defendants in 2007, and based on the oral partition, the names of the respective parties were mutated in the revenue records. The mutation extract was prepared by a Public Officer while discharging his duties. Entries in the revenue records prove the factum of partition. This view being supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Digambar Adhar Patil (Supra). The trial court was justified in recording a finding on issue No.1 in the negative. I do not find any error in the finding recorded on - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9536 RFA No. 100023 of 2018 issue No.1 by the trial court. In view of the above discussion, I answer point No.1 in the negative. Point No.2. 19. The defendants have taken a specific defence in the written statement that there was a prior partition between the plaintiff and the defendants, and based on the oral partition, the names of the respective parties were entered in the revenue records. To prove that there was a prior partition, defendants have produced the mutation extracts marked as Exs.D5 to D8, which disclose that, based on the prior partition, the name of the plaintiff was entered in the revenue records regarding Sy.Nos.228/2A/1 and 228/2A/2. P.W.1 has not explained how the name of the plaintiff was entered regarding the aforesaid lands in the revenue records. The defendants, by producing Exs.D5 to D8, have proved that there was a prior partition between the plaintiff and the defendants in 2007. The properties were allotted to the respective parties, and they are in possession of their respective shares. The trial court - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9536 RFA No. 100023 of 2018 was justified in recording a finding that the defendants have proved that there was a prior partition between the plaintiff and the defendants Nos.1 to 5, and there is a severance of status. In view of the above discussion, I answer point No.2 in the affirmative. Point No.3. 20. The trial court considering the entire evidence on record, i.e., by considering the admission of P.W.1, and the documents at Exs.D5 to D8, has rightly held that there was a prior partition between defendant No.1 and her sons, and the properties were allotted to the plaintiff and husband of defendant No.2, and the suit property was allotted to the share of defendant No.1. The defendants have taken a specific defence that the properties which were allotted to the share of the plaintiff were not included in the suit, and the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary properties. The plaintiff, by suppressing the fact regarding the prior partition in 2007, has filed this suit for partition and separate possession. The trial court, - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9536 RFA No. 100023 of 2018 considering the entire evidence on record, has rightly passed the impugned judgment and decree. I do not find any error in the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. In view of the above discussion, I answer point No.3 in the negative. Point No.4. 21. Since point Nos.1 to 3 are answered in favour of the defendants, the trial court was justified in passing the impugned judgment and decree. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following; ORDER i) The Regular First Appeal is dismissed. ii) The judgment and preliminary decree dated 22.09.2017 passed in O.S.No.93/2013 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi is hereby confirmed. iii) No order as to the cost. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9536 RFA No. 100023 of 2018 iv) In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending IA’s, if any, does not survive for consideration. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE MBS CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3