- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9902 RSA No. 100122 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100122 OF 2019 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PARAWWA W/O. YALLAPPA DODAMANI, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: CHIMMAD, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT- 587301. 2. SRI SADASHIV S/O. YALLAPPA DODAMANI, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIMMAD, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT- 587301. 3. SRI. NINGAPPA S/O. YALLAPPA DODAMANI, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIMMAD, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587301. 4. SUM. PRABHAVATI D/O. YALLAPPA DODAMANI AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIMMAD, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587301. 5. SMT. SHOBHA W/O. SHIVAJI CHOUGALA, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: ITNAL, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591201. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.08.18 10:37:51 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9902 RSA No. 100122 of 2019 AND: 1. SRI. YALLAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA DODAMANI, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIMMAD, TALUK: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587301. 2. SMT. KALLAWWA W/O. YALLAPA DODAMANI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: HOSUR (RABAKAVI), TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587301. 3. KUM. BHAGAWWA D/O. YALLAPPA DODAMANI, AFTER MARRIAGE CALLED AS SMT. BHAGAWWA W/O. SHANKAR BENNUR, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O: HOSUR(RABAKAVI), TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT- 587301. 4. BEERAPPA W/O. LAKKAPPA VAGGA, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BANAHATTI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587301. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3; SRI. S.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4; NOTICE TO R1 SERVED) THIS RSA FILED U/SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENTS & DECREE DATED 20.11.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.29/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, BANAHATTI AND DECREE DATED 19.08.2017, PASSED IN O.S. NO.16/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, BAHANATTI AND TO DECREE THE SUIT FILED BY THE APPELLANTS BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9902 RSA No. 100122 of 2019 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) Heard on admission. 2. The appellant/plaintiffs preferred this regular second appeal against the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.no.16/2008 on the file of Civil Judge, Banahatti dated 19.08.2017, which is confirmed by the Senior Civil Judge, Jamakhandi in RA.No.29/2017 dated 20.11.2018. 3. Parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 4. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that the plaintiff No.1/Smt.Parawwa w/o.Yallappa Doddamani is the second wife of defendant No.1-Sri Yallappa S/o. Ramappa Doddamani. Plaintiffs No.2 to 5 are the children of Smt.Parawwa (plaintiff No.1). The trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the suit in its entirety; the Court below wrongly held that suit properties are not - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9902 RSA No. 100122 of 2019 ancestral properties and further held that appellants No.2 to 5 are illegitimate children of the 1st respondent and are not entitled any share in the suit properties. The reasons assigned by both Courts below holding that suit properties are not ancestral properties is not proper. Further, Courts below ought to have held that earlier decree passed in O.S.No.49/2000 is a collusive decree obtained between respondents No.1 to 3 and in the said suit, the appellants are not parties. Hence, both Courts below ought to have held that appellants are entitled their respective shares in suit properties. The finding recorded by both Courts that suit properties have lost its nature of ancestral properties in view of decree passed in O.S.No.49/2000, is not proper as the appellants are not parties to the suit. On all these grounds sought for allowing of this appeal. 5. On perusal of the Judgment passed in O.S.No.16/2008, it is seen that the trial Court in paragraph nos.20 to 24 has observed and passed the order as under : - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9902 RSA No. 100122 of 2019 “20. In view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court it is crystal clear that, the children's born out of void marriage are not entitled to claim inheritance in ancestral co-parcenery property. In the present case also the plaintiffs are claiming their right in suit property which are ancestral property of defendant No.1 to 3. The plaintiff No.1 being second wife and plaintiff No.2 to 5 are illegitimate children's born out of void marriage have no right to claim share in the suit properties, in view of judgment of Honorable Supreme Court. 21. Learned counsel for plaintiffs relied upon decision reported in 2015(4) KCCR 3691 DB in the case of Satishkumar V/s Smt. D. Gouramma and Others. The Hon'ble High Court held that, legitimaty is attached to children born out of void marriage-so far as self acquired property of parents is concerned, they are entitled to share on par with legitimate children. In view of judgment of Hon'ble High Court it is crystal clear that, the illegitimate children born out of void marriage are entitled to seek partition in respect of self acquired property of parents. In the present case on hand it is not the case of the plaintiffs that, the suit schedule properties are the self acquired properties of defendant No.1. It is their specific contention that, the suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties. Therefore, in view of the above decision of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9902 RSA No. 100122 of 2019 Hon'ble High Court it can be hold that, the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim partition in the ancestral joint family properties. 22. On scrutinizing the material documentary evidence on record and above cited decisions of Honorable Supreme Court and High Court, this court come to a conclusion that, the plaintiffs have utterly failed to prove that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties. The plaintiffs have also failed to prove that, the decree passed in O.S.NO.49/2000 is not binding on their share. The plaintiff No.1 is the second wife and plaintiff No.2 to 5 are illegitimate children's of defendant No.1 have no right to claim partition in the ancestral joint family properties. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.1 & 2 in the Negative. 23. Issue NO.3 : The plaintiffs have filed this suit for partition and separate possession of their 1/8th share each in the suit schedule properties. Plaintiff No.1 is the second wife and plaintiff No.2 to 5 are the illegitimate children's born out of void marriage, are not entitle to claim share in the ancestral properties. The defendant No.1 has contested the earlier suit in O.S.No.49/2000, and failed in his attempt in appeal also. Thereafter, after attaining finality of matter, the plaintiffs in collusion with defendant No.1 have started second round of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9902 RSA No. 100122 of 2019 litigation. The plaintiffs have filed suit, without any rights. The plaintiffs have failed to prove that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties and they are having share. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled share in the suit schedule properties as sought for. This is collusive suit between plaintiffs and defendant No.1, to harass the defendant No.2 and 3, therefore same is liable to be dismissed with cost. Accordingly, Issue No.3 is answered in the negative. 24. Issue NO.4 : In view of the above discussion court proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed with cost. Office to draw decree accordingly.” 6. The first appellate Court, having considered all the grounds urged by the present appellants, upheld the findings given by the trial Court. The first appellate Court at paragraph No.28 of the Judgment has observed thus : “28. In the present case father of the plaintiff No.2 to 5 and husband of plaintiff No.1 i.e. defendant No.1 was alive during his life time. The 2nd wife and her childrens have no right to claim share in respect of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9902 RSA No. 100122 of 2019 suit schedule property. If they have share of his father they have claim after the death of their father. The trial court in its judgment para-20 clearly discussed that the children's born out of void marriage are not entitled to claim inheritance in ancestral co-parcenery property and also observed that the plaintiffs are claiming their right in suit property which are ancestral property of defendant No.1 to 3. The plaintiff No.1 being second wife and plaintiff No.2 to 5 are children's born out of void marriage have no right to claim share in the suit properties, in view of judgment of Honorable Supreme Court 2010 SCR Civil 621. On perusal of entire material available on records the decision relied by the appellant counsel I am of the opinion that the appellants/plaintiffs have utterly failed to prove that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties and they are having share in respect of suit schedule property. Further they have failed to proved that decree passed in O.S.NO.49/2000 is not binding on their share. Because the plaintiff No.1 is the second wife and plaintiff No.2 to 5 are children's born to defendant No.1. They have no right to claim partition during the life time of defendant No.1 in respect of suit schedule properties. The trial court clearly observed the admission given by the P.W.1 and also decree passed in O.S.No.49/2000 and rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff No.1 is 2nd wife and plaintiff No.2 to 5 are illegitimate - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9902 RSA No. 100122 of 2019 children of defendant No.1 and also observed that the illegitimate children born out of void marriage are entitled to seek partition in respect of self acquired property of parents. But in the present case plaintiffs are claiming their share in respect of suit schedule properties are ancestral joint family properties of defendant No.1. Therefore, in view of the above decision of Hon'ble High Court, the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim partition in the ancestral joint family properties and also other three decisions relied by appellants counsel not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. Hence I am of the opinion that the trail court not committed any error while discussing Issue No.1 & 2 and rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not in joint possession of suit properties. The trial court findings given on Issue No.1 and 2 it is clearly observed and discussed and not committed any error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. Therefore the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court is not opposed facts, law and oral as well as documentary evidence. Therefore, no grounds to interfere in the judgment and decree of the trial court for these reasons. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the negative.” 7. On perusal of the entire material on record also the finding given by the trial Court, which is confirmed by - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9902 RSA No. 100122 of 2019 the appellate Court, I do not find any legal infirmity or error in the order impugned. Accordingly, I do not find any substantial question to be formulated as urged by the appellants. Hence, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER Appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE CKK Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 40