- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10862-DB RFA No. 100288 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100288 OF 2022 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. TARAPPA S/O. YALLAPPA MADAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. N.M.TADAS VILLAGE, SHIGGAON TQ -581205, HAVERI DISTRICT. 2. SRI. NINGAPPA S/O. YALLAPPA MADAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. N.M. TADAS, VILLAGE, SHIGGAON TQ.-581205. HAVERI-DISTRICT. 3. SRI. NAGAPPA S/O. YALLAPPA MADAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. N.M.TADAS VILLAGE, SHIGGAON TQ.-581205, HAVERI- DISTRICT. 4. SMT. FAKKIRAVVA W/O. PUTTAPPA MADAR AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. N.M.TADAS VILLAGE. SHIGGAON TQ.-581205, HAVERI- DISTRICT. Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.09.02 12:07:50 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10862-DB RFA No. 100288 of 2022 SMT. LAXMAVVA SINCE DEAD LEAVING BEHIND HER LEGAL HEIRS AS RESPONDENTS NO. 5 TO 7. 5. SMT. RENAVVA. W/O. SIDDAPPA MADAR @ HARIJAN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. N.M. TADAS VILLAGE, SHIGGAON TQ.-581205, HAVERI- DISTRICT. 6. SRI. RAMAPPA S/O. YALLAPPA MADAR @ HARIJAN, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. N.M. TADAS VILLAGE. SHIGGAON TQ.-581205, HAVERI- DISTRICT. 7. SRI. MARIYAPPA S/O. YALLAPPA MADAR @ HARIJAN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. N.M. TADAS VILLAGE. SHIGGAON TQ.-581205, HAVERI- DISTRICT. SRI. BASAPPA S/O. YALLAPPA MADAR @ HARIJAN, SINCE DEAD BY LR’s. 8. SMT. SHARAVVA W/O. BASAPPA MADAR @ HARIJAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. N.M. TADAS, VILLAGE, SHIGGAON TQ.-581205. HAVERI- DISTRICT. 9. MALLIKARJUN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10862-DB RFA No. 100288 of 2022 S/O. BASAPPA MADAR @ HARIJAN, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. N.M. TADAS VILLAGE. SHIGGAON TQ.-581205, HAVERI- DISTRICT. 10. MANJUNATH S/O. BASAPPA MADAR @ HARIJAN, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. N.M. TADAS VILLAGE, SHIGGAON TQ.-581205, HAVERI- DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. H.R.GUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. HANUMANTAPPA S/O. FAKKIRAPPA MADAR @ HARIJAN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. N. M. TADAS VILLAGE, SHIGGAON TQ. -581205 HAVERI DISTRICT. 2. SMT. YALLAVVA W/O. FAKKIRAPPA MADAR @ HARIJAN, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. N.M. TADAS, VILLAGE, SHIGGAON TQ.-581205, HAVERI- DISTRICT. 3. SRI. YALLAPPA S/O. FAKKIRAPPA MADAR @ HARIJAN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. N.M. TADAS VILLAGE, SHIGGAON TQ.-581205, HAVERI- DISTRICT. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10862-DB RFA No. 100288 of 2022 4. SRI. GADIGEPPA S/O. FAKKIRAPPA MADAR @ HARIJAN, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. N.M. TADAS VILLAGE, SHIGGAON TQ.-581205, HAVERI- DISTRICT. 5. SRI. SHIVALINGAPPA S/O. FAKKIRAPPA MADAR @ HARIJAN, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. N.M. TADAS VILLAGE, SHIGGAON TQ.-581205, HAVERI- DISTRICT. 6. SMT. RATNAVVA W/O. VEERABASAPPA GUDIMANI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KARADAGI, VILLAGE, SAVANUR TQ.-581126, HAVERI- DISTRICT. 7. SRI. SHREEF S/O. FAKKIRAPPA MADAR @ HARIJAN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. N.M. TADAS VILLAGE, SHIGGAON TQ.-581205, HAVERI- DISTRICT. 8. SRI. GEERAPPA S/O. FAKKIRAPPA MADAR @ HARIJAN, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. N.M. TADAS VILLAGE, SHIGGAON TQ.-581205, HAVERI- DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.P.VIVEKMEHTA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5, R7 & R8; NOTICE TO R6 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10862-DB RFA No. 100288 of 2022 THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.09.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.182/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, AT. SHIGGAON, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FOR DECLARATION AND POSSESSION INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) The unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.No.182/2017 are before this Court challenging the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.09.2021 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shiggaon, whereby the said suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for declaration of title, recovery of possession and permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable properties, was dismissed by the Trial court,. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10862-DB RFA No. 100288 of 2022 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under: The appellants/plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit inter alia contending that the appellants/plaintiffs 1 to 4 are the legal representatives of one Yallaling Madar, while appellants 5 to 9 are the legal representatives of one Yallappa Harijan. It was contended that the aforesaid Yallaling Madar and Yallappa Harijan were brothers and they had one sister by name Kariyavva who had a daughter by name Dyamavva who died issueless and consequently the appellants were the owners in lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit ‘B’ schedule immovable properties, which were described as hereunder: “SCHEDULE “B” DESCRIPTION SUIT PROPERTIES R.S.No. Measuring Assessment Market Value 240/2 00-31 1-13 Rs.6 lakhs 44/1 04-13 7-28 Rs.6 lakhs 67/5 02-32 02-02 Rs.2 lakhs 67/6 03-25 05-66 Rs.4 lakhs - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10862-DB RFA No. 100288 of 2022 3. It was contended that, the respondents/ defendants did not have any manner of right, title or interest or possession over the suit schedule properties, despite which, they got their names entered in the revenue records by producing false and bogus documents, as a result of which, in addition to the revenue proceedings between the parties, the appellants/plaintiffs were constrained to institute the present suit for declaration, recovery of possession, permanent injunction and for other reliefs against the respondents/defendants. 4. The respondents/defendants filed their written statement inter alia disputing and denying the contentions and claims of the appellants/plaintiffs. The respondents/ defendants contended that Items 1, 3 and 4 of the suit ‘B’ schedule properties were jointly granted in favour of Yallaling Madar, Yallappa Harijan and Kariyavva D/o Kariyavva and the respondents/defendants were the legal representatives of the aforesaid Kariyavva D/o Kariyavva. It was further contended that Item No.2 of the suit ‘B’ - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10862-DB RFA No. 100288 of 2022 schedule properties i.e., R.S.No.44/1 was granted exclusively and individually in the name of Yallappa, adopted son of the aforesaid Kariyavva. It was therefore contended that, while Item No.2 of the suit ‘B’ schedule properties was the separate, self acquired, absolute and exclusive property of the respondents/defendants, the appellants/plaintiffs had only 2/3rd share in Items 1, 3 and 4 of the suit ‘B’ schedule properties and consequently the suit for declaration, possession and injunction was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 5. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, schedule A1 & schedule A2 genealogy true and correct? 2. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that suit properties are ancestral properties of plaintiffs? 3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that ME No.464 in respect of suit properties is illegal and not binding on plaintiffs? 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties? - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10862-DB RFA No. 100288 of 2022 5. Whether the defendants prove that they have rights and interest over the suit properties? 6. Whether the valuation made and court fee paid to the suit claim is proper and correct? 7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for reliefs as sought for? 8. What order or decree?” 6. The appellants/plaintiffs examined plaintiff No.8 as PW.1 and documentary evidence at Exs.P.1 to 31 were marked on their behalf. The respondents/defendants examined defendant No.8 as DW.1 and Exs.D.1 to 39 were marked on their behalf. 7. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court answered issues 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 against the appellants/plaintiffs and in favour of the respondents/defendants and issue No.2 answered partly in the affirmative, insofar as Item 1, 3 and 4 of suit ‘B’ schedule properties are concerned. However, having come to the conclusion that the appellants/plaintiffs had not established their absolute right, title, interest and possession over the suit ‘B’ schedule properties, the Trial - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10862-DB RFA No. 100288 of 2022 Court proceeded to dismiss the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs, who are before this Court by way of the present appeal. 8. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs would reiterate the various contentions urged in the appeal memo and referred to the material on record and point out that, the Trial court had failed to consider and appreciate that the respondents/defendants had failed to establish that Yallappa, the alleged grantee, in relation to Item No.2 of the suit ‘B’ schedule properties was not the adopted son of the Kariyavva D/o Kariyavva and consequently it cannot be said that he was the absolute owner of Item No.2 of the suit ‘B’ schedule properties. It was also point out that, even according to the respondents/defendants themselves, the appellants/plaintiffs were entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10862-DB RFA No. 100288 of 2022 ‘B’ schedule properties, while the remaining 1/3rd share belonged to Kariyavva D/o Kariyavva and in the absence of proof of adoption of Yallappa by Kariyavva D/o Kariyavva, the 1/3rd share of Kariyavva D/o Kariyavva would revert back to the appellants/plaintiffs who would be entitled to be declared as absolute owners of Items 1, 3, and 4 of the suit ‘B’ schedule properties also. It was therefore contended that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial court deserves to be set aside and the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs deserves to be decreed in their favour. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants would support the impugned judgment and decree in order to contend that Item No.2 of suit ‘B’ schedule properties had been granted in favour of Yallappa son of Kariyavva D/o Kariyavva as long back as in the year 1979, by way of re-grant and the same vested absolutely in his favour and appellants were rightly held not to have any right over the suit schedule properties. It was also submitted, while it is true that the appellants were - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10862-DB RFA No. 100288 of 2022 entitled to 2/3rd share in the suit schedule properties, the prayer for declaration of absolute title and recovery of possession was rightly rejected by the Trial Court by passing the impugned judgment and decree, which does not warrant interference by this Court in the present appeal. 11. The following points arise for consideration by this Court in the present appeal: (i) Whether the Trial Court was justified in holding that the genealogy given by the appellants/plaintiffs was incorrect? (ii) Whether the Trial Court was committed an error in holding that Item No.2 of the suit ‘B’ schedule property was the absolute property of Yallappa son of Kariyavva D/o Kariyavva? (iii) Whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs in relation to Item 1, 3 and 4 of the suit ‘B’ schedule properties? Regarding Point No.(i) :- 12. It is specifically contended in the plaint that, appellants 1 to 4 / plaintiffs 1 to 4 are the legal representatives of Yallaling Madar, while appellants 5 to 9 / plaintiffs 5 to 9 were the legal representatives of Yallappa Harijan, and both of them were brothers. According to the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10862-DB RFA No. 100288 of 2022 appellants/plaintiffs, they specifically contend that the aforesaid two brothers Yallaling Madar and Yallappa Harijan and their sister Kariyavva whose daughter Dyamavva had died issueless and Kariyavva had not adopted any one, much less Yallappa and consequently her right over her estate including her right, over the suit schedule properties reverted back to the family of Yallaling Madar and Yallappa Harijan, whose legal representatives were the appellants/plaintiffs and the Trial Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the genealogy given by the appellants/plaintiffs at schedule ‘A1’ and schedule ‘A2’ was incorrect. However, the Trial Court failed to consider and appreciate the material on record comprising of revenue records, mutation proceedings, orders passed by the Tahasildars, etc., all of which clearly establish that, the genealogy given by the appellants/plaintiffs as schedule ‘A1’ and ‘A2’, although being incomplete, was correct and proper. However it needs to be clarified that though the genealogical tree given by the appellants/plaintiffs showing - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10862-DB RFA No. 100288 of 2022 the names of the appellants/plaintiffs as legal representatives of Yallaling Madar and Yallappa Harijan is correct and proper, the same would not vest absolute right in the suit schedule properties in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs and said question would necessarily have to be decided with reference to other documents on record and merely because the genealogy is true and correct, it cannot be said that the respondents/defendant do not have any right over the suit schedule properties. 13. Under these circumstances, though we answer point No.(i) formulated above by holding that the Trial Court committed an error in answering issue No.1 in the negative and by coming to the conclusion that the genealogical tree given by the appellants/plaintiffs showing the propositus as Yallaling Madar and Yallappa Harijan, the rights of the parties over the suit schedule properties would have to be necessarily decided while answering point No.(ii) and (iii) referred to supra. Accordingly, point No.(i) formulated above regarding genealogical tree is answered in - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10862-DB RFA No. 100288 of 2022 favour of the appellants/plaintiffs subject to findings to be recorded on the rights of parties over the suit ‘B’ schedule properties. Regarding Point No.(ii) :- 14. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that according to the appellants/plaintiffs Items 2 of the suit schedule properties, i.e., land bearing Sy.No.44/1 measuring 4 acres 13 guntas was their absolute property. According to the respondents/defendants the said property was granted in favour of Fakirappa Madar son of Yallappa who in turn was the adopted son of Kariyavva D/o Kariyavva. The Trial Court considered the said contention and answered in favour of the respondents/defendants by holding as under: “14. ISSUES No.2. 3 and 5: All these 3 Issues are taken up together for common discussion to avoid repetition, as they are inter related and based on same set of facts. The plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10862-DB RFA No. 100288 of 2022 of suit properties R.S.No.240/2, 67/5, 67/6 situated at N.M.Tadas village, Shiggaon taluk and seeking the relief of declaration of title and possession in respect of land R.S.No.44/1 measuring 4 Acres 13 guntas N.M.Tadas village by contending that plaintiffs have succeeded to the suit properties from their ancestors and they are owners of the same. The main defence of the defendants is that the land R.S.No.67/5, 67/6 and 240/2 are the joint properties of the Yalla S/o Linga Madar @ Harijan, Kariyavva D/o Kariyavva Madar @ Maitri and Ningavva W/o Yalla @ Yallappa Madar and therefore all the three persons are having 1/3rd share each in said properties and land R.S.No.44/1 belongs to the defendants and plaintiffs are not having any right and title in the said property. 15. The plaintiffs to substantiate their pleadings have examined plaintiff No.8 and he has filed his chief examination affidavit, by reiterating the plaint averments. In support of such oral evidence, the plaintiffs have got marked RTC extracts of the suit properties at Ex.P.1 to 4, 14 to 19, 22 to 26 and Ex.P.30 and have got marked the record of rights i.e., Form No.7 of suit properties at Ex.P.13, 20 and 21 and Ex.P.29 and have produced mutation extracts at Ex.P.7 to 12 and order passed by Assistant Commissioner in RTS/AP/S.R./143/2015-16 at Ex.P.5 and death extracts of Kariyavva D/o Kariyavva and Dyamavva D/o Kariyavva at Ex.P.27 and 28 and the Adoption Deed at Ex.P.31. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10862-DB RFA No. 100288 of 2022 16. The defendants to substantiate the averments of the written statement have examined defendant No.8 as D.W.1 and he has filed his chief- examination affidavit by reiterating the averments of written statement and in support of such oral evidence the defendants have got marked the record of rights of the suit properties at Ex.D.1 to 8 and mutation extracts at Ex.D.9 to 15 and 23, death certificates of Kariyavva D/o Hirayakka Madar at Ex.D.16, death certificate of Kariyavva D/o Kariyavva Madar at Ex.D.17 death certificate of the Yallappa S/o Kariyavva Madar at Ex.D.18, death certificate of Dyamavva D/o Kariyavva Madar at Ex.D.19 and death certificate of Fakkirappa S/o Yallappa at Ex.D.20, the geneology certificate at Ex.D.21 and RTC extracts of suit properties at Ex.D.24 to 38 and the certified copy of order passed by Deputy Tahasildar, Dundashi at Ex.D.22 and certified copy of order passed by Assistant Commissioner in RTS/AP/S.R./143/2015-16 at Ex.D.39. 17. The learned counsel for plaintiffs have filed written arguments by stating that the plaintiffs to prove that the suit properties were belonging to their ancestors have produced the documents and also have produced documents to prove that Kariyavva D/o Kariyavva and her daughter Dyamavva D/o Kariyavva Madar have died without any heirs and the defendants without any right and title have got entered their names to the suit properties. The learned counsel for plaintiffs have submitted that the plaintiffs have produced several - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10862-DB RFA No. 100288 of 2022 ME records which prove the title of the plaintiffs over the suit properties. The learned counsel for plaintiffs further submitted that though the defendants have no right over the land R.S.NO.44/1, they have created M.E.No.464. The learned counsel for plaintiffs further submitted that the plaintiffs had preferred an appeal before Assistant Commissioner in RTS/AP/S.R. /143/2015-16, in which they are directed to approach the Civil Court and therefore the present suit is filed. The learned counsel for plaintiffs submitted that the defendants have not given proper evidence to prove their defence and D.W.1 has given vague answers and therefore the plaintiffs have proved their case and hence has prayed to decree the suit. 18. The learned counsel for defendants argued that no documents are produced to prove the geneology and as the genealogy itself is not proved, the suit is not maintainable. The learned counsel for defendants argued that M.E.No.464 has been recorded long back in the year 1935 and till today the same is not challenged and now the plaintiffs cannot challenge the said M.E. for claiming their right over the land R.S.No.44/1. The learned counsel for defendants argued that the revenue records reveal that land R.S.No.44/1 belongs to defendants and in other suit properties the plaintiffs and defendants are having their shares and therefore the suit is not maintainable. Hence the learned counsel for defendants has prayed to dismiss the suit. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10862-DB RFA No. 100288 of 2022 19. The plaintiffs have stated that the suit properties were belonging to their ancestors and they have inherited the properties and therefore they are the title holders of the properties. The specific defence of the defendants is that lands R.S.No.67/5, 67/6 and 240/2 were the joint properties of Yalla S/o Linga Madar, Kariyavva D/o Kariyavva Madar @ Maitri and Ningavva W/o Yallappa Madar Maitri and they were having each 1/3rd share and R.S.44/1 exclusively belongs to defendants. Before considering the title as claimed by either side to the suit properties, it is necessary to consider the relationship between the parties. 20. The plaintiffs have pleaded that the Yalla Linga Madar @ Maitri, Yallappa Harijan was having a sister namely Kariyavva D/o Kariyavva Madar @ Maitri and she had a daughter namely Dyamavva D/o Kariyavva Madar and she has died spinster and the plaintiffs are the legal representatives of Yalla Linga Madar and Yallappa Harijan and therefore they are the title holders of suit properties. In schedule A1 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have shown the original propositus as Yalla Linga Madar @ Maitri and his son is shown as Tariya @ Tarappa and his son Yallappa Madar and plaintiffs No.1 to 4 are shown as the children of Yallappa Madar. In schedule A2 which is genealogy tree of Yallappa Harijan, Ningavva is shown as his wife and Yallappa is shown as adopted son of Yallappa and Ningavva and plaintiff No.5 is shown as wife of Yallappa - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10862-DB RFA No. 100288 of 2022 A/F Yallappa and plaintiffs No. 7 to 9 are shown as children of plaintiff No.5 and the plaintiff No.6 is shown as the daughter-in-law of plaintiff No.5. Thus as per this genealogy Yallappa Harijan was having wife Ningavva and they had an adopted son namely Yallappa. To prove the adoption, the plaintiffs have produced Adoption Deed at Ex.D.31. 21. On perusal of Ex.D.31, it is forthcoming that Ningavva W/o Yallappa Madar had adopted Yallappa on 02.04.1949. As per the plaintiffs, they say that this Yallappa whom Ningavva had adopted was the son of Kariyavva D/o Karevva, but the defendants have contended that said Yallappa was son of Fakiravva and not Karevva. On perusal of RTCs in respect of lands R.S.No.67/5, 67/6, after the death of Yallappa and Ningavva, the name mentioned in the records was Yallappa Madar and as he was minor his minor guardian has been shown as mother Fakkiravva. Thus on these revenue records, it is established that Ningavva had adopted the son of Fakkiravva namely Yallappa and the present plaintiffs No.5 to 9 are the legal representatives of the said Yallappa A/F Yallappa. 22. The plaintiffs' say is that Kariyavva died on 20.08.1934 and she had a daughter namely Dyamavva and she also has died 15.02.1953 and both parties have produced the death certificates of Kariyavva D/o Kariyavva and Dyamavva D/o Kariyavva at Ex.P.27 and 28, Ex.D.17 and 19. These documents establish that the Kariyavva D/o Kariyavva died on 20.08.1934 and - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10862-DB RFA No. 100288 of 2022 Dyamavva D/o Kariyavva died on 15.02.1953. The say of the plaintiffs is that as Kariyavva had only daughter namely Dyamavva and she died spinster, the plaintiffs being the legal representatives of the brothers of Kariyavva namely Yalla Linga Madar and Yallappa Harijan have succeeded to suit properties and have become owners. Now it is necessary to consider whether Kariyavva Madar has died leaving behind no legal heirs. 23. At this stage, it is relevant to consider ME NO.646, which has been got marked by the plaintiffs at Ex.P.6 and by defendants at Ex.D. 6. On perusal of Ex. P.6, it is forthcoming that this M.E.No.464 was ordered on 14.06.1935 and as per this order, after the death of Kariyavva the name of her adopted son Yallappa S/o Kariyamma was ordered to be entered to the land R.S.No.44/1. This mutation order was passed in the year 1935 and till today this has not been challenged by plaintiffs. Further Ex.D.7 and Ex.D.10 to 12 and 15 reveal that after the death of Kariyavva D/o Kariyavva Madar on 20.08.1934, the name of Yallappa A/M Kariyavva Madar was entered in the revenue records of land R.S.No.44/1 and after his death, the land came into the possession of Fakkirappa i.e., the father of defendants and as per his possession, it was re-granted to him and accordingly ME No.2038 was ordered on 24.12.1979 and after the death of Fakkirappa, the names of defendants No.1, 3 to 5, 7 and 8 are entered. Thus these above discussed documents establish that Kariyavva had an adopted son viz., Yallappa and said - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10862-DB RFA No. 100288 of 2022 Yallappa was the grand father of present defendants. The revenue records are standing in name of Yallappa A/M Kariyavva since the year 1935 and therefore the M.E. No.464 has been acted upon and hence it is established that d Kariyavva had died leaving behind her an adopted son viz., Yallappa A/M Kariyavva Madar. 24. As it is established that the Kariyavva had an adopted son viz., Yallappa, the plaintiffs say that they alone have inherited the suit properties is against the records. It is not in dispute that plaintiffs No.1 to 4 are legal heirs of the branch of Yalla Linga Madar and plaintiffs No. 5 to 9 are the legal heirs of the branch of Yallappa. Now it is necessary to consider whether all the suit properties were only inherited by plaintiffs or they are also inherited by defendants who are the legal heirs of the branch of Kariyavva D/o Kariyavva and it is also necessary to consider that whether the defendants have established that the land R.S.No.44/1 exclusively belongs to them. 25. As regards land R.S.No.67/5, 67/6 and 240/2, the plaintiffs say is that they have inherited the properties and are in possession of said properties and it is the say of defendants that these properties were joint properties of Yalla Linga Madar and Yallappa Madar and Kariyavva Madar and therefore they had 1/3rd share each in the said properties. As already discussed above, the plaintiffs as well as the defendants have produced documents in respect of suit properties and now as per - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10862-DB RFA No. 100288 of 2022 the survey numbers those documents are required to be discussed. 26. At first the land R.S.No.240/2 measuring 31 guntas situated at N.M. Tadas village is taken up for consideration. As regards this landed property, the defendants have produced Form No.7 i.e., ROR for the year 1930-31 to 1939-40, at Ex.D.8, which reveals that the said land R.S.No.240/2 was originally standing in the name of Tariya S/o Yalla Madar and 4 sharers and after deleting the names of Kariyavva D/o Kariyavva Madar, the name Yallappa A/M Kariyavva Madar was entered. Ex.P.22 to 26 are RTCs in respect of land R.S.240/2 from the year 1967-68 to 97-98 and on perusal of these RTCs, it is forthcoming that the said land was standing in the name of Yallappa A/M Kariyavva Madar, Yallappa Tarappa minor guardian Fakiravva and Yallappa A/F Yallappa and thereafter the names of the plaintiffs No. 1 to 3 and husband of plaintiff No.6 viz., Siddappa and plaintiffs No. 7 to 9 are mutated. 27. In the RTCs the name of Yallappa S/o Kariyavva Madar has been recorded and this establishes that the said land R.S.No.240/2 was originally belonging to all 3 families i.e., Yalla Linga Madar, Yallappa Madar and Kariyavva Madar. The ME marked at Ex.P.7 which is M.E.No.321 ordered on 30.08.2029 reveals that after the death of Yallappa Madar on 25.02.1929, the name of his son Tariya Yalla Madar was ordered to be mutated to land R.S.No.67/5, 67/6, 240/2, 44/2 and 44/3. Further - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10862-DB RFA No. 100288 of 2022 as per Ex. P.9, which is M.E.NO.3035 ordered on 28.12.2001 after the death of Yallappa Tarappa Madar @ Harijan on 16.08.2001, as per the oral consent of female member i.e. Fakiravva, the names of the legal representatives i.e., plaintiffs No.1 to 4 and husband of plaintiff No.6 was ordered to be entered to land R.S.No.67/5, 67/6 and 240/2. Further Ex.P.10 which is M.E.No.1084 ordered on 01.12.1951, reveals that after the death of Ningavva Yallappa Madar on 22.11.1951, the name of his adoptive son Yallappa A/F Yallappa Madar was ordered to be mutated to land R.S.No.67/5, 67/6 and 240/2 along with other lands. Ex.P.1 is RTC extract in respect of land R.S.No.240/2 for the year 2016-2017 and same is standing in the name of defendants No.1, 3 to 8, plaintiffs No.1 to 3 and Siddu i.e., husband of plaintiff No.6. Thus on corroborative reading of all these documents, it is forthcoming that the land R.S.No.240/2 was originally belonging to 3 persons i.e., Yalla Linga Madar, Yallappa Harijan and Kariyavva Madar and after their deaths, mutation orders are made, which reveal that plaintiffs along with the defendants have jointly inherited the property R.S.No.240/2 and accordingly the RTC has been recorded in the names of defendants and plaintiffs jointly as per Ex.P.1. Therefore the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they alone have inherited the land R.S.No.240/2 measuring 31 guntas of N.M.Tadas village. 28. Now it is necessary to consider the documents pertaining to lands R.S.No.67/5 and 67/6 of - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10862-DB RFA No. 100288 of 2022 N.M. Tadas village. As regards these lands, both the plaintiffs and defendants have produced mutation entries at Ex.P.7, 8, 11, 9, 10 and Ex.D.23 and Ex.D. 1 and 5 and record of right of the said land and RTCs are got marked at Ex.P.13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19 and Ex.D.2, 4, 24, 26, 28, 32, Ex.D.6, 25, 27, 29 to 31 and Ex.P.9 and 30. The relevant mutation entry for first consideration is Ex.P.8. Ex.P.8 which was ordered on 28.12.1927 reveals that after the death of Yalla Siddavva Madar on 05.10.1927, the name of Ningavva W/o. Yallappa Madar was ordered to enter in the records. Then M.E. No.321 marked as Ex.P.7, reveals that as per order dtd: 30.08.1929, after the death of Yalla Ninga Madar on 25.02.1929, the name of his son Tariya Yalla Madar was ordered to be entered in the revenue records of R.S. No.67/5 and 67/6. 29. Ex.D.23 and Ex.P.11 i.e. M.E. No.2040 and 2036 both dtd: 24.12.1929 reveal that on the basis of possession, both the lands R.S. No.67/5 and 67/6 were granted in the names of Yallappa Tarappa Madar M/guardian mother Fakiravva and 4 others, Kariyavva D/o. Kariyavva Metri and Yallappa A/F Yallappa Metri. These two documents Ex.D.23 and Ex.P.11 establish that the land R.S.No.67/5 and 67/6 were in the joint possession of the Yallappa Тагарра Madar, Kareavva D/o Kariyavva Madar @ Maitri and Yallappa A/F Yallappa Metri and accordingly those lands were jointly granted to them. As already discussed above the plaintiffs and defendants are the legal representatives of all these 3 - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10862-DB RFA No. 100288 of 2022 persons to whom both lands were re-granted. Under such circumstances, the plaintiffs alone cannot inherit those lands. 30. Further Ex.P.10 i.e. M.E.No.1084 dtd: 01.12.1951 reveals that after the death of Ningavva on 22.11.1951, the name of her adoptive son Yallappa A/F Yallappa Madar was ordered to be recorded to lands R.S.No.67/5 and 67/6. Ex.P.9 i.e., M.E.No.3035 dtd: 28.12.2001 reveals that after the death of Yallappa Тагарра Madar @ Harijan on 16.08.2001, the names of plaintiffs No. 1 to 4 and husband of plaintiff No.6 viz., Siddu was ordered to be entered to the lands R.S. No.67/5 and 67/6. The RTCs produced on either side got marked at Ex.P.13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 29, 30 and Ex.D.2 to 4, 6, 26, 28, 30, 31, 32, 29, 33 reveal that they are recorded as per the mutation entries which are discussed above. Ex.D.1 and 5 are relevant for consideration. Ex.D.1 is record of right of land R.S.No.67/5 for the year 1930-31 to 1939-40, wherein names Tariya S/o. Yalla Madar and 4 others, Kariyavva and Ningavva were recorded to R.S.No.67/5. 31. In the subsequent record of rights marked as Ex.D.2 to 4 which are from the year 1940-41 to 1965-66, it is forthcoming that the land R.S.NO.67/5 was in possession of Kariyavva D/o Kariyavva Madar @ Maitri, Ningavva W/o Yallappa Madar and after deleting her name Yalappa A/F Yallappa Madar has been recorded. Similar records are there in respect of land R.S.NO.67/6 which are got marked by defendants at - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10862-DB RFA No. 100288 of 2022 Ex.D.5 and 6. Thus all these above discussed documents clearly establish that land R.S.No.67/5 and 67/6 were re-granted to the 3 members i.e., Yallappa Тагарра Madar, Kariyavva D/o Kariyavva Madar and Yallappa A/F Yallappa Madar on the basis of their possession and after the death of heads, the mutations are ordered and names of their legal representatives are recorded in the RTC extracts. The plaintiffs being the legal representatives of Yallappa Tarappa Madar and Yallappa A/F Yallappa Maitri and defendants being legal representatives of Kariyavva D/o Kariyavva Madar @ Maitri are having equal shares in the lands R.S.NO.67/5 and 67/6 and therefore the plaintiffs alone are not having absolute right and title over the said land properties. 32. Now it is necessary to discuss about the documents pertaining to the land R.S.NO.44/1 measuring 4 Acres 13 guntas of N.M. Tadas, for which the plaintiffs are asserting their title and defendants are asserting as it belongs to them. The material document to consider with regard to land R.S.No.44/1 of N.M. Tadas village is M.E.No.464, which has been got marked by plaintiffs at Ex.P.6 and by defendants at Ex.D.6. As per ME No.464 dtd: 14.06.1935, after the death of Kariyavva D/o Karevva, the name of her adopted son Yallappa A/M Kariyavva was ordered to be entered to land R.S.No.44/1. Ex.D.7 is record of right of land R.S.NO.44/1 for the year 1930-31 to 1939-40, in which name on Kariyavva D/o Kariyavva Madar has been - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10862-DB RFA No. 100288 of 2022 recorded and after her death on 20.08.1934, by deleting her name as per M.E.No.464, the name of Yallappa A/M Kariyavva Madar was recorded. Ex.D.10 which is M.E.NO.740 dtd: 29.09.1944 reveals that on the basis of varsa, after the death of Yallappa A/M Kariyavva name of his only son Fakkirappa Yallappa Madar was ordered to be entered to land R.S. No.44/1. Ex.D.11 is M.E.No.563 dtd: 22.10.1966, which reveals that land R.S.NO.44/1 and landed properties i.e., 44/2, 44/3, 67/5, 67/6, 44/1, 67/4 and 67/8 were inam lands and as per Mysore Village Officers Abolition Act 1961, it was ordered for deleting the names of the inam head and to enter as government and it was to be granted on the basis of possession, if 3 times land taxes were paid. 33. Ex.D.13 Ex.P.12-M.E.No.2038 dtd: 24.12. 1979 reveals that on the basis of possession of Fakkirappa Yallappa Madar i.e., father of defendants, the inam land R.S.No.44/1 was re-granted in his name. Thus these documents establish that on the basis of possession the land R.S.No.44/1 was re-granted in the name of the father of defendants and there is totally no documentary record to establish that the propositus of plaintiffs were in possession of this land. Further Ex.D.15 which is certified copy of M.E.No.2518 dtd: 04.09.1987 reveals that after death of the possessor namely Fakkirappa Yallappa Madar on 02.09.1987, the names of defendants No.1, 3 to 5, 7 and 8 are ordered to be mutated and accordingly their names are forthcoming in the RTCs which are marked at Ex.P.2 and - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10862-DB RFA No. 100288 of 2022 Ex.D.36, 37 and 38. Thus all these revenue records i.e., mutation entries and RTCs establish that land R.S.No.44/1 is unconcerned to the family of the plaintiffs and as it was in possession of Kariyavva D/o Karevva, after her death it was in possession of Yallappa A/M Kariyavva Madar and after his death it was in possession of father of defendants namely Fakkirappa and as per his possession, it was re-granted to him and after his death the names of defendants No.1, 3 to 5, 7 and 8 are the entered in the revenue records. Therefore the plaintiffs have no right and title over this property i.e. R.S. No.44/1 of N.M. Tadas village. 34. In view of all the above discussions, the documents on record establish that suit land R.S.No.67/5, 67/6 and 240/2 of N.M. Tadas village are the ancestral properties of plaintiffs and defendants. Further on the basis of documents, the defendants have proved their absolute right and title over the land R.S.No.44/1 of N.M.Tadas village. The M.E.No.464 which has been challenged by the plaintiffs in this case was recorded long back on 14.06.1935 and it is already been acted upon since long time, because subsequently in the year 1979 on the basis of possession of Fakkirappa the land was re-granted in his name and now plaintiffs are estopped from saying that said ME is illegal and not binding on them. The said mutation entry is legal and it is binding on the plaintiffs. Hence Issue No.2 is answered partly in the Affirmative, Issue No.3 is - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10862-DB RFA No. 100288 of 2022 answered in the Negative and Issue No.5 is answered in the Affirmative.” 15. As could be seen from the aforesaid finding recorded by the Trial Court, Item No.2 of the suit schedule properties i.e., R.S.No.44/1 was re-granted in favour of Fakirappa son of Yallappa, who was the adopted son of Kariyavva D/o Kariyavva. As stated supra, the original Kariyavva is none other than the sister of Yallaling Madar and Yallappa Harijan. While according to appellants/plaintiffs, the aforesaid Kariyavva sister of Yallaling Madar and Yallappa Harijan did not leave behind any legal representatives after the demise of her daughter Dyamavva, the respondents/defendants contended that Kariyavva adopted Yallappa father of Fakirappa and in view of the re-grant in favour of Fakirappa, entire Item No.2 of the suit schedule property belong absolutely to Fakirappa upon whose demise, the same devolved upon the respondents/defendants who are the heirs and legal representatives. - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10862-DB RFA No. 100288 of 2022 16. The Trial Court took into account the oral and documentary evidence on record, in particular Ex.D.7 and D.13, which clearly establish that the aforesaid Item No.2 of the suit schedule properties had been re-granted absolutely in favour of Fakirappa son of Yallappa who in turn adopted son of Kariyavva daughter of Kariyavva. The appellants have also not placed any material to show that re-grant of Item No.2 of the suit schedule properties in favour of Fakirappa in the year 1979 was not his individual grant and that it was for the benefit of the appellants/plaintiffs, who are the legal representatives of Yallaling Madar and Yallappa Harijan. 17. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Trial Court was fully justified in coming to the correct conclusion that Item No.2 of the suit schedule properties was the absolute and exclusive property of Fakirappa and that the appellants/plaintiffs did not have any manner of right, title, interest or possession or share in the said properties and the impugned judgment and decree - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10862-DB RFA No. 100288 of 2022 dismissing the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs in relation to Item No.2 of the suit schedule properties cannot be found fault with warranting interference in the present appeal. Accordingly, point No.(ii) is answered by holding that the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the claim of the appellants/plaintiffs in relation to Item No.2 of the suit schedule properties. Regarding point No.(iii) :- 18. While dealing with point No.(ii), we have already come to the conclusion that Item No.2 of the suit schedule property was the separate and exclusive property of Fakirappa and the respondents/defendants being his heirs and legal representatives to be entitled to succeed absolutely to the same and the appellants/plaintiffs are not entitled to any right over Item No.2 of the suit ‘B’ schedule property. 19. However, as stated supra, even according to respondents/defendants themselves, Items 1, 3 and 4 - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10862-DB RFA No. 100288 of 2022 jointly granted in favour of Yallaling Madar, Yallappa Harijan and Kariyavva daughter of Kariyavva, all of them being entitled to 1/3rd share each in Items 1, 3 and 4 of the suit schedule properties. The Trial Court also does not record any finding that Items 1, 3 and 4 of the suit schedule properties were the separate and absolute properties of Fakirappa whose legal representatives are the respondents/defendants. 20. Under these circumstances, instead of driving the appellants/plaintiffs to file a separate suit seeking 2/3rd share in Items 1, 3 and 4 of the suit ‘B’ schedule properties, we deem it just and appropriate to exercise our jurisdiction/powers under Sections 107 and Order XLI Rule 33 read with Order VII Rule 7 of the CPC and mould the reliefs by declaring that the appellants/plaintiffs would be entitled to 2/3rd share jointly in Items 1, 3 and 4 of suit ‘B’ schedule properties, while declaring that the remaining 1/3rd would belong to respondents/defendants and by passing a decree for partition and separate possession in - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10862-DB RFA No. 100288 of 2022 this regard. Accordingly point No.(iii) is answered partly in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs and the impugned judgment and decree of the Trial Court deserves to be modified accordingly. 21. In the result, the following; ORDER (i) The appeal is hereby partly allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.182/2017 by the Trial Court dismissing the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs in relation to Items 2 of the suit ‘B’ schedule property is hereby confirmed. (iii) The impugned judgment and decree insofar as it relates to Item Nos.1, 3 and 4 of the suit ‘B’ schedule properties is hereby set aside. (iv) The suit of the appellants/plaintiffs in relation to Items 1, 3 and 4 of the suit ‘B’ schedule properties is partly decreed and the appellants/ plaintiffs are declared to be entitled for partition and separate possession - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10862-DB RFA No. 100288 of 2022 of 2/3rd share jointly in Items 1, 3 and 4 of the suit ‘B’ schedule properties. (v) It is further declared that the respondents/defendants would be entitled to remaining 1/3rd share in Items 1, 3 and 4 of the suit ‘B’ schedule properties. (vi) Registry to draw decree accordingly. Sd/- (S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE EM Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36