- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11736 RFA No. 100433 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100515 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100433 OF 2019 (PAR/POS-) C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100515 OF 2019 RFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100007 OF 2020 IN RFA NO.100433 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. B.K. BASAVARAJ (BHAVIHALLI KARIBASAVARAJ) S/O. LATE B. KUMARAGOUDA, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS, AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: #2198, BKG HOUSE, KHB COLONY, SANDUR-583 119, DIST : BALLARI. 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR NANDI MINING COMPANY PRIVATE LTD. MINE OWNERS AND EXPORTERS R/O. 14TH WARD, 125/BLB COLONY, SANDUR-583119, DIST: BALLARI REP. BY B. NAGANAGOUDA AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS & AGRI R/O. 14TH WARD, 125/BLB COLONY, SANDUR-583119, DIST. BALLARI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADV) AND: 1. SANTOSH S/O. LAXMAPPA KOLLAR AGE : 22 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O.METAGUDDA, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALAKOTE-587313. 2. SMT. KAMALAWWA W/O. HANAMAPPA KOLLAR SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S RESPONDENT NO.3 HEREIN IS ALREADY ON RECORD. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11736 RFA No. 100433 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100515 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2020 3. NINGAPPA S/O. HANAMAPPA KOLLAR AGE : 45 YEARS,OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O.METAGUDDA, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALAKOTE-587313. 4. SMT. SHUSHILAWWA W/O. RAMAPPA KOLLAR AGE : 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. METAGUDDA, TQ: MUDHOL, NOW AT KERAKALAMATTI, TQ: BADAMI DIST: BAGALAKOTE-587206. 5. SMT. HEMAVATI W/O.SHRISHAIL HANAPUR AGE : 39 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O.KERAKALAMATTI, TQ: BADAMI DIST: BAGALAKOTE-587206. 6. SMT. NEELAWWA W/O. LAXMAPPA KOLLAR AGE : 70 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O. METAGUDD, TQ: MUDHOL-587313, AND NEAR ICICI BANK MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALAKOTE. 7. NINGAPPA S/O.LAXMAPPA KOLLAR AGE : 34 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O. METAGUDD, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALAKOTE-587313 NEAR ICICI BANK, MUDHOL. 8. SMT. SAROJA W/O. RAMANAGOUDA PATIL AGE : 38 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O.CHIKKALASHELLIKERI, TQ & DIST: BAGALAKOTE-587111. 9. SMT. BHARATI W/O. BHIMAPPA MALLAPUR AGE : 36 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BHAIRANATTI, TQ : GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.S. KAMATE, ADV FOR R1, SMT. PALLAVI S. PACHCHAPURE, ADV FOR R3 TO R5, R2-DECEASED, SRI. S.M. TONNE, ADV FOR R6 TO R9) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD:22.07.2019 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11736 RFA No. 100433 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100515 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.63/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, MUDHOL, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, IN RFA NO. 100515 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. KAMALAWWA W/O HANAMAPPA KOLLAR SINCE DECEASED & HER LR’S I.E., APPELLANT NO.2 IS ALREADY ON RECORD. 2. SRI. NINGAPPA S/O HANAMAPPA KOLLAR AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: METAGUDD, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587101. 3. SMT. SUSHILAWWA W/O RAMAPPA KOLLAR AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: METAGUDD, TQ: MUDHOL, NOW AT KERAKALAMATTI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587101. 4. SMT.HEMAWATI W/O SHRISHAIL HANAPUR AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KERAKALAMATTI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587101. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. PALLAVI S. PACHHAPURE, ADV) AND: 1. SRI. SANTOSH S/O LAXMAPPA KOLLAR AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: METAGUDD, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587101. 2. SMT.NEELAWWA W/O LAXMAPPA KOLLAR AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: METAGUDD, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587101. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11736 RFA No. 100433 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100515 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2020 3. SRI.NINGAPPA S/O LAXMAPPA KOLLAR AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS, R/O: METAGUDD, NEAR ICICI BANK, MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587101. 4. SMT. SAROJA W/O RAMANAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: CHIKKASHELLIKERI VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: BAGALKOTE-587101. 5. SMT. BHARATI W/O BHIMAPPA MALLAPUR AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BHAIRANATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001. 6. SRI.B.K. BASAVARAJ (BHAVIHALLI KARIBSAVARAJ), S/O LATE B. KUMARAGOUDA, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICLTURE & BUSINESS, R/O. #2198, BKG HOUSE, KHB COLONY, SANDUR, DIST: BALLARI-583101. 7. MANAGING DIRECTOR NANDI MINING COMPANY PRIVATE LTD., MINE OWNERS & EXPORTERS, 14TH WARD, 125/BLB COLONY, SANDUR, DIST: BALLARI-583101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.S. KAMATE, ADV FOR R1, SRI. S.M. TONNE, ADV FOR R2 TO R5, SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADV FOR R6 & R7) THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD:22.07.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.63/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDHOL, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11736 RFA No. 100433 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100515 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2020 IN RFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100007 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SANTOSH S/O LAXMAPPA KOLLAR AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: METAGUDD, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587101. …CROSS OBJECTOR (BY SRI. B S KAMATE, ADV) AND: 1. SMT. KAMALAWWA W/O HANAMAPPA KOLLAR SINCE DECEASED BY LRS RESPONDENT NO.2 2. SRI. NINGAPPA S/O HANAMAPPA KOLLAR AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: METAGUDD, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587101. 3. SMT. SUSHILAWWA W/O RAMAPPA KOLLAR AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: METAGUDD, TQ: MUDHOL, NOW AT KERAKALAMATTI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587101. 4. SMT. HEMAWATI W/O SHRISHAIL HANAPUR AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KERAKALAMATTI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587101. 5. SMT. NEELAWWA W/O LAXMAPPA KOLLAR AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: METAGUDD, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587101. 6. SRI. NINGAPPA S/O LAXMAPPA KOLLAR AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS, R/O: METAGUDD, NEAR ICICI BANK, MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587101. 7. SMT. SAROJA W/O RAMANAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: CHIKKASHELLIKERI VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: BAGALKOTE-587101. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11736 RFA No. 100433 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100515 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2020 8. SMT.BHARATI W/O BHIMAPPA MALLAPUR AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BHAIRANATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001. 9. SRI. B.K. BASAVARAJ (BHAVIHALLI KARIBSAVARAJ) S/O LATE B. KUMARAGOUDA, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS, R/O: #2198, BKG HOUSE, KHB COLONY, SANDUR, DIST: BALLARI-583101. 10. MANAGING DIRECTOR NANDI MINING COMPANY PRIVATE LTD. MINE OWNERS & EXPORTERS, 14TH WARD, 125/BLB COLONY, SANDUR, DIST: BALLARI-583101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PALLAVI S.PACHCHAPURE, ADV FOR R1 TO R10 R2 IS LR’S OF DECEASED R1, SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADV FOR R9 & R10) THIS RFA.CROB IN RFA NO.100515/2019 IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.07.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.63/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDHOL, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS CROSS OBJECTION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11736 RFA No. 100433 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100515 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2020 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) 1. These Appeals and Cross Objection arise out of the Judgment and preliminary decree dated 22.07.2019, passed in O.S.No.63/2016 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol (for short ‘the trial Court’) 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the Trial Court as per RFA No.100433/2019. The appellants were defendant Nos.9 and 10, Respondent No.1 was the plaintiff, and the other respondents were the other defendants. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of these appeals and the cross objection are as follows: 3.1 The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for a partition and separate possession. It is the case of the plaintiff, one Yamanappa Kolar was the original propositus. He had a wife by name Yallavva. Yamanappa had three sons, namely Hanmappa, Ramappa, Laxmappa. Defendant - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11736 RFA No. 100433 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100515 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2020 No. 1 and 2 are the wife and son of Hanamappa Kollar, Defendant No. 3 and 4 are the wife and daughter of Ramappa Kollar and Defendants No. 5 to 8 and the plaintiff are the legal heirs of Laxmappa Kollar. Yamanappa died on 13.08.1976, and his wife died, subsequently. The sons of Yamanappa died on 30.10.1990, 21.08.1990 and 03.02.2004, respectively. The suit ‘B’ and ‘C’ of plaint schedule properties are the joint family properties. The plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 are in joint possession and enjoyment of these properties. It is contended that the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 6 are the members of a Hindu undivided joint family and no partition has been effected. The plaintiff demanded a partition and separate possession, but defendant Nos.1 to 6 refused to effect a partition. It is contended that, the defendants to deprive the legitimate rights of the plaintiff, sold two items of the suit property in favour of defendant Nos.9. Defendant Nos. 9 in turn, sold the property in favor defendant No.10. The sale deeds executed by defendants - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11736 RFA No. 100433 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100515 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2020 No. 1 and 2 in favour of defendant Nos.9 and 10 are not binding on the plaintiff’s share. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, the plaintiff prays to decree the suit. 3.2 Defendant Nos.1 to 4 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, and contented that there is no cause of action to file a suit for partition and separate possession. It is contended that, there was a prior partition in between the sons of Yamanappa and hence there was a severance of status within the family. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 also sought a counterclaim regarding plot No.10 situated at Mudhol. It is contended that the said property was purchased out of the joint family nucleus in the name of defendant No.6. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff and decree the counterclaim regarding plot No.10 of counterclaim property. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11736 RFA No. 100433 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100515 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2020 3.3 Defendant No.2, filed an additional written statement contending that the properties bearing R.S.No.39/5 and 39/6 of Metgudd village were purchased by him under two different registered sale deeds dated 24.07.2009. It is contended that the suit properties in R.S.No.39/5 and 39/6 of Metgudd village are the self acquired properties of defendant No.2 acquired out of his own earnings. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the suit. 3.4 Defendant Nos.5 to 8 filed a written statement admitting the contents of the plaint and contended that the defendant No.1 to 4 have no right over plot No.10 situated at Mudhol, which is the self acquired property of defendant No. 6. These Defendants sought a counterclaim seeking a 4/15th share in B schedule properties and a 4/10th share in the C schedule properties, along with court costs. 3.5 Defendant Nos.9 and 10 filed their written statement denying averments made in the plaint and contended that Defendant No. 9 sold 7 acres of land in RS - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11736 RFA No. 100433 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100515 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2020 NO. 80/1 and 14 acres in RS No. 80/2 in favor of Defendant No 10. Defendant No. 1 and 2 were the exclusive owners of the aforesaid properties and had the right to enjoy and dispose of the said lands, who sold the same in favour of defendant No. 9. Defendant No.10 converted the said land into a non-agricultural land to the knowledge of the plaintiff. Defendant No.10 has applied for a mining lease, and the same is under process. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit against the defendant No.10 regarding the lands in R.S.No.80/1 and 80/2. 4. The trial Court based on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff prove, himself defendant No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 from undivided joint Hindu family and they own and in joint peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties and at no point of time, partition taken place? 2. Whether he prove defendant No.4, 7 and 8 are not co-parceners and they are only co- sharers in respect of suit schedule properties? 3. Whether the plaintiff prove the defendants No.1 to 8 created entries in revenue record - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11736 RFA No. 100433 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100515 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2020 on false information as said in para 6, 7 and 8 of plaint? 4. Whether he prove, defendant No.1 through having no exclusive right created sale deed and M.R.No.173/07-08 in favour of defendant No.9 and his father B.Kumargouda in respect of R.S.No.80/2 measuring 14A of Metgudda? 5. Whether he prove defendant No.2 through having no exclusive right created sale deed and M.R.No.25/09-10 in favour of defendant No.9 and his father B.Kumargouda in respect R.S.No.80/1 measuring 7A of Metgudda village? 6. Whether he prove, defendant No.9 and his father B. Kumargouda illegally sold R.S.No.80/2 measuring 14A to defendant No.10? 7. Whether the defendant No.9 and 10 prove defendant No.1 and 2 having exclusive right sold R.S.No.80/1, 80/2 respectively? 8. Whether they prove they bonafide purchasers for value? 9. Whether the defendant No.2 prove in R.S.No.39/2, Block No.3 13G, Block No.4, 13G are his self acquired properties, he is in exclusive ownership and possession over the said properties? 10. Whether defendant No.1 to 4, 9 and 10 prove, suit is bad for partial partition? 11. Whether they prove, no cause of action to suit? - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11736 RFA No. 100433 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100515 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2020 12. Whether defendant No.1 to 4 are entitle for 2/3rd share jointly? 13. Whether defendants No.5 to 8 are entitled for 4/15th share in 'B' schedule properties and 4/10th share in schedule 'C' properties? 14. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for 1/15th share? 15. What order or decree? 5. The Plaintiff to substantiate his case, plaintiff was examined himself as PW-1, examined two witnesses as PW- 2 and PW-3 and marked 28 documents as Ex.P1 to P28. In rebuttal, defendant No.2 was examined as DW-1, defendant No.6 was examined as DW-4. Defendant No.9 was examined as DW-8, and the other witnesses were also examined. In all the defendants examined 9 witnesses, as DW-1 to DW-9 and marked 37 documents as Ex.D1 to D37. 6. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and on assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1,12,13 and 14 partly in the affirmative. Issue Nos.2 to 6 and 9 in the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11736 RFA No. 100433 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100515 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2020 affirmative. Issue Nos.7, 8, 10 and 11 in the negative, and issue No.15 as per the final order. 7. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed with costs vide judgment dated 22.07.2019. It was held that the plaintiff and defendant No.6 are each entitled to a 2/15th share in suit item Nos.1 to 6 of plaint B schedule property and suit item Nos. A and B of the plaint C schedule properties. The counterclaims made by defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 5 to 8 were partly allowed. Defendant Nos.5,7 and 8 are each entitled to a 1/15th share, while the defendant Nos.1 and 2 are jointly entitled to a 1/3rd share, and defendant Nos.3 and 4 are jointly entitled to a 1/3rd share in the suit properties. 8. It was also held that the sale deed executed in favour defendant Nos.9 and 10 regarding item Nos.5 and 6 properties does not bind the shares of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.5 to 8 in any manner. The plaintiff is entitled to recover his share in the said properties. Similarly, - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11736 RFA No. 100433 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100515 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2020 defendant Nos.1 to 8 are entitled to recover their respective shares only upon payment of the required Court fee. 9. It was also held that, the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.9, as per Ex.D29 and Ex.D30, binds the shares of defendant Nos.1 to 4 in item Nos.5 and 6. The suit of the plaintiff, insofar as it pertains to item Nos.7 and 8 of the plaint B schedule, is dismissed. 10. Defendant Nos.9 and 10, aggrieved by the Judgment, filed an appeal in RFA No.100433/2019. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 filed an appeal in RFA No.100515/2015. The plaintiff filed a cross-objection in RFA Crob No.100007/2020. 11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendants and the learned counsel for the plaintiff. 12. Learned counsel for defendant Nos.1 to 4 submitted that there was a prior partition between the sons of Yamanappa in 1983, and based on the oral partition, a mutation was effected in M.E.No.1545 dated 30.11.1983, as - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11736 RFA No. 100433 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100515 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2020 per Ex.P18. She submits that the said partition is evident from the mutation entry, which was not considered by the trial Court. She further submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable as of the date of its filing, as the suit schedule properties were neither ancestral nor the joint family properties, and there was a severance of status. She also submitted that defendant Nos.1 to 4 had sought a counterclaim regarding plot No.10, which was purchased out of the joint family nucleus in the name of defendant No.6. However, the trial Court did not grant any share in plot No.10 of Mudhol. 13. She also submit that the defendant No.6 had no source of income to purchase plot No.10 in 2011, and that the said property was purchased out of the joint family nucleus. Therefore, defendants Nos.1 to 4 are entitled to a share in plot No.10 of the counterclaim property. She also submitted that the sale deeds executed as per Ex.D29 and Ex.D30 are not binding on the share of defendant Nos.3 and 4, whereas the trial Court has erroneously observed that - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11736 RFA No. 100433 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100515 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2020 the sale deeds at Ex.D29 and D30 binds defendant Nos.1 to 4 regarding item Nos.5 and 6 of the suit schedule properties. She submits that, to that extent the Judgment of the trial Court requires to be modified. Hence, on these grounds she prays to allow the appeal filed by defendant Nos.1 to 4. 14. Learned counsel Sri.K.L.Patil, appearing for defendant Nos.9 and 10 submits that, there was a prior partition in between the sons of Yamanappa and in that partition, suit schedule property item No.5 and 6 fell to the share of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 subsequently sold the said properties in favour of defendant No.9, who in turn sold the said properties in favour defendant No.10. He submit that the defendant Nos.9 and 10 are the bona fide purchasers for a valuable consideration, and the sale deeds executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.9 is binding on the shares of the plaintiffs and the other defendants. He further submitted that defendant No.10 converted the land bearing - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11736 RFA No. 100433 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100515 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2020 Sy.Nos.80/1 and 80/2 to a non-agricultural lands by spending a huge amount. Accordingly, he submit that the liberty be reserved for defendant Nos.9 and 10 to claim equity in the Final Decree Proceedings (FDP). Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal filed by defendant Nos.9 and 10. 15. Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that there is no dispute regarding the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 8 as well as the nature of the suit schedule properties. He submit that the trial Court, after considering the entire evidence on record, held that the suit schedule properties are coparcener properties insofar as item Nos.1 to 6 of the plaint B schedule and item Nos. A and B of plaint C schedule properties. 16. He further submitted that the trial Court committed an error in dismissing the suit regarding item Nos.7 and 8 of the plaint B schedule properties. He - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11736 RFA No. 100433 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100515 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2020 submitted that item Nos.7 and 8 were purchased out of joint family nucleus and therefore, the said properties are the joint family properties. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeals filed by defendant Nos.1 to 4, and defendant No. 9 and 10, and accordingly, prays to allow the cross-objection filed by the plaintiff. 17. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties 18. The points that would arise for consideration are as follows: (i) Whether the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 are the members of a Hindu Joint Family, and that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants ? (ii) Whether the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff is entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties ? (iii) Whether the defendant Nos.1 to 4 prove that there was a prior partition in 1983, and that - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11736 RFA No. 100433 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100515 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2020 the parties have acted upon the said partition ? (iv) Whether the defendant Nos.9 and 10 are bona fide purchasers of item Nos.5 and 6 of the suit schedule properties ? (v) Whether the defendants prove that the Judgment and preliminary decree passed by the trial Court are arbitrary and erroneous ? 19. Point No.(i):- The Plaintiff to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1. He deposed that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 8 are members of a joint family, and that the suit schedule properties were originally owned and possessed by the original propositus, Yamanappa and after his demise, the sons of Yamunappa succeeded to the suit schedule properties. It is also deposed that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 had no right, title or interest to sell item Nos.5 and 6 of the suit schedule properties in favor of defendant No.9. The sale deeds executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favor of defendant No.9 is not binding on the shares of the plaintiffs and the - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11736 RFA No. 100433 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100515 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2020 other defendants. Defendant No.10 has not acquired any right, title or interest by a sale deeds executed by defendant No.9. 20. There is no partition effected in between plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 8. The plaintiff demanded a partition and separate possession; however, the defendants refused to effect a partition. To substantiate that the suit schedule properties are the joint and ancestral properties to the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 8, the plaintiff has produced the documents. 21. The plaintiff has produced the RTC extract marked as Ex.P1, which is a certified copy of the RTC extract of the land bearing Sy.No.173/2-A1 standing in the name of Ningappa Laxamnappa Kolar i.e. defendant No.6. Ex.P2 is the RTC extract of the land bearing Sy.No.173 standing in the name of Ningappa-defendant No.2. Ex.P3 is a certified copy of the RTC extract of the land bearing Sy.No.27/1A1 standing in the name of defendant No.6. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11736 RFA No. 100433 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100515 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2020 Ex.P4 is a certified copy of the RTC extract of the land bearing Sy.No.27/1A3 standing in the name of Kamalamma-defendant No.1. Ex.P5 is a certified copy of the RTC extract of the land bearing Sy.No.80/1 standing in the name of B.K.Basavaraj-defendant No.9. Ex. P6 is a certified copy of the RTC extract of the land bearing Sy.No.80/2 standing in the name of Nandi Mining, Managing Director- defendant No.10. Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 are the house property extract bearing VPC No.111 and 112 standing in the name of defendant No.2, respectively. Ex.P9 is the house property extract of VPC No.112/B stand in the name of defendant No.2 and 6. Ex.P10 to Ex.P16 are the mutation entries. Ex.P17 to 20 certified copy of mutation entries. Ex.P21 to 27 are the mutation registers. Ex.P28 is the school certificate of the plaintiff. 22. During the course of cross-examination, it was suggested to PW-1 that there was a partition between the sons of Yamanappa in 1983. It was also suggested that item Nos. 7 and 8 of the B schedule properties are the self - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11736 RFA No. 100433 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100515 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2020 acquired properties of Defendant No. 2, the said suggestion was denied by PW-1. It was also elicited that, he has produced no documents to prove that suit item Nos.7 and 8 of B schedule properties are the ancestral properties. The said suggestion was denied by PW-1. The plaintiff produced Ex.P18, which is a mutation register extract, it discloses that, after the death of Yamunappa Hanumappa Kolar, 7 acres of land in R.S.No.80 were mutated in the names of his three sons namely Hanumappa, Ramappa and Laxmappa. However, the mutation entry is not supported by any document to establish that there was a prior partition between the sons of Yamunappa i.e. namely Hanamappa, Ramappa and Laxmappa. 23. Further, the plaintiff also examined one Ramanagouda as PW-2, who deposed that he knows the plaintiff and is aware that the plaintiff has filed the suit for partition and separate possession. He stated that the properties of schedule B and schedule C were owned and possessed by Yamanappa Kolar, who died leaving behind - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11736 RFA No. 100433 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100515 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2020 his three sons Hanumappa, Ramappa, Laxmappa. All three sons of Yamanappa died living behind the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 who are the members of the Hindu Undivided Family. He further deposed that they are in joint possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties. It was also deposed that the defendants have manipulated the entries in the record of right in collusion with the Revenue Authorities to deprive the plaintiffs his right over the properties. The plaintiff also examined one Kailash as PW-3, who deposed in the same line of PW-2. Nothing has been elicited from the mouths of these witnesses to disbelieve their evidence. Conversely, Defendant No.2 examined himself as DW-1, and deposed that, plot No.10 has not been included by the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties. He further stated that plot No.10 was purchased out of the joint family nucleus, and plot No.10 is the joint family property belonging to the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 8. He also deposed that a partition had taken place between the three sons of Yamanappa in - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11736 RFA No. 100433 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100515 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2020 1983 and based on this oral partition effected in 1983, a mutation was effected as per Ex.P18 and also examined the witnesses in support of his claim. The Defendants to prove their defence have produced the documents marked as EX. D-1 to D-37. 24. From the perusal of the entire evidence placed on record by the defendants, the gist of evidence of DW-1 to DW-9 reveals that some of the suit schedule properties were originally owned and possessed by Yamanappa, and the said properties were divided among the sons of Yamanappa. Further, defendant Nos.1 and 2 sold item Nos.5 and 6 i.e. Sy.No.80/1 and 80/2 in favour of defendant No.9. Further, the plot No.10 was purchased by defendant No.6 out of the joint family nucleus. In a suit for partition and separate possession, the initial burden always lies on the plaintiff to prove both, the relationship among the parties and the nature of suit schedule properties. As discussed above, some of the suit schedule properties stood in the name of Yamanappa. After his demise, his three sons - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11736 RFA No. 100433 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100515 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2020 succeeded to the suit schedule properties. Admittedly, all three sons of Yamanappa are now deceased, leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 8. 25. The plaintiff proved that, the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 and 6 are members of a Hindu Joint family and proved that the item Nos.1 to 6 of the B schedule and items A and B of the plaint-C suit schedule properties are joint family and ancestral properties belonging to the plaintiffs and the defendants. Further, they are members of a Hindu undivided Family. In view of the above discussion, Point No.(i) is answered partly in the affirmative. 26. Point No.(ii):- The plaintiff, being the legal representative of the deceased Laxmappa. After the demise of Laxmappa, the plaintiff has succeeded to the suit schedule properties. As observed above in point No.(i), that there is no partition effected between the family members of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 8, the plaintiff, is the - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11736 RFA No. 100433 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100515 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2020 coparcener, is entitled to a share in item Nos.1 to 6 of plaint B schedule properties and suit item-A and B of the plaint-C schedule properties. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to a 2/15th share in the aforesaid properties. Defendant No. 6 is also entitled to a 2/15th share in item Nos.1 to 6 of the plaint B Schedule and Items A and B of the plaint C Schedule properties. 27. Insofar as suit Item Nos.7 and 8 of the B schedule properties are concerned, the plaintiff has not produced any records before the court to prove that those properties were acquired out of the joint family nucleus. Defendant NO. 2 has produced Ex- D-1 to D-6 to prove that these properties are his self acquired properties. Defendant No. 2 had purchased these properties for Rs. 18000 each from his vendors as per Sale deeds at Ex. D-5 and D-6. After the purchase of said properties, the mutation was effected as per EX. D-3 and 4, and as per Ex D-1 and 2, the RTC extracts, Defendant No. 2 is in possession of the same. - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11736 RFA No. 100433 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100515 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2020 28. In view of the above discussion, Point No.(ii) is answered in the affirmative. 29. Point No.(iii):- Defendant Nos.1 to 4 filed their written statement and have taken a specific defense that there was a prior partition in 1983. To prove the oral partition, defendant No.2 has produced Ex.P18, which discloses that a partition was effected between the three sons of Yamanappa. However, Ex.P18 is not supported by any corroborative documents. Further, the defendants have also not examined any witnesses who were present at the time of the alleged partition. Merely relying on Ex.P18, the trial Court held that the defendants have failed to prove that there was a prior partition in 1983 between three sons of Yamanappa. Further, there is reference about the “Apsat Vatni Patra” in Ex.P18, however, the defendants have not produced any “Apsat Vatni Patra” to demonstrate that there was a prior partition in between the sons of Yamanappa. - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11736 RFA No. 100433 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100515 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2020 30. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dayaram and others Vs. Dawalatshah and others reported in AIR 1971 SC 681, held that an order passed by a Revenue Officer in mutation proceedings, based on untrue of evidence has no evidently value in a civil suit. Admittedly, the plaintiff has produced Ex.P18, but the said document is not supported with any piece of evidence to prove that there was a prior partition in between the sons of Yamanappa. Accordingly, the trial Court rightly disbelieved Ex.P18 and held that the defendants failed to establish that there was a prior partition in 1983 and that the parties had not acted upon any such alleged partition effected in 1983. In view of above discussion, Point No.(iii) is answered in the negative. 31. Point No.(iv):- Defendant Nos.9 and 10 have contended they that they are the bona fide purchasers for a value of the suit schedule properties. Defendant No.9 examined himself as DW-8 and deposed that he purchased the properties i.e., Sy NO. 80/1 and 80/2 after verifying the - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11736 RFA No. 100433 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100515 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2020 relevant records. He stated that defendant Nos.1 and 2 were the absolute owners of item Nos.5 and 6 of the suit schedule properties and had sold the same in his favour. Subsequently, defendant No.9 sold the properties in favour of defendant No.10. 32. However, the defendant No.10 has not entered the witness box to substantiate his claim. Admittedly, item Nos.5 and 6 were stood in the name of Yamanappa before their transfer of the said property in the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2. This Court has already recorded a finding that item No.5 and 6 of the suit schedule properties are also joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 8 and no partition has been effected. However, defendant Nos.1 and 2 sold item Nos.5 and 6 of the suit schedule properties without the consent of the other coparceners. The sale deeds executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.9 are not binding on the shares of the plaintiff and the other defendants who were not parties to the registered sale deed. - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11736 RFA No. 100433 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100515 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2020 33. Defendant No.10 has made improvements to the suit item No.5 and 6 by converting the said land to non-agricultural and also applying for the mining permission. Admittedly, the suit schedule properties at item No.5 and 6 are the ancestral properties. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have sold only their undivided interest in favour of defendant Nos.9. Therefore, the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.9 is not binding on the shares of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.3 to 8. 34. The purchasers i.e., Defendant No. 9 and 10 can work out their remedy in the Final Decree Proceedings. A Liberty is accordingly reserved for the purchasers to work out their remedy in the Final Decree Proceedings. In view of the above discussion, point No.(iv) does not arise for consideration. 35. Point No.(v):- The trial Court, after considering the entire evidence on record, has rightly passed the - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11736 RFA No. 100433 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100515 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2020 impugned Judgment. I do not find any error in the impugned Judgment. However, the learned counsel for the defendants has pointed out that the sale deeds executed as per Exs.D29 and Ex.D30 are binding on the shares of defendant No.1 and 2. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 were not parties to the sale deeds marked as Ex.P29 and Ex.P30. Therefore, the sale deeds are not binding on the shares of defendant Nos.3 and 4. To that extent, the Judgment and preliminary decree passed by the trial Court be modified. In view of the above discussion, point No.(v) is answered partly in the affirmative. 36. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (i) The Appeal in RFA NO. 100433/2019 filed by defendant Nos.9 and 10, as well as the cross-objection in RFA CROB NO. 100007/2020 filed by the plaintiff, are hereby dismissed. - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11736 RFA No. 100433 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100515 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100007 of 2020 (ii) The Appeal in RFA NO. 100515/2019 filed by defendant Nos.1 to 4 is allowed in part. The Impugned Judgment and Decree is modified to the extent that the sale deeds executed in favour of defendant No.9, as per Exs.D29 and 30 binds only the shares defendant Nos.1 and 2 regarding item Nos.5 and 6 of the suit B schedule properties, and does not bind the share of defendant No. 3 and 4. (iii) The rest of the judgment of the trial court shall remain intact. (iv) A Liberty is reserved to defendant Nos.9 and 10 to work out their remedy in the Final Decree Proceedings. (v) Draw preliminary decree accordingly. (vi) Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE RHR/- CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14