- 1 - RSA No. 100281/2023 Reserved on : 18.08.2025 Pronounced on : 03.09.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REUGLAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100281 OF 2023 BETWEEN: GULAPPA S/O. BASAVANNEPPPA @ PUJAR AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE R/O: AMMINABHAVI, ‘ TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI S.B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. LAXMAVVA KAREVVA W/O. BASAVANNEPPA @ BASAPPA PUJAR @ PUJARI REPORTED TO BE DIED REPRESENTED BY LRS I.E. APPELLANT AND RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO 4) 1. SMT. YALLAVVA W/O. MANJUNATH RAYANAL AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KURUVINAKOPPA, TQ. KALAGHATAGI, DIST. DHARWAD. 2. SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O. BASAVANNEPPA @ BASAPPA PUJARI @ PUJARI AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KURUVINAKOPPA, TQ. KALAGHATAGI, DIST.DHARWAD. 3. BASAVANEPPA @ BASAPPA S/O. SOMAPPA PUJAR AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.09.04 12:46:47 +0530 - 2 - RSA No. 100281/2023 R/O: AMMINABHAVI, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD. 4. SURESH S/O. BASAVANNEPPA @ BASAPPA PUJAR AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: AMMINABHAVI, TQ. KALAGHATAGI, DIST. DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE SERVED TO R1 TO R4) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, R/W ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED.14.09.2022 IN R.A.NO.20/2020 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM DHARWAD AND SO ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., DHARWAD ON 17.01.2020 IN O.S.NO.433/2014 BY DISMISSING THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF. IN THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 18.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) The captioned second appeal is by the unsuccessful defendant who is questioning the concurrent findings of the Courts below in granting share to the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule properties. - 3 - RSA No. 100281/2023 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the plaintiffs filed suit for partition and separate position against the defendant with respect to the Suit schedule property. It is stated that the suit property are the ancestral and joint family properties, comprising of plaintiff and defendant and the plaintiff and defendant are the members of joint Hindu undivided family. Plaintiff No.1 is the second wife of defendant No.1 and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children of plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1. Defendants 2 and 3 are children of defendant No.1 and deceased Shantavva. Defendant No.1 married the plaintiff after the death of Shantavva, but there is no partition among the plaintiffs and defendants with respect suit property. Since the defendants refused to allot their share in the suit property, plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition and separate position. 4. Upon service of notice, defendant appeared through their advocate. Defendant No.3 filed the written statement and the same is adopted by defendants 1 and 2. Defendant No.3 in the written statement has admitted that the suit lands are - 4 - RSA No. 100281/2023 ancestral properties, but has contended that the VPC No.1563 is not ancestral property and it is a self-acquired property. Further, he has contented that the suit of the plaintiffs is bad for non-joinder of all the properties of the family in the suit. Plaintiff No.1 purchased the properties bearing RS No.53, measuring 1 acre five guntas and properties bearing (1) 217/D, (2) VPC No.91/A, (3) VPC No.11, (4) VPC No.31, (5) VPC No.58, (6) VPC No.57, (7) VPC No.59, (8) VPC No.90 and (9) VPC No.217/D, in her name and all are situated in Kuruvinakoppa village. The above properties which are purchased out of funds of defendants 2 and 3 and are not included in the suit. Hence, the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable due to non-joinder of all the properties. 5. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed four issues and out of that answered issue No.1 in the negative; issues 2 and 3 partly in the affirmative and accordingly, decreed the suit holding that plaintiffs 2 and 3 are entitled for 1/5th share each in items 1 and 2 of the schedule properties and the defendants 1 to 3 are entitled for 1/5th share each in items 1 and 2 of the schedule properties. The suit of the plaintiffs with respect to item No.3 was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the - 5 - RSA No. 100281/2023 Judgment and decree, the defendants preferred appeal before the appellate Court in RA No.20 of 2020. The same came to be dismissed by judgment dated 14th September 2022. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed by both the Courts, the appellant has preferred the present second appeal. 6. Sri S.B. Doddagoudar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable for the reason that defendants 1 to 3 have specifically pleaded in their written statement that some of the properties have not been included in the suit. Hence, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary properties. Without impleading the properties, defendants have produced Exhibits D1 to D5. Though the defendants have placed material to show that other properties existed which ought to have been included for effecting partition, the trial Court ignored the same and decreed the suit which is not maintainable. He would further submit that without impleading the said properties, the finding of the trial Court that the properties are self-acquired properties of the plaintiff, is incorrect. 7. Upon perusal of the Judgment of the trial Court it could be seen that at paragraphs 16 to 29, the trial Court has - 6 - RSA No. 100281/2023 elaborately discussed as to the defence set up by the plaintiff that the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of family properties. Both the Courts have held that the defendants have failed to prove that the properties bearing RS No.53, measuring 1 acre 5 guntas and properties bearing numbers (1) 217/D, (2) VPC No.91/A, (3) VPC No.11, (4) VPC No.31, (5) VPC No.58, (6) VPC No.57, (7) VPC No.59, (8) VPC No.90 and (9) VPC No.217/D are the ancestral and joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants. Both the Courts have properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and decreed the suit in part. 8. In addition to this, though the defendants have admitted that suit lands are ancestral properties, they have not filed any counter-claim in the suit properties and the properties bearing RS No.53, measuring 1 acre 5 guntas and properties bearing 1) 217/D, (2) VPC No.91/A, (3) VPC No.11, (4) VPC No.31, (5) VPC No.58, (6) VPC No.57, (7) VPC No.59, (8) VPC No.90 and (9) VPC No.217/D. If the above properties are joint family properties, the defendants would sought for their legitimate share in those properties. This conduct of the defendant reveals that the intention of defendants is only for - 7 - RSA No. 100281/2023 dismissal of the suit which is not sustainable. Therefore, no substantial question arises. The Judgments and decree and by the Courts below are based on legal evidence let in by both the parties. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R i) Appeal, being devoid of merits, is dismissed at the stage of admission itself; ii) In view of the dismissal of the main appeal, pending applications, if any, do not survive consideration, and accordingly stand disposed of. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn CT-CMU