- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5897 RSA No. 100964 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100964 OF 2016 (PAR-) BETWEEN: SHRI. SIDDAPPA S/O. BALAPPA SAYANNAVAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KEMMANAKOL VILLAGE, TAL: GOKAK-591307, DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. G.B. NAIK & SMT. P.G. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. BHIMAWWA CHANDRAPPA NAIK, SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HER LR’S. 1A. SHRI SIDANAIK S/O. CHANDRAPPA NAIK, SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LR’S. 1A(I) SMT. KASAVVA W/O. SIDANAIK NAIK, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HARUGOPPA-591102, TAL: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. 1A(II) SHRI BASANAGOUDA S/O. SIDANAIK NAIK, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HARUGOPPA-591102, TAL: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. 1A(III) SHRI MARUTI S/O. SIDANAIK NAIK, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HARUGOPPA-591102, ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5897 RSA No. 100964 of 2016 TAL: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. 1A(IV) SHRI PRADEEP S/O. SIDANAIK NAIK, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HARUGOPPA-591102, TAL: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. 1B. SHRI NAGAPPA CHANDRAPPA NAIK, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HARUGOPPA-591102, TAL: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. 1C. SHRI SHANKAR CHANDRAPPA NAIK, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HARUGOPPA-591102, TAL: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. SMT. RANGAWWA NAIKAPPA NAIK, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: HARUGOPPA VILLAGE, TAL: SAUNDATTI-591126, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. SMT.RAMAWWA FAKIRAPPA NAIK, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: HULAKUND VILLAGE, TAL: RAMDURGA-591123, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. SMT.KASTUREWWA YALLAPPA NAIK, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: HULAKUND VILLAGE, TAL: RAMDURGA-591123, DIST: BELAGAVI. 5. SMT.SHUSILAWWA MARUTI NAIK, AGE: 42 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5897 RSA No. 100964 of 2016 OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: ALAGODI VILLAGE, TAL: RAIBAG-591235, DIST: BELAGAVI. 6. SMT.SAVAKKA YAMANAPPA RAMAGOUDAR, SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HER LR’S: 6A. SMT. INDRAVVA W/O. YAMANAPPA RAMAGOUDAR, CLAIMING TO BE 2ND WIFE OF YAMANAPPA AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. JANATA PLOT DALAWAI NAGAR, DURGADEVI GUDI, GHATAPRABHA-591306, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. 6B. SHRI SANJU S/O. YAMANAPPA RAMAGOUDAR, CLAIMING TO BE SON OF YAMANAPPA AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. JANATA PLOT DALAWAI NAGAR, DURGADEVI GUDI, GHATAPRABHA-591306, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. 6C. MISS SONIYA D/O. YAMANAPPA RAMAGOUDAR, CLAIMING TO BE DAUGHTER OF YAMANAPPA AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. JANATA PLOT DALAWAI NAGAR, DURGADEVI GUDI, GHATAPRABHA-591306, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. 6D. SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. YAMANAPPA RAMAGOUDAR, CLAIMING TO BE 3RD WIFE OF YAMANAPPA AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SUGAR FACTORY QUARTERS, GHATAPRABHA-591306, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. 6E. SHRI SHARAT S/O. YAMANAPPA RAMAGOUDAR, CLAIMING TO BE SON OF YAMANAPPA AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5897 RSA No. 100964 of 2016 R/O. SUGAR FACTORY QUARTERS, GHATAPRABHA-591306, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. 6F. MISS SHILPA D/O. YAMANAPPA RAMAGOUDAR, CLAIMING TO BE DAUGHTER OF YAMANAPPA AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SUGAR FACTORY QUARTERS, GHATAPRABHA-591306, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. 7. SHRI NINGANAGOUDA MUTTEPPA NAIK, AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, C/O. SAVAKKA Y. RAMAGOUDAR, R/O KEMMANAKOL VILLAGE, TAL: GOKAK-591307, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH B. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5; SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, SRI. A.M. GUNDWADE & SRI. HARISH B. NAIK, ADVOCATES FOR R2-R4 & R7; R1 & R6-DECEASED; R1(A)(I) TO R1(A)IV, R1(B), R1(C), R6(A)-R6(F)-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO THAT THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN R.A. NO.214/2013 DATED 09.09.2016 BY THE LEARNED XII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI SITTING AT GOKAK AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S. NO.14/2008 DATED 23.07.2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GOKAK BE KINDLY SET ASIDE BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5897 RSA No. 100964 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by defendant No.4 assailing the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2013 in R.A.No.214/2013 on the file of the XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi sitting at Gokak (for short “the First Appellate Court”) dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2013 in O.S.No.14/2008 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gokak (for short “the Trial Court”) decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that defendant No.2 and one Smt.Sitawwa are the daughters of propositus- Ninganagouda Ramappa Naik. Mutteppa is the brother of plaintiffs. It is stated that the said Mutteppa married Smt.Kasturi and in their wedlock, defendant No.3 was born. It is also stated that the plaintiffs’ sister Smt.Sitawwa is no more and defendant No.1 is the daughter of said Smt.Sitawwa. It is also stated that as the said Ninganagouda - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5897 RSA No. 100964 of 2016 Ramappa Naik and mother of the plaintiff are no more, the plaintiffs are entitled for share in the suit schedule property. It is further averred in the plaint that defendant No.1 has sold 4 acres 21 guntas of land to defendant No.4 as per the registered sale deed dated 15.04.2008 and the same is not binding on the plaintiffs and accordingly, sought for share in the suit schedule property of late-Ninganagouda Ramappa Naik in O.S.No.14/2008. 3.1. After service of notice, the defendant No.1 entered appearance and filed detailed written statement admitting the relationship between the parties. It is the case of defendant No.1 that she married Mutteppa and as there is no children through Mutteppa, the said Mutteppa married Smt.Kasturi. It is also stated that Mutteppa died leaving behind his second wife-Kasturi and son-Ninganagouda (defendant No.3) and the said Kasturi and defendant No.1 have filed G & WC No.27/2007 and sold portion of the land belonging to the joint family and accordingly, it is the case of defendant No.1 that as the portion of the land has been sold pursuant to the permission granted in G & WC No.27/2007 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5897 RSA No. 100964 of 2016 and as such, sought for dismissal of the suit. It is also stated that the defendant No.3 was in care of defendant No.1 and further O.S.No.188/2007 was filed and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit. 3.2. Defendant No.4 filed separate written statement stating that defendant No.4 had purchased the land to an extent of 4 acres 21 guntas in Survey No.424 and being a bonafide purchaser of the land, it is contended that he has filed O.S.No.555/2008 seeking injunctive relief against the defendant No.1 to 3, which came to be dismissed. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit. 3.3. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, formulated issues and additional issues for its consideration. In order to establish their case, the plaintiffs have examined three witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and produced eight documents, which were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. The defendants have examined four witnesses as DW1 to DW4 and produced 20 documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D20. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5897 RSA No. 100964 of 2016 3.4. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 23.07.2013 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant No.4 has presented R.A.No. 214/2013 before the First Appellate Court and same was resisted by the plaintiffs. 3.5. The First Appellate Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 09.09.2016 dismissed the appeal, consequently, confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant No.4 has preferred this appeal. 4. This Court, vide order dated 25.07.2017 framed the following substantial questions of law: “Are the Courts below justified in granting a decree for partition in respect of the entire suit property ignoring the permission granted by competent Court in G & WC No.27/2007 to defendant No.1 Awwakka to alienate the interest of defendant No.3 Ninganagouda, who was minor at that time?” - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5897 RSA No. 100964 of 2016 5. I have heard Sri. G.B.Naik and Sri. P. G. Naik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Harish B Naik, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 and Sri. M. B. Gundawade and Sri.A.M.Gundawade, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 to 4 and 7. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that both the Courts below have committed an error in not considering the fact that the suit schedule property has been sold to defendant No.4 based on the permission granted by the competent Court in G & WC No.27/2007 and the said aspect has been ignored by the Trial Court and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below. 8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by both the Courts below and - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5897 RSA No. 100964 of 2016 perused the records. In order to understand the relationship between the parties, it is relevant to extract the genealogy tree produced in the plaint, which reads as under: Ninganagouda (Dead) Sabawwa (Dead) Sitawwa Bhimawwa Rangawwa Ramawwa Kasturewwa Sushilawwa Mutteppa Savakka (Dead) (P1) (P2) (P3) (P4) (P5) (Dead) (D2) =Kasturi (Dead) Awwakka Ninganagouda (D1) (D3) 9. Perusal of the genealogy would indicate that the original propositus-Ninganagouda and his wife-Sabawwa died leaving behind eight children viz., Sitawwa (mother of defendant No.1), plaintiff No.1 to 5, Savakka (defendant No.2 and Mutteppa (father of defendant No.3). It is not in dispute that the suit schedule property is ancestral property of Ninganagouda and therefore, his children are entitled for equal share in the suit schedule property. Taking into - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5897 RSA No. 100964 of 2016 consideration the factual aspects on record as contended by the defendant No.1 that the defendant No.1 has married Mutteppa (brother of plaintiff) and thereafter the said Mutteppa married Kasturi and through them defendant No.3 was born and in this regard, though the arguments have been addressed on behalf of the appellant that in G & WC No.27/2007 permission has been granted by the Court therein to sell 2 acres 15 guntas of land in Survey No.33 of Kemmanakola village in favour of defendant No.4, however the said property is the joint family property of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3. Since the said property is belonging to the original propositus-Ninganagouda and therefore, I am of the view that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/8th share each in the suit schedule property is just and proper, which requires to be confirmed in this appeal. 10. It is pertinent to mention here that, the order passed in G & WC No.27/2007 (Ex.D8 and Ex.D9) is not binding on the plaintiffs as the suit schedule property is the joint family property. In that view of the matter, taking into - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5897 RSA No. 100964 of 2016 consideration the factual aspect on record, as the portion of the land was sold in favour of defendant No.4 by defendant No.1 and 3 is concerned, it is the joint family property of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 and therefore, the sale made in favour of defendant No.4 is not binding on the plaintiffs. In the result, the substantial question of law framed by this Court favours the plaintiffs and accordingly the appeal stands dismissed. 11. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YAN CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33