- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3958-DB RFA No. 100356 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100356 OF 2019 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI. HANAMANTHAPPA HANAPPA IDLI AGE.52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O: KALASANNAVAR ONI, GAMANAGATTI VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST. DHARWAD-580 025. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. SHANKAR KELAGERI AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC.HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: NO.62, VIJAYANAND NAGAR, 1ST CROSS, NEAR R.C. NAGAR, DHARWAD, DISTRICT. DHARWAD-580001. 2 . SMT. VIJAYLAXMI W/O. SHIVANAND MADIHALLI AGE.38 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O: NO.62, VIJAYANAND NAGAR 1ST CROSS, NEAR R.C. ANGAR POST. SAPTAPUR, DHARWAD DISTRICT. DHARWAD-580 001. 3 . SMT. SHIVANAND BASAVANNEPPA @ BASAPPA NAIKAR Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Date: 2025.03.01 12:39:44 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3958-DB RFA No. 100356 of 2019 AGE.51 YEARS, OCC. GOVERNMENT SERVICE, R/O: HAV NO.03, 2ND KSRP NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580 020. 4 . SMT. JYOTI W/O. SIDDAROODH NAIKAR AGE.36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O: BENAKANAHALLI, POST. HIRENARATHI TQ. KUNDGOL, DISTRICT. DHARWAD-581 113. 5 . KUM. VARSHINI D/O. SIDDAROODH NAIKAR AGE.07 YEARS, OCC. NIL, REPRESENTED BY MINOR GUARDIAN AND NATURAL MOTHER SMT. JYOTI W/O. SIDDAROODH NAIKAR AGE.36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BENAKANHALLI, POST. HIRENARATHI TQ. KUNDGOL, DISTRICT. DHARWAD-581 113. 6 . KUM PARAVATI D/O. SIDDAROODH NAIKAR AGE.05 YEARS, OCC. NIL REPRESENTED BY MINOR GUARDIAN AND NATURAL MOTHER SMT. JYOTI W/O. SIDDAROODH NAIKAR AGE.36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O: BANAKANAHALLI, POST. HIRENARATHI TQ. KUNDGOL, DISTRICT. DHARWAD-581 113. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R1 AND R2 HELD SUFFICIENT V/O. DATED 07.02.2022; NOTICE TO R3 SERVED; R5 AND R6 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R4) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC., PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.04.2019 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI IN O.S.NO.149/2017, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH THE COST THROUGHOUT IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3958-DB RFA No. 100356 of 2019 THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 28.01.2025, THIS DAY, UMESH M ADIGA, J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2019, passed in O.S.No.149/2017 by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi (for short, `trial Court’). 2. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are daughters and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are sons of one Basavanneppa @ Basappa (for short, `Basavanneppa’). Defendant No.3 is the purchaser of joint family property. By the impugned judgment, suit was partly decreed and same is challenged by the defendant No.3 in this appeal. 3. We refer to the parties according to their ranks before the trial Court. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3958-DB RFA No. 100356 of 2019 4. Brief facts of the case of both the parties before the trial Court are as under: 5. Plaintiffs contend that original propositus of the family of plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 was one Udachappa. He had three sons by name Basavanneppa @ Basappa (father of plaintiffs), Basavantappa and Goudappa. The properties bearing R.S.No.71 and R.S.No.13/3 of Chakalabbi village are ancestral and joint family properties of Udachappa. After the death of Udachappa, both the properties were standing in the name of all the three sons of Udachappa as per ME.No.1954, dated 04.07.1978. In the family partition, schedule No.II-B property i.e. R.S.No.71/2, measuring 3 acres and 2 guntas was allotted to the share of Basavanneppa. 6. Basavanneppa @ Basappa had given up his rights over house property situated at Chakalabbi village to his brother Basavantappa by receiving Rs.40,000/-. With the help of the said funds and from the joint family nucleus, as well as by taking a loan from the bank, Basavaneppa - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3958-DB RFA No. 100356 of 2019 purchased suit scheduled II-A property and constructed a building in the said property. It is also a joint family property of the plaintiffs. Basavanneppa was not the absolute owner of both the suit properties. 7. Basavaneppa was serving in the Police department and his salary income was sufficient to maintain family expenses. In addition to salary income, he was also earning sufficient income from agricultural lands. Hence, there was no necessary to sell the family property. Basavanneppa said to have sold Sy.No.71/2, measuring 3 acres, 2 guntas in favor of defendant No. 3 by the registered Sale Deed dated 02.08.2010, behind the back of plaintiffs. They have not consented for sale of the property. There was no legal or family necessity to sell the same. Hence, it is not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. 8. It is the further contention of the plaintiffs that said Basavanneppa said to have executed a Gift Deed dated 07.09.2015 in favour of defendant No.2. Basavanneppa - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3958-DB RFA No. 100356 of 2019 was not the absolute owner of said property. The said gift was not executed with the consent of plaintiffs. Hence, the said gift is also not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. 9. The said Basavanneppa died on 02.06.2016, leaving behind plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 as his legal heirs. Plaintiffs are married daughters of said Basavanneppa. They have been residing in their respective husband's house. They had no idea about sale or gift of the property. After death of Basavanneppa, plaintiffs found that defendants 1 and 2 were mismanaging the joint family properties. During Deepavali festival in the year 2006, both the plaintiffs demanded defendant Nos.1 and 2 to effect partition and hand over their 1/4th share in the suit properties. At that time, they came to know about the transfers made by Basavanneppa. Defendant No.2 did not heed to the request of plaintiffs and hence they filed the suit for partition and separate possession of their 1/4th share each in the suit schedule property. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3958-DB RFA No. 100356 of 2019 10. Defendant No.1 in his written statement more or less admitted claim of the plaintiffs and he contended that in the event of partition, his 1/4th in the property be allotted to him. 11. The defendant No.2 in his written statement admitted the genealogy. His contentions are that suit schedule II-A property was self-acquired property of Basavanneppa. He purchased the same out of his salary income and constructed the building in the said property by obtaining the loan, as well as his saving from the salary income. It was not a joint family property. He was the absolute owner of the suit property and plaintiffs have no share over the said property. He has further contended that at the time of marriage of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, their father late Basavanneppa had spent huge amount and given them golden ornaments as well as cash to the extent of their shares in the joint family property and even after the death of their father, defendant No.2 gave money to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have also received money - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3958-DB RFA No. 100356 of 2019 when the suit schedule II-B property was sold to defendant No.3 by their father. Plaintiffs knew about all these transactions and impliedly they consented for the said transfers. After death of Basavaneppa and at the instigation of defendant No.1, plaintiffs have filed the false suit. They have no right over the suit schedule properties. Item No.1 of the suit schedule property was gifted to defendant No.2 on 07.09.2015 and he has accepted the said gift. Similarly, item No.II-B of the suit schedule property was sold during year 2010 and the present suit was filed during the year 2017. Therefore, suit is hopelessly barred by time. With these reasons, defendant No.2 prayed to dismiss the suit with cost. 12. Defendant No.3 contended that suit schedule II-B property was sold for legal necessity by Basavanneppa in his favour. He is a bona fide purchaser of the suit property for valuable consideration. All the properties of the family have not been included in the suit. Hence, the suit is not maintainable. The sale deed - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3958-DB RFA No. 100356 of 2019 executed in his favor was signed by mother of plaintiffs and defendant 1 and 2. Therefore, they cannot claim any share in the suit property. With these reasons, they prayed to dismiss the suit with cost. 13. From the rival contentions of the parties, the trial court framed following issues: 1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are members, constitute Undivided Joint Family and suit properties are a Hindu ancestral and joint family properties? 2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that suit is filed within limitation period? 3) Whether the defendant No.2 proves that schedule II-A property was self acquired property of his father Basavanneppa @ Basappa and he gifted said property in his favour and he is absolute owner of the same? 4) Whether the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 prove that the suit is not properly valued and proper court fee is not paid? 5) Whether the defendant No.3 proves that he is bona fide purchaser of item No.B of schedule II property for valuable consideration without notice and entitled for equitable partition? 6) Whether the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 prove that they are entitled for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share each in the suit properties by metes and bounds? - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3958-DB RFA No. 100356 of 2019 7) What order or decree? 14. Plaintiffs to prove their case, examined plaintiff No.1 as PW1 and they got marked 8 documents as per Exs.P1 to P8. Defendant No.1 got examined himself as DW.1, defendant No.2(a) examined two witnesses – DW.2 and DW.3 and on their behalf got marked Exs.D1 to D3 were marked. Defendant No.3 did not lead any evidence before the trial Court. 15. The trial Court after hearing both the parties and appreciating pleadings and evidence available on record answered issue Nos.1 and 6 partly in the affirmative issue Nos. 2 and 3 in the affirmative, issue No.4 in the negative and by the impugned judgment, partly decreed the suit. The trial court awarded 1/5th share to each of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule II-B property. Their claim for partition of the suit schedule II-A property was rejected. Being aggrieved by the said order of granting of shares to the plaintiff in respect of II-B property, i.e. sy.No.71/3, defendant No.3 filed this appeal. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3958-DB RFA No. 100356 of 2019 16. Plaintiffs have not challenged the impugned judgment and decree rejecting their claim to grant the share in respect of Schedule II-A, i.e. house property situated at Gamanagatti. Therefore, there is no need to consider the said points in the present appeal. 17. We have heard the arguments of learned advocate for appellant and respondents. 18. The learned counsel for appellant would submit that the suit property was sold by Basavanneppa as Kartha of the joint family. Sale deed was signed by wife and two sons of Basavanneppa as consenting witnesses. It is specifically mentioned in the sale deed that for discharging of debt and also for family necessity, the said property was sold by Basavanneppa. Therefore, as a karta of the family, he had every right to sell the property. Plaintiffs have no right to challenge the same. He further submitted that, defendant No.3 was a bona fide purchaser of suit schedule property for valuable consideration. It is further contended that the trial court has adopted different - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3958-DB RFA No. 100356 of 2019 standard for both the transfers. The trial court rejected claim of the plaintiffs in respect of II-A property and granted the relief in respect of II-B property without any proper reasons. The trial court did not consider the contentions of defendant No.3 that the sale made in favor of defendant No.3 was for legal necessity and family benefit and he is the bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration. 19. The learned counsel for appellant has further submitted that the suit schedule II-B property was self-acquired property of father of Basavaneppa and after his death, his son succeeded to the said property by virtue of Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act. After partition, the said property became his absolute property and not a co-parcenery property. During his lifetime, he was entitled to sell the said property. Plaintiffs have no right to object for the same. This fact was not considered by the trial court. Therefore, the finding of the trial court is erroneous - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3958-DB RFA No. 100356 of 2019 and prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment. 20. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would submit that it is not in dispute that sy.No.71/3 is a ancestral and joint family property. Defendant No.3 has not made out a case that it was self-acquired property of Udachappa i.e. father of Basavenappa. The said contention is taken up for the first time in this appeal and such contention cannot be acceptable. Defendant No.3 has not stepped into witness box and tried to prove his defence. The recitals of the sale deed do not disclose that it was sold for any family necessity or benefit of the family and no materials are placed on record to prove the same. Therefore, the said contention is not acceptable. It is further submitted that on looking to the mutation extract one can clearly come to know that Sy. No.71/3 was succeeded by Basavanneppa from his father and it was not his self acquired property. The defendant No.3 knew that Basavanneppa had two daughters. Defendant No.3 is said - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3958-DB RFA No. 100356 of 2019 to have taken signatures of wife and sons of Basavaneppa as a consenting witnesses, but even he did not intimate the sale of the property to the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, who are co-parceners of the family. It is further submitted that after coming into force of Hindu Succession Amendment Act to Section 6, plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 became co-parceners of the family. Therefore, they are entitled for share in the joint family property. The alleged sale made by Basavanneppa in favor of defendant No.3 was subsequent to coming into force of the said Amendment Act. In view of the said reasons, the sale made in favor of defendant No. 3 is not binding on the rights of the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2. They are entitled for share in the said property. The learned trial Judge has considered these facts in detail and awarded the share to the plaintiffs. There is no illegality in the said findings. With these reasons, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 prayed to dismiss the appeal with cost. 21. Following points emerge for our determination: - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3958-DB RFA No. 100356 of 2019 i. Whether the learned trial judge erred in holding that sy.No.71/3 i.e property at schedule II-B was ancestral and Joint Family Property.? ii. Whether the learned trial Judge erred in not holding that defendant No.3 is bona fide purchaser of suit schedule property for valuable consideration? iii. Whether the learned trial Judge erred in granting the relief in favor of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and interference in the said finding is required? iv. What Order? 22. We answer above three points in the Negative for the following reasons: Point number 1: 23. It is a consistent case and evidence of PW1 that Sy.No.71/3 is an ancestral and joint family property of their family. The genealogy of the family is at Ex.P-1 which is not disputed. Ex.P-2 reveals that after death of Udachappa, records were mutated in respect of Sy.No.71/2, 3A/A and 13/3 in the name of his three sons. This document is also not in serious dispute. Defendant - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3958-DB RFA No. 100356 of 2019 No.3 did not produce any document to show that the said survey No.71 was acquired by Udachappa from his own income or it was his self-acquired property. If it were his self-acquired property, then his sons would have succeeded to the said property under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act. It was not the contention of defendant No.3 before the trial Court that Udachappa was the absolute owner of said property and Basavanneppa succeeded to it under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act. Defendant No.3 did not lead evidence before the trial Court. Said contention is taken for the first time in this appeal. Therefore, such contention cannot be considered for the first time during the appeal. 24. It is a pleading and evidence of plaintiffs that after death of Udachappa, his three sons partitioned the joint family properties and in the said partition, the properties bearing Sy.No.71, measuring 3 acres 02 guntas were allotted to the share of Basavanneppa and it was renumbered as Sy.No.71/2. This fact was not seriously - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3958-DB RFA No. 100356 of 2019 disputed by defendants. After coming into forcer of amendment to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, female heirs are also coparceners. Hence, plaintiffs are coparceners of the family of Basavanneppa. They had not participated in execution of Sale Deed. They have a share in the suit schedule property. Hence, Sale Deed executed in favour of defendant No.3 is not binding on their rights over the said property. 25. Defendant No.3 contends that some of the joint family properties were not included in the present suit. There is no pleadings to that effect. In the cross- examination, it was suggested to PW1 that the Basavanneppa had a house No.A/11 at Gamanagatti village and he also had a house at Chakalabi Village bearing No.121 and both the properties were not included in the present suit. She answered to this question. She has stated that “during the year 1997, Basavanneppa sold the said house property. She further stated that VPC No.121 was allotted to share of her father and he has - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3958-DB RFA No. 100356 of 2019 given up his right over the said property in favour of his brothers after taking Rs.40,000/- and said transfer was made during the year 1996-97”. Therefore, contention of the appellant that said property is not included in the present suit and hence suit is bad for not including all the joint family property is not sustainable. Moreover, Plaintiffs are considered as became co-parceners only after coming into force of Section 6 of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. Till that time, they were not co-parceners. Hence, she cannot claim share in the said properties. 26. Defendant No.3 has not produced any document of the properties said to be held by Basavanneppa during his lifetime and not included in the plaint to contend that the suit is bad for partial partition. 27. Defendant No.3 tried to contend in this appeal that one of the property belonging to Defendant No. 1 was not added in the present suit. Admittedly defendant No.1 is serving in the Police department. He has independent source of income. As per the evidence of PW-1 as well as - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3958-DB RFA No. 100356 of 2019 DW-1, he purchased the said property out of his own income. There are no materials placed on record by the defendant No.3, to prove that property is also belonging to the joint family or acquired by father of the plaintiffs’ Basavanneppa. Hence, non-inclusion of the said property in the present suit is not a fatal. 28. Oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs reveal that suit schedule II-B property is ancestral and joint family property of Basavanneppa, plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2. Plaintiffs being coparceners have right over the said property as on the date of sale of the property in favour of defendant No.3. Admittedly, the sale was made during the year 2010 i.e., subsequent to coming into force of amendment to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act. Hence, learned trial Judge rightly held it as joint family property. Hence, we answer Point No.1 in the negative. 29. Point No.2 :- Defendant No.3 is a resident of Gamanagatti village, which is not in dispute. Deceased - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3958-DB RFA No. 100356 of 2019 Basavaneppa was also a resident of the said village. It is not the case of Defendant No.3 that he had no idea that plaintiffs were legal heirs of Basavanneppa. Defendant No.3 obtained signatures of wife and two sons of Basavanneppa as a consenting witnesses to the sale deed. But he totally ignored the presence of plaintiffs. There is no explanation by the defendant No.3 for not taking of their consent while executing the Sale Deed. Since defendant No.3 did not enter the witness box, there is no evidence to hold that he enquired with Basavanneppa about his other legal heirs. In the facts and circumstances of the case, one can infer that the said sale deed was executed behind the back of plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2, who were the co-parceners as on the date of the said sale deed. 30. Recitals of Ex.D4 shows that “the said property was sold by Basavaneppa @ Basappa for legal necessity, to repay the debt and he was finding it difficult to cultivate the said land.” To substantiate the said - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3958-DB RFA No. 100356 of 2019 contention, defendant No.3 did not enter the witness box and give the particulars of the said debts incurred by the family. It is assertive case of defendant No.3 that Basavaneppa @ Basappa sold the said property for his legal necessity and to repay the debt incurred by the family. Defendant No.3 did not prove the said contention. Both the parties had right over the said property. Their consent was not taken for sale. Hence, it does not bind the rights of the plaintiffs. Basavanneppa was serving in the Police department up to 2000. In the cross- examination of plaintiffs or defendants, defendant No. 3 did not bring out regarding the outstanding debt of the Basavanneppa prior to sale of the said property. Therefore, the contention that the said property was sold for legal and family necessity or to repay the debt is not proved by the defendant No.3. The learned trial Judge has considered these facts and came to right conclusion. For the above said reasons, we answer Point No.2 in the negative. - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3958-DB RFA No. 100356 of 2019 31. The learned counsel for appellant has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex court in the case of UTTAM VS. SAUBHAG SINGH AND OTHERS1 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above judgment held that: “Recitals in a sale deed, of legal necessity, do not by themselves prove the legal necessity. Further, the recitals are, however, admissible in evidence, their value varying according to the circumstances in which the transaction was entered into, the recital may be used to corroborate other evidence on existence of legal necessity. In the instant case, legal representatives of defendant No.6 was examined as DW.1. Defendant No.6 has not examined the attesting witness to the registered sale deed, who are the better persons to depose in regard to the legal necessity. Defendant No.6 withheld the attesting witness to the registered sale deed. An adverse inference has to be drawn against defendant No.6 for withholding the attesting witness. Defendant No.6 had failed to prove that the sale was for the family and legal necessity”. 32. It is not the case of defendant No. 3 that sy.No. 71 was self-acquired property of Udachappa. Defendant 1 (2016) 4 SCC 68 - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3958-DB RFA No. 100356 of 2019 No.3 did not produce a document to prove the said contention. On the contrary, it is a case of plaintiffs and not disputed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 that the said Sy.No.71 was the ancestral property of Udachappa and after his death, plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 succeeded to the said property. The law laid down in the case of Uttam (supra), is not applicable to the facts of present case. Basavanneppa had succeeded to the property under Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act since it was an ancestral and joint family property and hence, he cannot be considered as an absolute owner of the property. Prior to sale of the said property, plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 were born and they had a right over the said property. In view of coming into force of Amended Hindu Succession Act, Section 6, plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 became co-parceners and have right over said property by birth and hence, Basavanneppa had no right to execute the sale deed on behalf of plaintiff Nos.1 & 2. These facts were properly and rightly considered by the trial court. - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3958-DB RFA No. 100356 of 2019 33. The appellant even disputed a calculation of shares of plaintiff in respect of the suit properties. It is not in dispute that Basavanneppa had four children i.e., plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2. Hence in the notional partition, Basavanneppa, his two sons and two daughters are entitled for a share i.e., each entitled for 1/5th share. Accordingly, the learned trial judge awarded 1/5th share each to plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 in the plaint schedule II-B of the property in favor of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2. There is no error committed by the trial court. 34. The learned trial judge has properly appreciated the evidence and came to right conclusion and It doesn't call for any interference by this court. For the aforesaid discussions, we answer point Nos.1 to 3 in the negative and we are of the view that the learned trial judge has properly appreciated the evidence and granted the relief in favor of appellants in respect of suit II-B schedule property. Accordingly, we pass the following: - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3958-DB RFA No. 100356 of 2019 ORDER. Appeal is dismissed. No orders as to costs. The Judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.149 of 2017, dated 10.04.2019 by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi, is hereby confirmed. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, all the pending IAs. do not survive and accordingly they are disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2