- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3165 RSA No. 101131 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 101131 OF 2022 (DEC/PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI NINGAPPA S/O NEELAPPA GIRENNAVAR AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HIREBUDANUR, TQ. SAUDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591128. 2. SHRI. RANGESH S/O NINGAPPA GIRENNAVAR AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HIREBUDANUR, TQ. SAUDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591128. 3. SMT. GANGAWWA W/O DODDASHIDDAPPA SURANNAVAR AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HIREBUDANUR, TQ. SAUDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591128. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI GIRISH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MAYAWWA W/O MALLAPPA GIRENNAVAR AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HIREBUDANUR, NOW AT MALAGALLI, TQ. SAUDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591128. 2. SMT. LALITA W/O. LAKKAPPA GIRENNAVAR AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MALAGALLI, TQ. SAUDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591128. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3165 RSA No. 101131 of 2022 3. KUM. VARUN S/O. LAKKAPPA GIRENNAVAR AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. MALAGALLI, TQ. SAUDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591128. 4. MISS. MEGHA D/O. LAKKAPPA GIRENNAVAR AGE: 11 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. MALAGALLI, TQ. SAUDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591128. 5. MISS. SHREYA D/O. LAKKAPPA GIRENNAVAR AGE: 8 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. MALAGALLI, TQ. SAUDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591128. 6. MISS. VARSHA D/O. LAKKAPPA GIRENNAVAR AGE: 8 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. MALAGALLI, TQ. SAUDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591128. (SINCE RESPONDENT NO.2 IS THE MOTHER GUARDIAN OF RESPONDENT 3 TO 6) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P.G.CHIKKANARAGUND, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR B. HORATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R3 TO R6 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN R.A.NO.35/2020 DATED 06.08.2022 PASSED BY THE XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BELAGAVI AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN O.S.NO.41/2015 DATED 27.08.2018 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SAUDATTI AND ALLOW THE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3165 RSA No. 101131 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH) This appeal is filed by the defendants No.2 to 4 challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.08.2022 in R.A.No.35/2020 on the file of the XI Additional District Judge, Belagavi (for short “the First Appellate Court”) dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2018 in O.S.No.41/2015 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti (for short “the Trial Court”) decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. The parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule ‘A’ property is the joint family property of the plaintiff and her son-defendant No.1. The defendants No.2 and 3 are the father and son and distant relatives of plaintiff. It is stated in the plaint that one Neelappa was the original propositus of the property and on his demise, his two sons viz., Mallappa (husband of Mayavva) and Meelagireppa inherited the said - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3165 RSA No. 101131 of 2022 property. It is also stated that the said Meelagireppa died leaving behind his three daughters viz., Basavva, Siddavva and Kenchavva. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property is belonged to the husband of the plaintiff (Mallappa). The defendant No.2 to 4 are claiming right over the property based on an unregistered relinquishment deed dated 12.04.2000 and therefore, the plaintiff has filed suit seeking declaration regarding the same. 3.1. On service of notice, defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement. It is the case of the legal heirs of defendant No.1 that the schedule property was in joint possession of the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 and the said property is belonging to Mallappa (husband of the plaintiff). The legal heirs of defendant No.1 supported the contention of the plaintiff. 3.2. Defendant No.3 entered appearance by filing the written statement stating that the son of the plaintiff- Lakkappa had executed the relinquishment deed in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of the land bearing Survey No.274 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3165 RSA No. 101131 of 2022 measuring 4 Acre 17 Guntas of Hirebudanur village as per the relinquishment deed dated 12.04.2000 before the witnesses and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit stating that the revenue records have been transferred into his name and he is in possession of the said property. 3.3. Based on the pleadings on record, the Trial Court framed issues and additional issues for its consideration. In order to establish their right, the plaintiff has examined herself as PW1 and produced 12 documents , which were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. On the other hand, the defendants have examined two witnesses as DW1 and DW2 and produced 8 documents, which were marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D8. 4. The Trial Court, by its judgment and decree dated 27.08.2018 decreed the suit and feeling aggrieved by the same, defendant No.2 to 4 have preferred R.A.No.35/2020 before the First appellate Court. The said appeal was resisted by the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court, by its judgment and decreed 06.08.2022 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree in O.S.No.41/2025. Feeling aggrieved - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3165 RSA No. 101131 of 2022 by the same, the defendant No.2 to 4 have preferred this appeal. 5. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that both the Courts below have not considered Ex.D1 wherein the land in question has been relinquished by the son of the plaintiff/defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent sought to justify the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below by stating that the relinquishment deed said to have been placed reliance by defendant No.2 to 4 is unregistered document and same would not confer title in favour of defendant No.2 to 4 and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the land in question is a joint family property of Nelappa - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3165 RSA No. 101131 of 2022 and his son Mallappa (the husband of plaintiff and father of defendant No.1). Taking into consideration the fact that the said property is joint family property and the defendant No.2 to 4 are placing reliance on an unregistered document at Ex.P4, said to have been considered as relinquishment deed executed by original defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 to 4 and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yellapu Uma Maheswari & Anr v. Buddha Jagadheeswararao & others1, I am of the view that the unregistered document-relinquishment deed does not confer title to the transferee. In that view of the matter, both the Courts below have rightly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff holding that the relinquishment deed (Ex.P4) said to have been executed by the son of the plaintiff (original defendant No.1) in favour of defendant No.2 to 4 cannot be considered as a valid document to confer title in favour of defendant No.2 to 4. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the appeal. 1 (2015) 16 SCC 787 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3165 RSA No. 101131 of 2022 9. In view of the above, the appeal stands dismissed at the stage of admission itself since the appellant has not made out a case for formulation of substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of CPC. 10. 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.GSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16