- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6421 RSA No. 7427 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 7427 OF 2010 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. RANAPPA S/O MAREPPA SINCE DECEASED BY ITS LR'S 1(1) NEELABAI W/O RANAPPA, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O SY. NO.5, SANTA JNANESHWAR NAGAR, KONDWA KURD, PUNA-48, NEAR KAKADI WASTI, AT PRESENT R/O. SINDAGI (B) VILLAGE, TQ. & DIST. GULBARGA. 1(2) KAMALABAI W /O BHIMSHA ADAM, AGE:50 YEARS, R/O. QUARTER NO.7, NEAR HUNASI HADGIL RAILWAY STATION. 1(3) MALLESH S/O RANAPPA, AGE:48 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O SY.NO.5, SANTA JNANESHWAR NAGAR, KONDWA KURD, PUNA-48, NEAR KAKADI WASTI, AT PRESENT R/O. SINDAGI (B) VILLAGE, TQ. & DIST. GULBARGA. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6421 RSA No. 7427 of 2010 1(4) MAHADEV S/O RANAPPA, AGE:47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O SY.NO.5, SANTA JNANESHWAR NAGAR, KONDWA KURD, PUNA-48, NEAR KAKADI WASTI, AT PRESENT R/O SINDAGI (B) VILLAGE, TQ. & DIST. GULBARGA. 1(5) SANGEETA W/O MARUTI KAMBLE, AGE:40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. PARVATIBAI, BESIDE POWER HOUSE, BEHIND SAHAKARI NAGAR, POLICE STATION, PUNE. 1(6) SHANTABAI W/O SHIVAJI BHANDARI, AGE:38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O SY. NO.5, VIT OPP. COLLEGE RONDWA BUJURG, PUNA-48. 1(7) ARJUN S/O RANAPPA KAMBLE, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O 1/40 P.M.C. COLONY, BILAWE WADI, NEAR KOTARI BLOCK, PUNE-37. 1(8) SHARADA W/O AMBADAS SURYAWANSHI, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O 1/40 P.M.C. COLONY, BILAWE WADI, NEAR KOTARI BLOCK, PUNE-37. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI DEEPAK V. BARAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SADASHIVA S/O RANAPP SARADAGI, AGE:45 YEARS, OCC: GARDNER AT CHANDRASHEKHAR PATIL STADIUM, GULBARGA. R/O NAGANHALLI, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6421 RSA No. 7427 of 2010 TQ. & DIST. GULBARGA 2. LAKKAMMA W/O RANAPP SARADAGI, AGE:62 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE, R/O. NAGANHALLI, TQ. & DIST. GULBARGA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R.D. SAGAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AT GULBARGA PASSED IN O.S.NO. 303 OF 2007 DATED 10-8- 2009 AND THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN R.A. NO.107/2010 DATED 25-8-2010 AND DISMISS THE SUIT AND ALLOW THE APPEAL. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL) This Regular Second Appeal is by the original defendant Ranappa, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated *10.08.2009 passed in O.S.No.303 of 2007 on the file of I-Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Kalaburagi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for brevity] which had decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents * Corrected vide chamber order dated 22.04.2026 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6421 RSA No. 7427 of 2010 herein for partition and separate possession, allotting 1/3rd share each to plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the defendant, which is confirmed by the judgment and order dated 25.08.2010 passed in R.A.No.107 of 2010 on the file of the Fast Track Court No.1 at Kalaburagi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’ for brevity]. 2. The above suit in O.S.No.303 of 2007 is filed by the plaintiffs/respondents herein seeking partition and separate possession of property bearing Sy.No.139/03 measuring 4 acres 35 guntas and a house property bearing No.3-224, both situated at Sindagi (B) Village, taluk and district Kalaburagi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit properties’ for brevity] contending inter alia that plaintiff No.1 is the son and plaintiff No.2 is the wife of defendant. That plaintiffs and the defendant constitute a Hindu undivided joint family, possessing suit properties being the ancestral family properties. The suit properties were nominally standing in the name of defendant, while plaintiff No.1 was cultivating the same. The defendant was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6421 RSA No. 7427 of 2010 addicted to bad vices, incurring loans and liabilities with an intention of preventing plaintiffs from succeeding to the properties. Plaintiffs had requested for partition which was refused. Accordingly, the suit was filed. 3. Defendant in his written statement denied the relationship of the plaintiffs and also denied that the plaintiffs and the defendant formed part of the joint family. He contended that the plaintiffs have no share, right, title or interest in the suit properties. That his real wife is one Neelamma, and that he has got 4 daughters and 3 sons, who are his true legal heirs and the coparceners. That he has applied for mutation of the suit land in the name of his three sons, namely Malleshi, Mahadeva and Arjun and since the plaintiffs have objected for the same, the proceedings in RRT No.9 of 2007-2008 are pending consideration. That plaintiff No.2- Lakshmamma was earlier married to him and after she getting separated from him about 10 to 12 years ago, she married to one Ranappa Kaganamaddi and out of the said - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6421 RSA No. 7427 of 2010 marriage, plaintiff No.1 was born. That the defendant having married to Neelamma, has been living in Pune, with his family for more than 35 to 40 years, working in CMC Pune. That plaintiff No.2 – Lakshmamma’s late husband Ranappa Kaganamaddi was an ex-employee of MSK Mill, Gulbarga. He was residing at Sundar Nagar, Gulbarga. There is no relationship of any nature whatsoever between the plaintiffs and the defendant. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit. 4. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they constitute joint family co-parcenry with the defendant? 2. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that the suit property is joint family property of the co-parcenary held by the plaintiffs and the defendant? 3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled to the share in the suit property? If so; what is the share of each plaintiff? 4. What order or Decree?” 5. Seven witnesses have been examined on behalf of the plaintiffs and one document Exhibit P-1 is produced. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6421 RSA No. 7427 of 2010 Six witnesses have been examined on behalf of the defendant and sixteen documents are produced as Exhibits-D1 to D16. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court decreed the suit as noted above. 6. Being aggrieved, the defendant preferred regular appeal in R.A.No.107 of 2010. Considering the grounds urged, the First Appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration: “1. Whether the plaintiffs are the son and wife of the defendant and are entitled for their alleged share each in the suit schedule properties of the defendant? 2. Whether the impugned judgment dated 10-08- 2009 in O.S.No.303/07 on the file of Ist Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Gulbarga is devoid of merits on the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum? 3. What order?” 7. On re-appreciation of the evidence, the First Appellate Court answered the point No.1 in the affirmative and point No.2 in the negative and consequently dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree passed by - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6421 RSA No. 7427 of 2010 the Trial Court. Being aggrieved, the defendant has preferred the present Regular Second Appeal. 8. It appears, during the pendency of the appeal, defendant passed away, consequently, his second wife- Neelamma and children born out of the second marriage have been brought on record as appellant Nos.1(1) to 1(8). 9. This Court, by order dated 10.10.2025 admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial question of law: “When admittedly the suit schedule property is ancestral property at the hands of defendant, whether the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are justified in granting 1/3rd share each in favour of plaintiff No.1 who is the son and plaintiff No.2 who is the wife of defendant?” 10. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 11. Since the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, on appreciation of evidence, have concurrently held that the relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant indeed existed, and in the absence of any - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6421 RSA No. 7427 of 2010 perversity in appreciation of evidence being shown, the finding and conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court on this aspect of the matter is confirmed. 12. The question that may have to be looked into is whether the plaintiff No.2 being the wife would be entitled for the share in the joint family property. 13. Admittedly, the suit properties are the ancestral properties. In the absence of specific provision of law, custom and usage, a wife of a coparcener cannot be considered as a coparcener. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, have lost sight of this aspect of the matter, while granting her 1/3rd equal share to plaintiff No.2, who is the first wife of original defendant. 14. Consequently, the suit properties will have to be divided equally between the plaintiff No.1 and the original defendant. Since the original defendant stated to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6421 RSA No. 7427 of 2010 have passed away, out of the share allocable to the original defendant, the further partition will have to be carried out allotting shares to his heirs namely plaintiff No.1, his first wife plaintiff No.2 and children of original defendant from his second wife who are arrayed as Appellant No.1(1) to 1(8). Thus, plaintiff No.1 will be entitled for ½ share in notional partition plus 1/18th share as heir i.e. in total he is entitled for ½ + 1/18th share = 10/18th share, plaintiff No.2 will be entitled for 1/18th share and the appellants i.e., legal representatives of original defendant will be entitled for 1/18th share each in the suit properties. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The judgment and decree *10.08.2009 passed in O.S.No.303 of 2007 on the file of I-Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Kalaburagi which is confirmed by the judgment and order dated 25.08.2010 passed in * Corrected vide chamber order dated 22.04.2026 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:6421 RSA No. 7427 of 2010 R.A.No.107 of 2010 on the file of the Fast Track Court No.1 at Kalaburagi is modified as stated above i.e., plaintiff No.1 will be entitled for 10/18th share, plaintiff No.2 will be entitled for 1/18th share and appellants herein will be entitled for 1/18th share each in the suit properties. (iii) Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. (iv) Draw decree accordingly. Sd/- (M.G.S.KAMAL) JUDGE SWK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2 CT:PK