- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2106 RSA No. 6168 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 6168 OF 2012 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI. AYYAPPA S/O. MUDAKAPPA KOUJALGI, AGED ABOUT: 54 YEARS, R/AT: KATARAKI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE- 587103. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. SANGAPPA JAMADAR, AGED ABOUT: 36 YEARS, R/AT: JAMADAR ONI, HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOTE- 587103. 2. SMT. GANGAVVA W/O. AYYAPPA KOUJALGI, AGED ABOUT: 49 YEARS, R/AT: KATARAKI, TQ:BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE- 587103. 3. KUMAR KUDAKAPPA S/O. AYYAPPA KOUJALGI, AGED ABOUT: 17 YEARS, R/AT: KATARAKI, TQ:BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE- 587103. MINOR, R/BY HIS MOTHER SMT. GANGAVVA W/O. AYYAPPA KOUJALGI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, SRI. VISHWANATH HEDGE, AND V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.05 15:15:06 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2106 RSA No. 6168 of 2012 SMT TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATES FOR R1 R2 AND R3 SERVED UNREPRESENTED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:20.07.2012 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BILAGI AT BILAGI PASSED IN R.A. NO.6 OF 2011 AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.03.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.42 OF 2007 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE, BILAGI AND DISMISS THE SUIT BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH) This Appeal is preferred by defendant No.1, challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2012, passed in RA No.6/2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bilagi, (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’), dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 18.03.2011 in OS No.42/2007 on the file of Civil Judge, Bilagi (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’) decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2106 RSA No. 6168 of 2012 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the original propositus- Mudakappa died on 02.05.1977 leaving behind his only son Ayyappa-defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 married Sannatangevva, and in their wedlock plaintiff is born. The defendant No.1 married Gangavva (second wife–defendant No.2) and in their wedlock six children were born. Defendant No.3 is the son of defendant Nos.1 and 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff is having share in the suit schedule property and same was denied by the defendants and as such the plaintiff has filed OS No.329/2005 and same was re- numbered as OS No.42/2007 before the Trial Court. 4. After service of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is the specific contention of the defendant No.1 that since, the first wife Sannatangevva had no male children and therefore, with the consent of the first wife he married defendant No.2 and also stated that he had relinquished 3 acres 21 guntas of land as maintenance in favour of first wife- Sannatangevva accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2106 RSA No. 6168 of 2012 5. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings on record, has formulated issues and additional issue for its consideration. In order to establish their case, plaintiff herself was examined as PW1 and produced 10 documents, which were marked as Exhibits P1 to P10. On the other hand, two witnesses were examined by the defendants as DW1 and 2 and produced 6 documents, which were marked as Exhibits D1 to D6. 6. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 18.03.2011, decreed the suit in-part, holding that, the plaintiff is entitled for ½ share in the suit schedule property. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant No.1 has preferred RA No.06/2011 before the First Appellate Court and same was resisted by the respondents therein. The First Appellate Court after appreciating the material on record by its judgment and decree dated 20.07.2012, dismissed the appeal consequently confirmed the judgment and decree in OS No.42/2007. Feeling aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 has preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 7. This Court vide order dated 18.09.2015 formulated the following substantial question of law; - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2106 RSA No. 6168 of 2012 “i) Whether the courts below are justified in granting half share in favour of the plaintiff ignoring the provisions of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act? ii) Whether the Trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit granting half share when the plaintiff has not impleaded all the children of the appellant/propositus of the family in the suit? iii) Whether the Trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit granting half share to the plaintiff, when the suit itself was not maintainable during the lifetime of the father?” 8. I have heard Sri. Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi, learned counsel appearing for appellant and Sri. Vishwanath Hegde, learned counsel appearing for respondents. 9. Sri. Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi, learned counsel appearing for appellant contended that both the Courts below committed an error as the suit schedule property is to be devolved to the children born to the second wife – defendant No.2 and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. 10. Per contra, Sri. Vishwanath Hedge, learned counsel appearing for respondents supported the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2106 RSA No. 6168 of 2012 11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have perused the original records. In order to understand the relationship between the parties the genealogy of the parties is extracted below: Mudakappa (Propositus-dead) Aiyappa (deft. No.1) Sanna Tangewwa Gangawwa (Deft. No.2) (1st wife) (2nd wife) Mahadevi (plaintiff) Nagawwa Mallawwa Rukamawwa Mudakappa Savitri Mallappa (Deft. No.3) 12. On perusal of the genealogy of the parties makes it clear that, the plaintiff is the daughter of Sannatangevva (first wife of defendant No.1) and the defendant No.2 is the second wife of defendant No.1. The Defendant No.3 is the son of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. It is not in dispute that the defendant No.1 got the schedule property from his father which is ancestral property. 13. In that view of the matter, applying the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Revanasiddappa and Another Vs. Mallikarjun and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2106 RSA No. 6168 of 2012 Others1, the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below is just and proper it does not call for interference in this appeal. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24 1 (2023) 10 SCC 1