- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9533 RFA No. 100312 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100312 OF 2018 (PAR/POS-) BETWEEN: 1. RAMACHANDRA VISHWESHWARA BHAT A/A: 83 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST. 2. SEETA W/O RAMACHANDRA BHAT A/A: 74 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD. 3. VINAYAK RAMACHANDRA BHAT A/A: 46 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, ALL R/O: RAMANAGULLA, KALLESHWAR VILLAGE, TQ: ANKOLA-581314, U.K. DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. A.P HEGDE JANMANE & SRI VIJAY MALALI, ADVS A3 IS ABATED) AND: 1. GANAPATI RAMACHNDRA BHAT A/A 55 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O: SANGVE VILLAGE, TQ: JOIDA, U.K. DISTRICT-581186. 2. NARASIMHA RAMACHANDRA BHAT A/A 50 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, S.M.HEBBAR OFFICE, KALAMMA NAGAR, YELLAPUR, U.K. DISTRICT-581359. 3. VISHWESHWARA RAMACHNDRA BHAT A/A 57 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O KONAL IN KALLESHWAR VILLAGE, TQ: ANKOLA-581314, U.K. DISTRICT. 4. SHRIPAD RAMACHNDRA BHAT MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.16 12:13:53 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9533 RFA No. 100312 of 2018 A/A 49 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O KALACHE, TQ: ANKOLA, U.K. DISTRICT-581359. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADV FOR R1 & R4, APPEAL IS ABATED AGAINST THE R2 & R3) THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENET AND DECREE DATED 25.04.2018 PASSED IN O.S. NO.19/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, YELLAPUR, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) Learned counsel for appellants submits that the appellant No.2, respondents No.2 and 3 passed away long back, and he submits that the appellants have not filed necessary application to bring the legal representatives of the deceased appellant No.2, respondents No.2 and 3. He further submits that the appeal abates against appellant No.2, respondents No.2 and 3. Hence, he submits that the appeal may be dismissed as abated. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9533 RFA No. 100312 of 2018 2. In view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hemareddy (dead) through Legal Representatives vs. Ramachandra Yallappa Hosmani1 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph No.14 has held as follows: "14. Admittedly, steps were not taken for substitution in regard to the second appellant. The appeal, therefore, abated qua him as is declared by Order XXII Rule 3(2). Though this is all that the Order XXII Rule 2 declares, the principle has evolved that in certain kinds of litigation, the consequences of abatement qua a party are not limited to the deceased party alone but it affects all the other parties and the litigation itself. In other words, a suit or an appeal as the case may be, would suffer an untimely demise by the proceeding abating as a whole." 3. Also in view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Suresh Chandra (deceased) Thr. Lrs. and Others vs. Parasram and Others2 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has referred to 1 (2019) 6 SCC 756 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1472 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9533 RFA No. 100312 of 2018 the judgment in the case of Hemareddy (supra) in paragraph No.19 and in paragraph No.25 held that the underlying principle in the aforesaid decisions is that in respect of the subject matter of a suit or a proceeding arising therefrom, the Court cannot pass inconsistent decrees. In consequence, if, due to non-substitution of legal representatives of a deceased party, the decree qua the deceased party has attained finality by abatement of proceedings qua him, the Court cannot proceed further if a reversal or modification of the decree under appeal would result in conflicting or inconsistent decrees. Therefore, in such a situation, the appeal would abate in its entirety. 4. Admittedly, the appellants have failed to bring the legal representatives of the deceased appellant No.2, respondents No.2 and 3. Since the appeal is filed against the judgment in a suit for partition and separate possession and as the common interest is involved, the entire appeal abates. Accordingly, considering the ratio - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9533 RFA No. 100312 of 2018 laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Suresh Chandra (supra), the appeal is dismissed as abated. 5. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending IA’s, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE NAA CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12