- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18006-DB RFA No. 100003 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI R.F.A. NO.100003 OF 2019 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: YALLAWWA BILLI D/O. NAGAPPA, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: NURSE, R/O. P.H.C., BANDAR HALLI, TQ. SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591126. …APPELLANT (BY SRI C. S. SHETTAR, ADV. FOR SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. YALLAWWA BILLI W/O. MUDAKAPPA, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAMADAPUR, TQ. GOKAK-591307. 2. ANAND BILLI S/O. MUDAKAPPA, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAMADAPUR, TQ. GOKAK-591307, DIST. BELAGAVI. 3. BALAPPA BILLI S/O. MUDAKAPPA, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAMADAPUR, TQ. GOKAK-591307, DIST. BELAGAVI. 4. DURAGAPPA BILLI S/O. MUDAKAPPA, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAMADAPUR, TQ. GOKAK-591307, DIST. BELAGAVI. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18006-DB RFA No. 100003 of 2019 5. UDDAWWA BILLI D/O. MUDAKAPPA, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAMADAPUR, TQ. GOKAK-591307, DIST. BELAGAVI. 6. LAKKAPPA BILLI S/O. MUDAKAPPA, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAMADAPUR, TQ. GOKAK-591307, DIST. BELAGAVI. 7. RENUKA BILLI D/O. MUDAKAPPA, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAMADAPUR, TQ. GOKAK-591307, DIST. BELAGAVI. 8. CHANNAPPA BILLI S/O. MUDAKAPPA, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAMADAPUR, TQ. GOKAK-591307, DIST. BELAGAVI. 9. MUAKAPPA BILLI S/O. DURAGAPPA, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAMADAPUR, TQ. GOKAK-591307, DIST. BELAGAVI. 10. DHARMANNA BILLI S/O. NAGAPPA, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. AJJANKATTI, TQ. GOKAK-591307, DIST. BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S. V. YAJI, ADV. FOR R10; NOTICE TO R1 TO R9 IS SERVED, BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 C.P.C., PRAYING TO ADMIT THE APPEAL AND CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW THE APPEAL SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN O.S.NO.10/2012 DATED 07.09.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GOKAK AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18006-DB RFA No. 100003 of 2019 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS) 1. This Regular First Appeal is filed by defendant No. 3 in O.S. No. 10 of 2012 on the file of the learned I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Gokak, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2018. 2. At the outset, an objection is raised by respondent No. 10, who is the brother of the appellant. It is contended that the present appeal filed by defendant No. 3 is not maintainable. It is submitted that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are admittedly not the family members of Sri Mukkappa. The suit was filed by the wife and children of Sri Mukkappa seeking partition and separate possession by effecting an equitable partition, after challenging the sale deed dated 04.04.1988, executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18006-DB RFA No. 100003 of 2019 defendant No. 2 and Vatani Patra dated 30.09.2005 executed in favour of defendant No. 3, contending that the said transactions shall not affect the shares of the plaintiffs. 3. To put it simply, the subject-matter of this appeal relates to Item No. 1 of the schedule property bearing R.S. No.117 situated at Arjanakatti Villages, totally measuring 5 acres and 3 guntas. Sri Mukkappa, defendant No. 1, sold an extent of 2 acres 21 guntas 8 annas in favour of defendant No.2, Sri Dharmanna under a registered sale deed dated 04.04.1988. By way of Vatni Patra dated 30.09.2005, the khata was transferred in favour of defendant No. 3, Yellawwa, who is the sister of defendant No. 2. The suit came to be dismissed insofar as Item No. 1 is concerned. It is therefore contended by defendant No. 2 that in view of the dismissal of the suit as against the plaintiffs, defendant No. 3 has no cause of action to file the present appeal, since the trial court has not adjudicated the title dispute between defendant Nos. 2 and 3. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18006-DB RFA No. 100003 of 2019 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the appellant– defendant No. 3 submits that certain observations of the trial court may adversely affect defendant No. 3 in the event a subsequent suit is instituted. It is also submitted that the issue of limitation may be pressed against defendant No. 3 in subsequent suit. 5. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the present appeal essentially concerns the inter se dispute between defendant Nos. 2 and 3 who are not the family members of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the appeal is not maintainable and any dispute between defendant Nos. 2 and 3 is required to be adjudicated in a separate suit between them and their family members. 6. It is further made clear that any observations made in the impugned judgment in respect of the Item No.1 of the suit schedule property shall not have any binding effect on defendant Nos.2 and 3. Liberty is reserved to defendant - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18006-DB RFA No. 100003 of 2019 Nos. 2 and 3 to raise all disputes or to file a separate suit, if necessary. The question of limitation shall not be held against either party having regard to the filing of O.S. No. 10 of 2012. All contentions between defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are kept open. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- (R.DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/- (B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE VB /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18