- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9704 RFA No. 100333 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100333 OF 2016 (PAR/POS-) BETWEEN: 1. SIDDAPPA S/O RAMAPPA HEBBAL, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NAGANUR, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307. 2. RAMAPPA NAGAPPA HEBBAL, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NAGANUR, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307. 3. VITHAL RAMAPPA HEBBAL, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NAGANUR, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRASHANT S KADADEVAR, ADV APPELLANT NO.1 & 2 ARE DECEASED) AND: 1. PARASAPPA NAGAPPA HEBBAL, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NAGANUR, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307. 2. KALLAPPA BHIMAPPA DADDI, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NAGANUR, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307. 3. SIDDAPPA KAREPPA KHANAPPAGOL, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NAGANUR, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307. 4. CHANDRAWWA MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.22 13:03:54 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9704 RFA No. 100333 of 2016 W/O BASAPPA KARHOLI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NAGANUR, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307. 5. GANGAWWA SADASHIV ULLEGADDI, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NAGANUR, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307. 6. APPAYYA BASAPPA KARHOLI, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NAGANUR, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307. 7. SAVITA BASAPPA KARHOLI, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: NAGANUR, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307. 8. SMT. SULOCHANA W/O SAVANT JOKI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: NAGANUR, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307. 9. BAHUBALI SAVANT JOKI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NAGANUR, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307. 10. SMT. SUNITA W/O MALLAPPA SALLAGOL, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: NAGANUR, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307. 11. SMT. ANITA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9704 RFA No. 100333 of 2016 W/O SANSIKUMAR HANJE, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: NAGANUR, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307. 12. SMT. TRISHULA W/O BALASAB CHOPADE, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: NAGANUR, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307. 13. SHANTINATH SAVANT JOKI, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NAGANUR, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591307. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA A PUROHIT, ADV FOR R1, NOTICE TO R2, R8, R9, R10, R12 & R13 ARE SERVED NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH NOTICE TO R4 TO R7 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.03.2016 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GOKAK IN O.S.NO.39/2008 AND ALLOW THE APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT BY DISMISSING THE SUIT IF O.S. NO.39/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GOKAK. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9704 RFA No. 100333 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) The death of appellants No.1 and 2 was reported. Despite granting of sufficient opportunity, the legal representatives of the deceased appellants No.1 and 2 did not file any application to come on record. 2. The suit is one for partition and separate possession, and the common interest is involved in this appeal. In view of the death of the appellants No.1 and 2, the entire appeal abates 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. The said judgment was reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Suresh Chandra (deceased) Thr. Lrs. and Others vs. Parasram and Others2. The Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph No.25, has held as under: 1 (2019) 6 SCC 756 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1472 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9704 RFA No. 100333 of 2016 25. 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. Considering the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases referred to supra, the entire appeal is abated. 3. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Appeal is dismissed as abated. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9704 RFA No. 100333 of 2016 In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A.Nos.1/2018 and 2/2018 do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, they are disposed off. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE NAA CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22