- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11306 RFA No. 100056 of 2017 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100004 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100056 OF 2017 (DEC-) C/W RFA CROSS OBJ NO.100004 OF 2019 IN RFA NO.100056/2017: BETWEEN: 1. KRISHNA S/O. SHRINIVAS DESHPANDE, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: H.NO. 44, YUREKA COLONY, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580 023, DIST: DHARWAD. 2. SUDHA W/O. SHRINIVAS DESHPANDE, SINCE DECEASED BY HER L.RS., SMT. GEETA, W/O. RAGHAVENDRA GANACHARI, AGE: 23 YAERS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: H.NO. 1607/7/C, ANASURKAR GALLI, KIRLOSKAR ROAD, BELAGAVI-590 001. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. G.R. GURUMATH, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. S.S. NIRANJAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SANGEETA W/O. RAJSHEKAR LAKAMANHALLI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: LAKAMANAHALLI ONI, SHUKRAVAR PETH, HOSA YALLAPUR ROAD, DHARWAD-580 001. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.10 12:33:17 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11306 RFA No. 100056 of 2017 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100004 of 2019 2. SMT. SHILPA @ SHIVALEELA, W/O: MAJUNATH KARJEKKANAVAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O:LAXMESHWAR (BENNI PETH), NEAR KRISHNA TALKIES, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST:GADAG-582 116. 3. SMT. KASTURI @ BHARATI, W/O.SHIVANAND GUDDADKERI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: 2ND FLOOR, 2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS, KALASIPALLYAM, NEW EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560 002. 4. MR. CHANNABASAPPA, S/O. RUDRAPPA AIHOLLI, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: JOB, R/O: BOMBAY, HALIVASTI BHUS PETH, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580 028. 5. RUDRAPPA, S/O. CHANABASAPPA AIHOLLI, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BHUS PETH ONI, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580 028. (SINCE DECEASED, THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4 AND 6 ARE THE LRS OF DECEASED R5; *AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DAATED 17.07.2019* 6. SMT. NEEAVVA, W/O. RUDRAPPA AIHOLLI, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BHUS PETH ONI, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580 028. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HEMANTKUMAR L HAVARAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; (R1 TO R4 AND R6 ARE LRS., OF DECEASED R5; SRI. VINAYAK Y. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R6) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC.,AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.04.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.190/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ITINARY COURT, KALAGHATAGI, HUBBALLI, DECREEING THE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11306 RFA No. 100056 of 2017 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100004 of 2019 SUIT FILED FOR DECLARATION AND PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. IN RFA CROB.NO.100004/2019: BETWEEN: NEELAVVA W/O. RUDRAPPA AIHOLLI, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD, R/O. BHUSPETH ONI, HUBBALLI, TQ:HUBBALLI, DIST:DHARWAD. ...CROSS OBJECTOR (BY SRI. VINAYAK Y PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SANGEETA W/O. RAJSHEKAR LAKAMANHALLI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: LAKAMANAHALLI ONI, SHUKRAVAR PETH, HOSA YALLAPUR ROAD, DHARWAD. 2. SMT. SHILPA @ SHIVALEELA, W/O: MAJUNATH KARJEKKANAVAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O:LAXMESHWAR (BENNI PETH), NEAR KRISHNA TALKIES, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST:GADAG. 3. SMT. KASTURI @ BHARATI, W/O.SHIVANAND GUDDADKERI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: KALASIPALLYAM, NEW EXTENSION, 2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS, BENGALURU. 4. CHANNABASAPPA, S/O. RUDRAPPA AIHOLLI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: INDIAN NAVY SERVICE, R/O: BOMBAY AND ALSO AT BHUSPETH ONI, HUBBALLI, TQ:HUBBALLI, DIST:DHARWAD.. 5. RUDRAPPA, S/O. CHANABASAPPA AIHOLLI, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BHUS PETH, HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11306 RFA No. 100056 of 2017 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100004 of 2019 6. KRISHNA S/O. SHINIVAS DESHPANDE, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.44, EUREKA COLONY, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI, DIST:DHARWAD. 7. 7A SUDHA W/O. SHRINIVAS DESHPANDE, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS., GEETA W/O. RAGHAVENDRA GANACHARI, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. H.NO.1607/7/7/C, ANASURKAR GALLI, KIRLOSKAR ROAD, BELAGAVI, DIST:BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS BY SRI. HEMANTKUMAR L HAVARAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R6 AND R7(A); R1 TO R4 ARE TREAATED AS LRS., OF DECEASED R5) THIS RFA CROB. IN RFA NO.100056/2017 FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.04.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.190/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI (ITINERARY COURT AT KALAGHATAGI), DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR DECLARATION, PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11306 RFA No. 100056 of 2017 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100004 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Regular First Appeal and Cross objection arise out of the judgment and decree dated 02.04.2016 passed in O.S.No.190/2014 by the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. In RFA No. 100056/2017, Appellant No.1 was defendant No.3, appellant No.2 is the legal representative of defendant No.4, Respondent Nos.1 to 4 were the plaintiffs, and respondent Nos.5 to 6 were defendants Nos. 1 and 2. In RFA CROB 100004/2019, the Cross Objector was Defendant No. 2, Respondents No. 1 to 4 were the plaintiffs, and the other respondents were the other defendants. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this Regular First Appeal, and the Cross Objection are as follows: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11306 RFA No. 100056 of 2017 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100004 of 2019 4. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession of their 4/6th share in the suit schedule property by metes and bounds. It is the case of the plaintiffs that one Channabasappa was the original propositus. The plaintiffs are the sons and daughters of defendant Nos.1 and 2. The suit schedule property originally belonged to Shringeri Math. The grandfather of the plaintiffs and many others were cultivating the land bearing Sy.No.43 as the tenants. Channabasappa-the Plaintiffs’ grandfather was cultivating 50 acres of the land in Sy.No.43/P45, and the name of Defendant No. 1’s name was mutated to the said land as an occupant. After the demise of the plaintiffs’ grandfather, the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 continued to cultivate the suit land as tenants. Accordingly, Defendant No. 1 filed Form No.7 for the grant of occupancy rights regarding the suit schedule property. The Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights to the extent of 40 acres of the said land vide order dated 29.10.1987. Defendant No.1 filed an appeal before - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11306 RFA No. 100056 of 2017 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100004 of 2019 the Appellate Authority challenging the order passed by the Land Tribunal. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and granted the occupancy rights to an extent of 50 acres of the land in suit schedule property. Thereafter, Defendant No.1, without the consent or knowledge of the plaintiffs sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 to deprive the legitimate share of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule property. It is contended that the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the members of a Hindu undivided joint family, and no partition is effected between them. The plaintiffs demanded partition and separate possession, but the defendants refused to effect a partition. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 5. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed a written statement contending that the suit schedule property is in their possession and enjoyment. Defendant No.1 agreed to sell the suit schedule property in favour of defendant Nos.3 and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11306 RFA No. 100056 of 2017 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100004 of 2019 4 for consideration of Rs.18,00,000/-, and defendant No.3 paid Rs.6,00,000/- towards the advance sale consideration amount. It was agreed that the balance sale consideration of Rs. 12,00,000/- would be paid on or before 15.03.2010. However, defendant No.3 has not paid the balance sale consideration amount. It is also contended that there is a condition in the order passed by the Land Tribunal regarding non-alienation of the suit property for a period of 15 years. It is contended that the suit schedule property is the joint family property of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 6. Defendant Nos.3 and 4(a) filed a written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the suit schedule property is exclusive property of defendant No. 1 and the occupancy rights was granted in favour of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 under a registered sale deed dated 15.06.2009. It is contended that the sale was for the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11306 RFA No. 100056 of 2017 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100004 of 2019 purpose of improving the business and to meet family necessity. It is contended that the plaintiffs have challenged the registered sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 in 2014. Therefore, the suit is barred by the limitation. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the suit against defendant Nos.3 and 4. 7. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues and additional issues as follows: 1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2? 2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that together have 6/4th share in the schedule property? 3) Whether the plaintiffs prove that sale deed dated 15.06.2009 executed by defendants No.3 and 4 is not binding? 4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs claimed in the suit? 5) What order or decree? Additional issue: 1) Whether the defendant NOs.1 and 2 prove that said deed executed in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 is not binding on him? - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11306 RFA No. 100056 of 2017 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100004 of 2019 8. To substantiate their case, plaintiff No.2 was examined as P.W.1 and marked 3 documents as Exs.P1 to Ex.P3. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined as D.W.1, defendant No.3 was examined as D.W.2, and marked 8 documents as Ex.D1 to D8. 9. The trial court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides, and on assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 to 4 in the affirmative, additional issue No.1 in the negative, and issue No.5 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed vide judgment dated 02.04.2016. It is ordered and decreed that the plaintiffs have 1/6th share each in the schedule property by metes and bounds. It is ordered that the sale deed dated 15.06.2009 executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 is not binding on the share of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule property. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11306 RFA No. 100056 of 2017 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100004 of 2019 10. Defendant Nos.3 and 4, aggrieved by the judgment and the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.190/2014 dated 02.04.2016, preferred an appeal in RFA No.100056/2017. Defendant No.2, aggrieved by the judgment and the preliminary decree preferred the Crob Objection RFA Crob.No.100004/2019. 11. Heard the arguments of the learned senior counsel Sri.G.R.Gurumath for defendant Nos.3 and 4, and the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. 12. Learned senior counsel for defendant Nos.3 and 4 submits that the trial court has not assigned the reasons to decree the suit. He submits that defendant Nos.3 and 4 have taken a specific defense in the written statement that occupancy right was granted in favour of defendant No.1 in his individual capacity, and not for the enure to all the family members. He submits that defendant No.3 was examined as D.W.2, and produced the documents marked at Exs.D1 to D8. He submits that the trial court has not - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11306 RFA No. 100056 of 2017 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100004 of 2019 considered the evidence led by defendant No.3, and the documents produced by defendant Nos.3. The judgment and the preliminary decree passed by the trial court is not in conformity with Order 20 Rule 5 of the CPC. He submits that the judgment and preliminary decree passed by the trial court is not a speaking judgment. He also submits that the trial court has not applied its mind while passing the impugned judgment and a preliminary decree. He submits that the matter requires a fresh consideration by the trial court. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and preliminary decree, and remand the matter to the trial court with a direction to pass the judgment in compliance of Order 20 Rule 5 of the CPC. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the original propositus Channabasappa was in possession of the suit schedule property during his lifetime, and after his demise, plaintiffs and defendant No.1 continued to cultivate the suit schedule property. He submits that defendant No.1 being the elder male member - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11306 RFA No. 100056 of 2017 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100004 of 2019 of the family submitted Form No.7 for and on behalf of the family. The Land Tribunal granted the occupancy rights for the welfare of the family, and not in the individual capacity. He submits that defendant No.1 alone had no right to alienate the suit schedule property in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4, and the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 is not binding on the share of the plaintiffs. He submits that the trial court has assigned the reasons in paragraph 21 of the impugned judgment. He submits that the trial court has appreciated the entire evidence placed on record by both the parties, and has passed the impugned judgment and preliminary decree. The judgment and preliminary decree passed by the trial court is just and proper, and do not call for any interference by this court. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal, and the cross objection. 14. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11306 RFA No. 100056 of 2017 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100004 of 2019 15. The points, that would arise for my consideration, are as follows ; 1) Whether defendant Nos.3 and 4 prove that the judgment and the preliminary decree passed by the trial court is not in compliance with the Order 20 Rule 5 of CPC? 2) Whether defendant Nos.3 and 4 prove that the trial court without considering the evidence placed on record has passed the impugned judgment and the preliminary decree? 3) What order or decree? Regarding Point No. 1 and 2: 16. Point Nos.1 and 2 are interlinked with each other; therefore, they are taken together for discussion, to avoid the repetition of facts. 17. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for partition and separate possession claiming that original propositus Channabasappa-the Plaintiff’s Grandfather was in possession of the suit schedule property, and after his demise, the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 continued to - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11306 RFA No. 100056 of 2017 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100004 of 2019 cultivate the suit schedule property. Defendant No.1 submitted Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal, and the Land Tribunal granted the occupancy rights in favour of defendant No.1 to an extent of 40 acres in the suit property. Defendant No.1, being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Land Tribunal regarding extent of the land, preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellant Authority, after considering the contents of Form No.7, wherein defendant No.1 claims to be in possession of 50 acres of the land in the suit property, wherein the Land Tribunal granted occupancy right to an extent of 40 acres, has granted the occupancy right to an extent of 50 acres in the suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the Land Tribunal granted the occupancy right for the benefit of the family, and not in the individual capacity in the name of defendant No.1. 18. The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.2 was examined as P.W.1. To prove that the suit schedule property is the joint family property of the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11306 RFA No. 100056 of 2017 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100004 of 2019 plaintiffs and the defendants, she produced the documents. Exs.P1 and P2 are the RTC extracts of the land bearing Sy.No.43/P-45. Ex.P3 is a certified copy of the sale deed, which discloses that defendant Nos.1 has sold the said suit land in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 on 15.06.2009. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined as D.W.1. He supported the case of the plaintiffs. Though, he is party to the sale deed, defendant No.1 did not challenge the registered sale deed executed by him and his wife defendant No.2. Defendant No.3 was examined as D.W.3, and he reiterated the written statement averments in his examination-in-chief. To prove that the occupancy rights was granted in favour of defendant No.1, he produced a copy of the order passed by the Land Tribunal. Defendant No.3 also produced the documents. Ex.D1 is a certified copy of the sale deed (Ex.P3) executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 wherein defendant No. 1 sold the suit property for a valuable consideration. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11306 RFA No. 100056 of 2017 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100004 of 2019 19. From the perusal of the recitals of Ex.D1 (Ex.P3), defendant Nos.1 and 2 have delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4. Ex.D2 is a copy of the endorsement. Ex. D3 is the RTC extract regarding the suit property. Ex.D4 is the order passed by the Appellate Authority wherein defendant No.1 aggrieved by the order passed by the Land Tribunal preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and granted the occupancy rights in favour of defendant No.1 to an extent of 50 acres of the land in Sy.No.43. Ex.D5 is a certified copy of the order passed by this court in LRRP No.2898/1990 C/w 3488/1990, wherein the order of the Appellate Authority was challenged before this court, and this court vide order dated 25.09.2001 allowed the petition in part, and set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority insofar as it relates to the rejection of claim of the petitioner therein for the grant of occupancy rights to an extent of 3 acres each in Sy.No.43 of Sulikatti village, Kalaghatagi Taluk, Dharwad - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11306 RFA No. 100056 of 2017 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100004 of 2019 District. Ex.D6 is a certified copy of M.R.No.254. Ex.P7 is an order passed by the Land Tribunal and Ex.D8 is the Form No.7. 20. From the perusal of the impugned judgment, the trial court has not discussed regarding the evidence adduced by defendant No.3 and also about the documents produced by him. Except considering the evidence of P.W.1, the trial court decreed the suit. The trial court has not assigned any reasons while answering issue Nos.1 to 4 in the affirmative. 21. To consider the case on hand, it is necessary to examine Order 20 Rule 5 of the CPC, which reads as follows: “Court to state its decision on each issue— In suits in which issue, have been framed, the Court shall state its finding or decision, with the reasons therefore, upon separate issue, unless the finding upon any one or more of the issue is sufficient for the suit.” 22. Admittedly, in the instant case, the trial court has not considered the evidence led by the parties. The trial - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11306 RFA No. 100056 of 2017 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100004 of 2019 court decreed the suit based on the evidence of P.W.1. The trial court has not discussed the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 and the documents marked as Exs.D1 to D8. The judgment passed by the trial court without considering the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2, and Exs.D1 to D8 is contrary to the records. The trial court has also not assigned any proper reasons in answering issue Nos.1 to 4 in the affirmative. Thus, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court is not in compliance with Order 20 Rule 5 of the CPC. Defendant Nos.3, 4 and 6 have made out, that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court is arbitrary, perverse and erroneous. The matter requires reconsideration by the trial court. In view of the above discussion, I answer point Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative. Regarding Point No.3. 23. In view of answering point Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant Nos.3, 4 and 6, I proceed to pass the following order: - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11306 RFA No. 100056 of 2017 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100004 of 2019 ORDER i) The Regular First Appeal in RFA No. 100056/2017 and the Cross Objection in RFA CROB 100004/2019 are hereby allowed. ii) The judgment and decree dated 02.04.2016 passed in O.S.No.190/2014 by the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi is hereby set aside. The suit in O.S.No.190/2014 is restored to its original file. iii) The trial court is directed to hear the parties, and pass the judgment in conformity with Order 20 Rule 5 of the CPC by assigning the detailed reasons, and pass an appropriate judgment, in accordance with law. iv) This court has not made any adjudication on the merits in issue. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. v) The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 27.10.2025 without waiting any further notice. vi) The Office is directed to return the trial court records to the trial court, forthwith. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11306 RFA No. 100056 of 2017 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100004 of 2019 vii) In view of the disposal of the appeal and Cross Objection, pending IA’s, if any, do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, disposed off. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE MBS CT:PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15