- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1507 RSA No. 100881 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100881 OF 2017 (PAR-) BETWEEN: SMT. SONUBAI D/O. SHIVAJI @ SHIVAJIRAO SURYAVANSHI, AFTER MARRIAGE KNOWN AS PUSHPA W/O. SOMANATH CHAVHAN, AGED ABOUT: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SHIGGAON, NOW RESIDING AT RAVINAGAR, HOUSE NO. 217, NEAR GANAPATI GUDI, HUBBALLI, TALUK: HUBBALLI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIJAY S. CHINIWAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SURESH @ GOPAL S/O. SHIVAJI SURYAVANSHI, AGED ABOUT: 47 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: SHIGGAON, NOW RESIDING AT WALMIKI ONI, NEW YALLAPUR, MADAR MADDI DHARWAD, TALUK and DIST: DHARWAD. 2. MANOJ S/O. SHIVAJI SURYAVANSHI, AGED ABOUT: 47 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: SHIGGAON, NOW RESIDING AT SMATHA COLONY, GANESHAPUR, BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI. V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.01.28 11:21:53 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1507 RSA No. 100881 of 2017 3. RAVI S/O. SHIVAJI SURYAVANSHI, AGED ABOUT: 43 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: SHIGGAON, NOW RESIDING AT PLOT NO. 430, S.NO. 40 HANUMAN NAGAR, BEHIND SURAJ DABA, BELAGAVI TALUK and DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. KALPANA D/O. SHIVAJI SURYAVANSHI, AGED ABOUT: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SHIGGAON, NOW RESIDING C/O. CHANDRAKANTH VAIDYA, SAIMAN BUILDING, HOUSE NO. 314, NEAR VIVEKANAND HIGH SCHOOL, ARAVIND NAGAR, HUBBALLI, TALUKA: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 5. KIRAN S/O. SHIVAJI SURYAVANSHI, AGED ABOUT: 32 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: SHIGGAON, NOW RESIDING AT PLOT NO. 430, S.NO. 40 HANUMAN NAGAR, BACK HOUSE OF SURAJ DABA, BELAGAVI TALUK and DIST: BELAGAVI. 6. ANUSUYA W/O. SHIVAJI SURYAVANSHI, AGED ABOUT: 72 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SHIGGAON, NOW RESIDING AT PLOT NO. 430, S.NO. 40 HANUMAN NAGAR, BEHIND OF SURAJ DABA, BELAGAVI TALUK and DIST: BELAGAVI. 7. PADMAVATI W/O. ASHOK SURYAVANSHI, AGED ABOUT: 47 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1507 RSA No. 100881 of 2017 OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SHIGGAON, NOW RESIDING AT PLOT NO. 430, S.NO. 40 HANUMAN NAGAR, BEHIND OF SURAJ DABA, BELAGAVI TALUK and DIST: BELAGAVI. 8. SRHIDEVI S/O. ASHOK SURYAVANSHI, AGED ABOUT: 25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: SHIGGAON, NOW RESIDING AT PLOT NO. 430, S.NO. 40 HANUMAN NAGAR, BEHIND OF SURAJ DABA, BELAGAVI TALUK and DIST: BELAGAVI. 9. SURAJ S/O. ASHOK SURYAVANSHI, AGED ABOUT: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: SHIGGAON, NOW RESIDING AT PLOT NO. 430, S.NO. 40 HANUMAN NAGAR, BEHIND OF SURAJ DABA, BELAGAVI TALUK and DIST: BELAGAVI. 10. PRATHAMESH S/O. ASHOK SURYAVANSHI AGED ABOUT: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: SHIGGAON, NOW RESIDING AT PLOT NO. 430, S.NO. 40 HANUMAN NAGAR, BEHIND OF SURAJ DABA, BELAGAVI TALUK and DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VISHWANATH L. HEGDE, ADV FOR SRI. HARSHAWARDHAN M. PATIL, SRI. M. H. PATIL & SRI. SHUBHENDU A AKALWADI) - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1507 RSA No. 100881 of 2017 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN R.A.NO.43/2015 DATED 01.08.2017, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., HAVERI IN CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN OS.NO.22/2010 DATED 11.03.2015 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., SHIGGAON IN PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT AND BY DISMISSING THE SUIT IN RESPECT OF ITEM NO.2(2)/SCHEDULE ITEM NO.II IS CONCERNED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2017 in RA No.43/2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Haveri (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’), dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2015 in OS No.22/2010 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Shiggaon (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’), decreeing the suit in part. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that, plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 5 and 7 to 10 are the children of Shivaji - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1507 RSA No. 100881 of 2017 Suryavanshi and defendant No.6 is the wife of late Shivaji Suryavanshi. It is the case of the plaintiff that, item No.1 of the suit schedule property is the joint family property and as such the plaintiff and defendants are entitled for share in the item No.1 of the suit schedule property. It is also stated in the plaint that, item No.2 of the suit schedule property, though purchased by the defendant No.3 however, the consideration amount is from the nucleus of the joint family property and as such sought for share in the suit schedule property. 4. On service of notice, the defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. 5. It is the case of the defendant Nos.1 to 10 that the item No.1 of the suit schedule property was purchased by late Shivaji Suryavanshi and same is the joint family property of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 10. It is also stated in the written statement that, the defendant No.3 was working at Government Technical College at Belagavi, and has purchased the item No.2 as per registered sale deed dated 28.12.2005 and accordingly, the defendant Nos.1 to 10 state that the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1507 RSA No. 100881 of 2017 plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 to 10 are entitled for 1/8th share in the suit schedule item No.1 only. 6. Based on pleadings on record, the Trial Court formulated issues for its consideration. In order to prove their case, plaintiff has examined herself as PW1 and produced 14 documents which were marked as Ex.P1 to P14. Defendants have examined two witnesses as DW1 and DW2 and produced 04 documents which were marked as Ex.D1 to D4. 7. The Trial Court after considering the material on record by judgment and decree dated 11.03.2015 decreed the suit in part and held that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/8th share in item No.1 of the suit schedule property. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred RA No.43/2015 before the First Appellate Court and the same was contested by the defendants. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the material on record by judgment and decree dated 01.08.2015 dismissed the appeal, consequently, confirmed the judgment and decree in OS No.22/2010. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred this Regular Second Appeal. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1507 RSA No. 100881 of 2017 8. Heard Sri. Vijay S. Chinniwar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Vishwanath L. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 9. Sri. Vijay S. Chinniwar, learned counsel for the appellant contended that both the Courts below have committed an error in holding that the item No.2 of the suit schedule property is the self acquired property of defendant No.3 despite the fact that the income of the joint family was invested for purchasing the item No.2 of the suit schedule property. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought to justify the impugned order. 11. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful examination of the findings recorded by both the Courts below, it is not in dispute with regard to item No.1 of the suit schedule property, however, the plaintiff has argued that item No.2 of the suit schedule property has been purchased in the name of defendant No.3 out of the nucleus of the joint family property. In this regard the defendant No.3 has produced Ex.D.1-the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1507 RSA No. 100881 of 2017 letter issued by the Bank of Maharashtra which reflects that the defendant No.3 has availed loan from the bank. Ex.D2 is the registered sale deed dated 28.12.2005. Perusal of the findings of the Trial Court would indicate that apart from the defendant No.3, defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 10 admitted in the written statement that the defendant No.3 had purchased the item No.2 of the suit schedule property from his independent income and said fact has been considered by the Trial Court. Taking into account the admission made by the plaintiff herself that the defendant No.3 had purchased the suit schedule property as he was working as Lecturer in the college, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below and appellant has not made out a case for formulation of substantial question as required under Section 100 of CPC. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12