- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8519-DB RFA No. 100361 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100361 OF 2019 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. DIVYA, W/O. SIDDANAGOUDA @ PRAVEEN PATIL, AGE ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: TIMMAPURA, NOW R/AT: 7TH CROSS, VIDYAGIRI, BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT-587103. 2. KUMARI. DHANYA, D/O. SIDDANAGOUDA @ PRAVEEN PATIL, AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS 9 MONTHS, (SINCE MINOR R/P BY MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1 AS MINOR GUARDIAN) …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. V.M.SHEELVANT, SRI. S.H.MITTALKOD AND SRI. VINAY S.KOUJALAGI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SRI. SHARANAPPAGOUDA, Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.07.29 11:59:11 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8519-DB RFA No. 100361 of 2019 S/O. MAHANTAGOUDA PATIL, AGE ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TIMMAPUR, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-587103. 2. SMT. NEELAMMA, W/O. SHARANAPPAGOUDA PATIL, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’s RESPONDENTS NO. 1 AND 4. 3. SRI. MAHANTESH, S/O. SHARANAPPAGOUDA PATIL, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’s RESPONDENTS NO. 1 AND 4. 4. SMT. PRIYA, W/O. CHANDRASHEKHAR PATIL AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. STATE BANK COLONY, NEAR TALUK KACHERI LINGASUR, DIST: RAICHUR-584101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B.NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. SANGRAM S.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R4) (R1 AND R4 ARE TREATED AS LR’s OF DECEASED R2 AND R3) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.04.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.43/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUNGUND, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8519-DB RFA No. 100361 of 2019 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ) This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No.43/2017 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Hungund (henceforth referred as ‘trial court’), challenging its judgment and decree dated 22.04.2019, by which, it refused to grant a share in item No.3 of the ‘B’ Schedule property. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy understanding, the parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. 3. i) A suit in O.S. No.43/2017 was filed for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs’ half share in the suit schedule properties. The genealogy of the plaintiffs and the defendants, as furnished along with the plaint, is extracted below: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8519-DB RFA No. 100361 of 2019 Mahantagouda Patil (dead) Shyavavva Mahantagouda Patil (wife - dead) Sharanappagouda Mahantagouda Patil (Son) (D-1) Neelamma, W/o Sharanappagouda Patil (wife) (D-2) Siddanagouda Sharanappagouda (Praveen) Patil (son-dead) Divya, husband - Siddanagouda Kum. Dhanya, father - Siddanagouda (Praveen) Patil – wife (Praveen) Patil – daughter (Plaintiff No.1) (Plaintiff No.2) ii) The plaintiffs claimed that the suit properties were the properties of the joint family which was owned and held by defendant No.1 as ‘Kartha’ of the family. She claimed that there were differences of opinion between plaintiff No.1 and the defendants over joint cultivation of the suit properties. She contended that though defendant No.2 had no right, title or interest, she was arrayed as a party in the suit as certain revenue records in respect of the suit properties stood in the name of defendant No.2. They claimed that from June, 2017, they demanded defendant No.1 to partition and hand over half share of suit properties to them which was turned down. The plaintiffs therefore, sought partition of their half share in the suit schedule properties. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8519-DB RFA No. 100361 of 2019 4. i) The suit was contested by defendant No.1 who denied the claim of the plaintiffs that they were entitled to half in the suit schedule properties. They claimed that certain loan was raised over the land in Sy. No.92/1 of Timmapur Village for the education of the husband of plaintiff No.1 and therefore, defendant No.1 was not responsible for payment of loan. He admitted the relationship of the plaintiffs with the defendants. He claimed that he had spent substantial sums of money for the education of the husband of plaintiff No.1 who expired on 02.08.2014. He contended that he had another son named Mahantesh who was physically and mentally disabled and was under his care custody. He claimed that Mahantesh also had an equal share in the suit schedule properties and that the plaintiffs had deliberately not arrayed him as a party in the suit. He also contended that he had a daughter named Priya, who was also entitled to an equal share in the suit schedule properties along with the plaintiffs and that she was not arrayed as a party in the suit. ii) As far as defendant No.2 is concerned, he contended that she too was entitled to a separate share as the plaintiffs. He contended that the land bearing Sy.No.46/3 stood in the name of his mother, Smt. Shyavavva who expired on 13.12.2016 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8519-DB RFA No. 100361 of 2019 leaving behind him as her only legal heir and therefore, he succeeded to the aforesaid property. As regards Sy.No.92/1 is concerned, he admitted that it was the property of the joint family and the revenue records stood in the name of the husband of plaintiff No.1 and after his death, it stood in the name of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2. He claimed that his son and daughter were also entitled to an equal share in the said property. iii) In so far as land bearing R.S.No.109/2, he claimed that he purchased the said property on 13.08.1984 from Shekarayya Hiremath and another and that the said land was acquired by the State Government for Ashraya Scheme. He claimed that the amount received from the sale of the said property was spent for maintenance of the family. He claimed that the State of Karnataka, was therefore a necessary party if the plaintiffs wanted to pursue the relief in so far as the land bearing R.S. No.109/2 was concerned. iv) He contended that as regards the house properties, they were constructed by the defendants and all the members of the joint family were entitled to have a legitimate share therein. He thus contended that the plaintiffs are, at the most, entitled to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8519-DB RFA No. 100361 of 2019 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties as well as liabilities over the properties. v) He, further, contended that the plaintiffs had received the entire service benefits of the deceased Siddanagouda to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- and did not care to clear the encumbrances over the ‘B’ schedule lands though plaintiff No.1 was under an obligation to do so. vi) Later, the son and the daughter of defendant No.1 were arrayed as defendants No.3 and 4 in the suit. 5. i) Defendant No.4 filed a written statement contending that the family had spent substantial sums of money to educate the husband of plaintiff No.1 as an Engineer and that he, unfortunately, expired on 02.08.2014 at Pune. She stated that she had a brother namely Mahantesh who was disabled by birth and was under the care and custody of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and he too was entitled to an equal share. She claimed that she too was entitled to an share in the suit schedule properties. ii) As regards Sy.No.46/3 of Timmapur village, she contended that it stood in the name of her mother namely defendant No.2 who died on 13.12.2016 leaving behind - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8519-DB RFA No. 100361 of 2019 defendant number one as her only legal heir. Hence she contended that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief whatsoever. She admitted that Sy. No.92/1 was a joint family property but the revenue records was entered in the name of the husband of plaintiff No.1 and therefore after his death the plaintiffs as well as the defendants were entitled to an equal share. She also contended that the houses were constructed by defendant No.1. Therefore all the members of the joint family have an equal share therein. 6. Based on these contentions the Trial Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit properties are joint family properties of parties to the suit? 2. Whether the defendants prove that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought for? 4. What order or decree?” The plaintiff No.1 was examined as P.W.1 and she marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. The defendant No.1 was examined as D.W.1 and he marked Exs.D.1 to D.12. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8519-DB RFA No. 100361 of 2019 7. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that all the properties mentioned in the suit were joint family ancestral properties and therefore plaintiffs were together entitled to 1/5th share in suit items 1, 2, 4 and 5. However, in so far as item No.3 of ‘B’ Schedule is concerned, it dismissed the same as the said property was acquired by the State Government. 8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiffs are before this Court. 9. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that the suit item No.3 was also a property of the joint family which was acquired by the State Government through a private sale in terms of which, the defendant No.1 had received a sum of Rs.28,00,000/-. He therefore, contends that the plaintiffs’ share in the suit item No.3 should be identified so as to enable them to claim their share of compensation. He therefore, contends that the Trial Court committed an error in refusing to grant a share in suit item No.3 on the ground that it was acquired by the State Government. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8519-DB RFA No. 100361 of 2019 10. Per Contra the learned counsel for the defendant No.1 submitted that the suit item No.3 was indeed acquired by the State Government in terms of a private contract and that he received a sum of Rs.28,00,000/-. He contends that defendant No.2 had cardiac issues and therefore, the money received was used up for her treatment. Likewise, he contends that the other son of defendant No.1 was disabled from birth and had to be taken care of and his medical needs and necessities had to be met. He contends that part of amount was used up for the aforesaid purposes. He also contends that the remaining portion was used for construction of the houses i.e., suit items No.4 and 5. Therefore, he contends that even if a share is declared in respect of suit item No.3, the defendant No.1 is not in possession of any amount to part with as the same is used for the lawful needs and necessities of the family. Besides, he contends that the plaintiffs had received a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- from the employer of the husband of plaintiff No.1 as the death benefits. He contends that defendant No.2, in the ordinary course, was entitled to a share in the death benefits as a Class-I legal heir and that the plaintiffs had not parted with 1/3rd of the sum of Rs.25,00,000 received by them. He, therefore, contends that even if it is held that the plaintiffs have - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8519-DB RFA No. 100361 of 2019 a share in suit item No.3, they would be entitled to a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- which is way less than the 1/3rd share of defendant No.2 in Rs.25,00,000/- received by the plaintiffs. Hence he contends that the Trial Court was right in not granting any relief in so far as suit item No.3 is concerned. He therefore prays for dismissal of the appeal. 11. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the records of the Trial Court as well as the impugned judgment and decree. 12. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is, Whether the Trial Court was justified in not granting a share in suit item No.3? 13. This appeal is restricted to the refusal of the Trial Court to grant of share in suit item No.3 namely the land bearing Sy.No.109/2 of Timmapur village. The basis for rejecting the claim of the plaintiffs by the Trial Court is found in paragraph 17 of its judgment, which is extracted below: “17. During the course of cross-examination of D.W.1, the learned counsel for plaintiffs ahs suggested the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8519-DB RFA No. 100361 of 2019 witness at para No.20 that the item No.3 of ‘B’ schedule was acquired by government. This suggestion made by the learned counsel for plaintiffs supports the defence of defendants that the item nO.3 of ‘B’ schedule is not available for partition, as the same was acquired by government. No doubt, as per Ex.P.3, the item NO.3 of ‘B’ schedule is standing in the name of defendant no.1. Even though, the said property is standing in the name of defendant no.1, as admitted by both side, item No.3 of ‘B’ schedule is not available for partition.” 14. In the ordinary course, if suit item No.3 was the property of the joint family, the plaintiffs were entitled to a share in the suit property notwithstanding it being acquired by the State Government. A declaration of the shares of the plaintiffs could compel the defendant No.1 to restore the share of compensation that the plaintiffs were otherwise entitled to. Therefore, the reasoning of the Trial Court in refusing to grant a share in suit item No. 3 of ‘B’ schedule is wholly incorrect. 15. Be that as it may, the relief to which the plaintiffs are entitled to in so far as suit item No.3 is concerned, cannot be granted for another reason namely that the plaintiffs have received a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- being the death benefits of the husband of plaintiff No.1. This is admitted by P.W.1 in her cross- examination where she admitted that she had received the entire - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8519-DB RFA No. 100361 of 2019 death benefits of a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- from the employer of her husband. Ordinarily, when the husband of the plaintiff No.1 died, the death benefits had to be granted not only to the plaintiffs but also to defendant No.2. If we consider both the amounts namely the compensation that the defendant No.1 received from the acquisition of suit item No.3 as well as the share of defendant No.2 in the death benefits that the plaintiff No.1 had received, these could be scored off against each other. Therefore, the reasoning of the trial court in so far as it relates to refusing to grant share in suit item No.3 is not acceptable, but the relief to which plaintiffs are entitled to in respect of suit item No.3 can be rejected on another ground stated above. The point framed for our consideration is answered accordingly. 16. In that view of the matter this appeal does not merit consideration and is accordingly dismissed. Since it is stated at the Bar that defendant No.2 has expired, the suit properties namely suit item Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 have to be shared between the plaintiffs (as one unit) and defendants No.1, 3 and 4 in four equal shares. Accordingly plaintiffs are entitled to 1/4th share while defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 are entitled to 1/4th share each in the said suit properties as well as - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8519-DB RFA No. 100361 of 2019 the liabilities if any of the family. The office is directed to draw a preliminary decree declaring that the plaintiffs are together entitled to 1/4th share in the suit item Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5, and defendants Nos.1, 3 and 4 are entitled to 1/4th share each in the said suit properties and liabilities if any of the family. Parties to bear their own cost. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE KMS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8519-DB RFA No. 100361 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD [SMT.DIVYA W/O SIDDANAGOUDA @ PRAVEEN PATIL AND ANOTHER VS. SRI.SHARANAPPAGOUDA S/O MAHANTAGOUDA PATIL AND OTHERS] 16.07.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING) CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER on “BEING SPOKEN TO” (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ) This appeal was disposed of on 09.07.2025. The learned counsel for the appellants, now, submits that respondent No.3 has died on 05.09.2019. This is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. Therefore, the plaintiffs together are entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit item Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5. Likewise, the defendants No.1 and 4 are entitled to 1/3rd share each in the aforesaid suit properties. The judgment dated 09.07.2025 stands modified to the above extent. This order shall be read in conjunction with the order dated 09.07.2025. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE KMS: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1