- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4351 RSA No. 100177 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100177 OF 2021 (PAR-) BETWEEN: SMT. MANJULA @ NIRMALA W/O. CHANDRASHEKAR TALAWAR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GOVANAL, TQ: LAXMESHWAR, DIST: GAGAG-582116. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. G.N. NARASAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RENUKA W/O. SHEKHAPPA BALAGERI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER, R/O. SHIGLI, TQ: LAXMESHWAR, DIST: GADAG-582116. 2. SMT. CHAYA W/O. BASAVARAJ KURTAKOTI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SHYAGOTI, TQ: GADAG, DIST: GADAG-582205. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.S. SANGATI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC 1908 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET-ASIDE ORDER AND DECREE DATED 21.12.2020 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT AT GADAG IN R.A.NO.89/2019 AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.10.2019 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS COURT LAXMESHWAR IN O.S. NO.69/2018 AND ETC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4351 RSA No. 100177 of 2021 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is preferred by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2020 in R.A.No.89/2019 on the file of the I Additional Principal Family Court, Gadag1 allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2019 in O.S.No.69/2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Laxmeshwar2 insofar as dismissing the suit in respect of the house property is concerned. 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 plaintiffs that the plaintiffs and defendant are the sisters and their father Somappa Karekenchappanavar died on 21.10.2002. The mother of the plaintiffs and defendant - Shantavva died on 29.08.2016. Hence, it is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule 1 hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’ 2 hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4351 RSA No. 100177 of 2021 properties being the legal heirs of the deceased Somappa Karekenchappanavar. Hence, the plaintiffs filed suit in O.S.No.69/2018 seeking relief of partition and separate position in respect of the suit schedule properties. 4. After service of notice, the defendant entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is the specific case of the defendant that her mother – Shantavva has purchased Item No.2 of suit schedule property during the year 2000 and therefore as the defendant was taking care of the health of her mother and therefore the said property has to be excluded from the joint family after plaintiffs and defendant and accordingly sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. The Trial Court based on the pleadings on record, has framed issues for its consideration. In order to establish their case, the plaintiff has examined herself as PW.1 and produced 5 documents which were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.5. The defendant has examined four - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4351 RSA No. 100177 of 2021 witnesses as DW.1 to DW.4 and produced 5 documents which were marked as Exs.D.1 to D.5. 6. Based on the pleadings on record, the Trial Court vide judgement and decree dated 23.10.2019 decreed the suit in part holding that the plaintiffs and defendant are entitled for 1/3rd share each in the suit schedule properties, however, dismissed the suit insofar as Item No.2 of the suit schedule property. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred R.A.No.89/2019 before the First Appellate Court and same was resisted by the defendant. The First Appellate Court by its judgement and degree dated 21.12.2020 allowed the appeal in part and set aside the judgement and decree dated 23.10.2019 in O.S.No.69/2018 insofar as Item No.2 of the suit schedule properties. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 7. Heard Sri.G.N.Narasammanavar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.B.S.Sangati, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4351 RSA No. 100177 of 2021 8. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the Trial Court after considering the material on record, rightly dismissed the suit insofar as Item No.2 of the suit schedule properties is concerned, however, the First Appellate Court has erroneously interfered with the judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court in respect of Item No.2 of the suit schedule properties. Though the said property was acquired by the mother of the plaintiffs and defendant - Shantavva and thereafter the revenue records stand in the name of the their mother Shantavva and therefore it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court requires to be interfered with. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents sought to justify the impugned judgement and decree passed by the Courts below. 10. In the light of the submissions made by the learner counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4351 RSA No. 100177 of 2021 dispute that the plaintiffs and defendant are the sisters and were born to one Somappa Karekenchappanavar and Shantavva. Father of the plaintiffs and defendant died on 21.10.2002 and mother – Shantavva died on 29.08.2016 leaving behind plaintiffs and defendant as the legal heirs to succeed to the estate of the deceased since the suit schedule properties are joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendant. 11. Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein submitted that Item No.2 of the suit schedule property was purchased by her mother Shantavva and defendant was taking care of the health of the mother of the defendant – Shantavva, however, perusal of the record would indicate that there is no acceptable document has been produced by the defendant to substantiate that the mother of the defendant - Shantavva had purchased Item No.2 of the suit schedule property from her own earnings and therefore I am of the view that the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4351 RSA No. 100177 of 2021 requires to be confirmed by holding that both plaintiffs and defendant are entitled for 1/3rd share each in the suit schedule property. 12. In the result, appeal fails as the appellant herein has not made out a case for formulation of substantial question of law as required under section 100 of CPC. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32