- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1258-DB RFA No. 100450 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100450 OF 2019 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: SMT. RUKMAVVA W/O. MUTTAPPA ARABAN AGE : 45 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD, R/O. C/O. NEAR RAVI AUTHO GARAGE, BAIKAMPADI, MANGALORE, DIST: DAKSHIN KANNADA-574142. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.V. SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. LAXMAPPA S/O. YALLAPPA PUJAR AGE : 65 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O. HALIGERI, TQ : BADAMI, DIST : BAGALKOT-587101. 2. SRI. HANAMANTH S/O. RAMCHANDRAPPA PUJAR AGE : 48 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O. HALIGERI, TQ : BADAMI, DIST : BAGALKOT-587101. 3. SMT. NAGAVVA W/O. HANAMAPPA PUJAR @ TALAWAR AGE : 74 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HALIGERI, TQ : BADAMI, DIST : BAGALKOT-587101. Digitally signed by BHARATHI H M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Date: 2025.01.29 12:16:32 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1258-DB RFA No. 100450 of 2019 4. SRI. PANDAPPA S/O. HANAMAPPA PUJAR @ TALAWAR AGE : 54 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O. HALIGERI, TQ : BADAMI, DIST : BAGALKOT-587101. 5. SMT. BASAVVA W/O. YAMANAPPA BASARAKOD AGE : 52 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLDWORK, R/O. SOMANAKATTI, TQ : RON, DIST : GADAG-581117. 6. SRI. RAMAPPA S/O. HANAMAPPA PUJAR @ TALAWAR AGE : 50 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O. HALIGERI, TQ : BADAMI, DIST : BAGALKOT-587101. 7. SMT. YAMANAVVA @ SHANTAVVA W/O. MAHAKUTAPPA PUJAR @ TALAWAR, AGE : 43 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD R/O.RADDER NAGANUR, TQ: NAVALAGUND, DIST: DHARWAD-580010. 8. MANJULA D/O. BASAVARAJ JADAGANNAVAR AGE : 12 YEARS, OCC : STUDENT, SINCE MINOR BY NEXT FRIEND SMT. BASAVVA W/O. YAMANAPPA BASARAKOD, AGE : 52 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD, R/O.SOMANAKATTI, TQ : RON, DIST: GADAG-580117. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; NOTICE TO R3, R4, R5, R6 AND R7 ARE SERVED; R8 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R5) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W. ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF C.P.C., PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BADAMI IN O.S. NO.95/2015, DATED 01.07.2017 AND REMAND THE MATTER TO THE TRIAL COURT WITH A DIRECTION TO GIVER PROPER SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT/DEFENDANT NO.6 TO FILE HER WRITTEN STATEMENT AND TO PRODUCE ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE MATTER AND ETC., - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1258-DB RFA No. 100450 of 2019 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) 1. This Regular First Appeal is filed by defendant No.6, appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 1.07.2017, passed in O.S.No.95/2015, by the learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Badami. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, as per their ranking before the Trial Court. The appellant was defendant No.6, the respondents No.1 and 2 were the plaintiffs and the other respondents were the other defendants. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this regular first appeal, are as follows: 4. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession. It is the case of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1258-DB RFA No. 100450 of 2019 plaintiffs that, the landed properties in R.S.No.148, measuring 14 acres 2 guntas, and RS.No.145, measuring 16 acres, both situated at Hallikeri village of Badami Taluk are the suit schedule properties/joint family properties. One Yalappa was the original propositus of the family of the plaintiffs and defendants. Yallappa had three sons by the name Hanamant, Ramachandrappa and Laxamappa. Laxamappa is plaintiff No.1. Ramachandrappa had a wife by the name Balavva. Ramachandrappa, and Balavva had a son by the name Hanamant i.e. plaintiff No.2. The elder son of Yallappa, Hanamappa died leaving behind defendants No.1 to 7 as his legal heirs. It is contended that, the suit schedule properties are Inam lands. The ancestors of the plaintiffs were the priests of one Maruti temple of Hallikeri village and the suit schedule properties belonging to the said Maruthi temple. The propositus Yallappa was cultivating the suit lands till his death. After his demise, plaintiff No.1 and his two brothers, Hanumappa and Ramachandra were cultivating the suit lands. After coming into force of the Karnataka Land - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1258-DB RFA No. 100450 of 2019 Reforms Act (Amendment) Act, 1974, Hanamappa being an elder member of the family, applied for the grant of occupancy right as a Manager of the joint family. Hence, the land Tribunal granted the occupancy rights in favour of Hanamappa as a Manger of the entire joint family. The same was mutated in the name of Hanamappa in 1977. After the demise of Hanamappa, the plaintiffs and defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. Therefore, the names of defendants No.1 to 7 came to be entered in the record of rights in respect of the suit schedule properties to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs demanded their share, but the defendants refused to grant a share, 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. The trial Court issued a summons to the defendants. Defendants No.3 to 7 appeared through their counsel, but did not file their written statement. Despite - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1258-DB RFA No. 100450 of 2019 service of summons, the defendants No.1 and 2 remained un-represented and they were placed Ex-parte. 6. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: ISSUES 1. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of partition and separate possession as prayed for? 2. What order or decree? 7. To substantiate their case, plaintiff No.1 examined himself as PW.1 and marked 5 documents as Ex.Ps.1 to 5. In rebuttal, the defendants have not led their evidence, and no documents were marked on behalf of the defendants. After recording the evidence of PW-1 and on the assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. It is declared that, plaintiffs No.1 and 2 each are entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties and defendants No.1 to 7 together are entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit schedule - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1258-DB RFA No. 100450 of 2019 properties. Defendant No.6, aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree dated 01.07.2017 passed in O.S.No.95/2015, filed this Regular First Appeal. 8. Heard the learned counsel for defendant No.6 and learned counsel for the plaintiffs. 9. Learned counsel for defendant No.6 submits that, the trial Court has not provided the sufficient opportunity to defendant No.6 to file a written statement. He submits that, the suit schedule properties are the self- acquired properties of Hanamappa. He also submits that the trial Court has committed an error in passing the impugned judgment. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that, original propositus Yellappa was in possession of the suit schedule properties, and the ancestors of the plaintiffs were performing the pooja of Maruti temple as a priests. The suit lands were Inam - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1258-DB RFA No. 100450 of 2019 lands. He submits that, after the demise of Yellappa, the Hanamappa being the elder member of the family, submitted a Form No.7, and the land Tribunal granted the occupancy right in favour of Hanamappa as a Manager of the entire joint family. He submits that, the suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants. He also submits that, the trial Court placing reliance on Exs.P.4 and P.5, has rightly held that, the plaintiffs and defendants are entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties, and on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 12. The points, that would arise for our consideration are: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1258-DB RFA No. 100450 of 2019 (i) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants ? (ii) Whether the defendant No.6 proves that the suit schedule properties are the self acquired properties of Hanamappa? (iii) What order or decree? 13. Point No.1: The plaintiffs to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW.1. He has deposed that, Yellappa was the original propositus and he had three sons namely Hanamappa, Ramachandrappa, and Laxmappa. Hanamappa died leaving behind defendants No.1 to 7 as his legal heirs, Ramchandrappa died leaving behind plaintiff No.2, and Laxmappa is plaintiff No.1. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the suit schedule properties were the Inam lands, and ancestors of the plaintiffs were performing the pooja of Maruthi temple of Hallikeri village, and the suit properties were belonging to the said Maruti temple. The propositus was cultivating the suit lands till his death and after his demise, his three - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1258-DB RFA No. 100450 of 2019 children continued in possession of the suit schedule properties. After the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1974 came into force, Hanamappa being the elder member of the family filed Form No.7 as a Manger of the joint family. The land Tribunal granted the occupancy rights in favour of the Hanamappa as a Manager of the entire Joint Family. The suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants. No partition is effected between the plaintiffs and defendants. 14. The plaintiffs to substantiate their case, produced 5 documents marked as Exs.P.1 to P.5. Ex.P.1 is the record of rights in respect of land bearing R.S.No.148, which discloses that the defendants No.1 to 4 are the owners in possession of the R.S.No.148. Ex.P.2 is the record of rights regarding the land bearing R.S.No.145, which discloses that the defendant Nos.1 to 4 are the owners in possession of the R.S.No.145. Ex.P.3 is the certified copy of the mutation extract, which discloses the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1258-DB RFA No. 100450 of 2019 properties were transferred in the name of defendants No.1 to 4 in respect of R.S.Nos.145 and 148. Ex.P.4 is the certified copy of Form No.7, which discloses that Hanamappa has filed Form No.7 as a Manager of the joint family. Based on the Form No.7 filed by Hanamappa, the land Tribunal granted occupancy rights vide order dated 11.09.1981 i.e., Ex.P.5, wherein the land Tribunal granted the occupancy rights in respect of R.S.Nos.145 and 148 in favour of Hanamappa as a Manager of the joint family. Admittedly, Yallappa was in possession of the suit schedule properties, and subsequently, after his demise, Hanamappa being the elder member of the family submitted Form No.7 before the land Tribunal. The land Tribunal accepted Form No.7, and passed an order as per Ex.P.5. The said lands were granted to Hanumappa on behalf of the entire joint family. Thus, the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants. Admittedly, there is no partition effected between the plaintiffs and defendants. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1258-DB RFA No. 100450 of 2019 15. Hence, in view of the above discussion, we answer the point No.1 in the affirmative. 16. Point No.2:- Defendant No.6 in the appeal memo has contended that, the suit schedule properties are the exclusive properties of the defendant Nos.1 to 5 and 7. The trial Court has issued summons to the defendants, and defendants No.3 to 7 appeared through the counsel, but did not file a written statement. The counsel appearing for defendants No.3 to 7 did not cross-examine PW.1 and have not led any oral evidence, nor produced any documents to establish that, defendant Nos.1 to 7 are the exclusive owners of the suit schedule properties. In the absence of material evidence, the trial Court was justified in recording the finding that, the suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants. Hence, in the absence of the documents, this Court cannot hold that, the suit schedule properties are exclusive properties of defendants No. 1 to 7. Defendants No.1 to 7 have failed to - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1258-DB RFA No. 100450 of 2019 establish that they were the exclusive owners of the suit schedule properties. 17. In view of the above discussions, we answer Point No.2 in the negative. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is dismissed. ii) The judgment and preliminary decree dated 1.07.2017, passed in O.S.No.95/2015, by the learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Badami is hereby confirmed. iii) No order as to the cost. iv) The office is directed to send back the trial Court records. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE VB/Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 8