- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:637 RFA No. 100441 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100441 OF 2018 (FDP) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. MALLIKARJUN CHANABASAPPA SANGAINAVAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. M.K. HUBLI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591118. 2. SMT. SHAKUNTALA W/O. CHANABASAPPA SANGAINAVAR, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KUBER KHANAVALI, MAJAGAON, DIST: BELAGAVI-590008. 3. SMT. SUMANGALA W/O. GANGADHARSWAMY, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. JANTA COLONY, GAJANURU, TQ:DIST: SHIMOGA-577201. 4. SMT. KASTURI W/O. CHANABASAPPA SANGAINAVAR, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. M.K. HUBLI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591118. 5. SMT. SUMITRA W/O. SHIVAPPA GUNDAGAVI, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. DEVARSHIGIHALLI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-560076. 6. SHRI RAJU S/O. CHANABASAPPA SANGAINAVAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. KUBER KHANAVALI, MAJAGAON, DIST: BELAGAVI-590008. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SANGRAM S.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:637 RFA No. 100441 of 2018 AND: 1. SHRI. BASAVANNEPPA SHIVLINGAPPA SANGAINAVAR, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. M.K. HUBLI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591118. 2. SHRI DEMAPPA GURUSIDDAPPA SANGAINAVAR, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. M.K. HUBLI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591118. 3. SHRI GANGAPPA DUNDAPPA SANGAINAVAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. M.K. HUBLI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591118. 4. SHRI SHIVALINGAPPA DUNDAPPA SANGAINAVAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. M.K. HUBLI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591118. 5. SHRI ANNAPURNA W/O. CHINNAPPA HUNASHYAL, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R./O. KALABHAVI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591115. 6. SMT. BASAWWA W/O. DUNDAPPA SANGAINAVAR, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, C/O. SHIVARAYAPPA DANADAMANI @ LANGOTI, R/O. HALAGIMARDI, TQ: DIST: BELAGAVI-591109. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI BALAGOUDA A.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1, NOTICE TO R2, R3, R5 AND R6 ARE SERVED; R4-HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER XLI RULE 1 AND 2 OF C.P.C., SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAILHONGAL AND ADDL. MACT, IN FDP NO.2/2016, DATED 20.06.2018 AND ETC., - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:637 RFA No. 100441 of 2018 THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. This Regular First Appeal is filed by respondent No.4 challenging the order dated 20.06.2018 passed in FDP No.02/2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Bailhongal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FDP Court’). 3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 4. Heard arguments from both learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 5. The Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal, by order dated 15.07.2015 in O.S No.69/2012 has passed - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:637 RFA No. 100441 of 2018 preliminary decree in the suit for partition which reads as under: “The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed without costs in the following terms: I. It is declared that the plaintiff is entitle for 1/4th share in all the suit schedule properties. II. Likewise, the defendant No.1 and 5 are jointly entitle for 1/4th share, defendant No.2, 3 & 8 jointly entitle for 1/4th share, and defendant No.4, 7 to 11 are jointly entitle for 1/4th share. III. In the FDP proceedings, the defendant No.4 and his branch can seek equity, under such circumstances the ADLR shall allot Sy.No.494/3B, where he has constructed house. IV. Draw preliminary decree accordingly.” 6. As per the order of preliminary decree as above stated, clause No.III held that the defendant No.4 and his branch can seek equity, under such circumstances the ADLR shall allot Sy.No.494/3B, where he has constructed house. 7. Contrary to this preliminary decree, the FDP Court has passed the order which reads as under: “Petition filed U/Or. 20 Rule 18 R/w Sec. 54 of C.P.C is hereby allowed as under: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:637 RFA No. 100441 of 2018 An extent of 31 gunthas 4 anna in Sy.No.494/2 shown with block-II in the watap takhta and an extent of 18 guntas in Sy.No.15/3 shown with block – I in the watap takhta are allotted to the share of plaintiff. An extent of 17 gunthas 12 anna in Sy.No.494/2 shown with block-I in watap takhta and an extent of 18 guntha in Sy. No.15/3 shown with block-II in the watap takhta are allotted to the defendant No.4 and his branch. The P.T. sheet, watap takhta and survey map prepared by the court commissioner are the part and parcel of this decree.” 8. As per the order passed in FDP proceedings above stated, the clause No.III in preliminary decree is not followed and also the FDP Court while passing order has not correctly mentioned the survey numbers. Therefore, the order passed by the FDP Court is liable to be set aside and remand the matter to the FDP Court to draw final decree as per preliminary decree. 9. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER a) RFA No.100441/2018 is allowed. b) The order dated 20.06.2018 passed in FDP No.02/2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:637 RFA No. 100441 of 2018 and Additional MACT, Bailhongal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the FDP Court. c) It is directed to draw final decree as per the preliminary decree passed in O.S No.69/2012 dated 15.07.2015 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal. d) No order as to costs. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22