- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4189 RFA No. 100283 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100283 OF 2015 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI. BEERAPPA S/O. SATYAPPA DABB, AGE 64 YRS, OCC:AGRIL. R/O: MANTUR AND MUGALKHOD VILLAGEM TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI, …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SABEEL AHMAD, ADV. FOR SRI. A. S. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. REVAPPA S/O. SATAPPA DABB, AGE 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL. R/O. MANTUR, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001. 2. SRI. SATYAPPA S/O. SATAPPA DABB, AGE 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL. R/O. MANTUR, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001. 3. SRI. ITTAPPA S/O. SATAPPA DABB, AGE 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL. R/O. MANTUR, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4189 RFA No. 100283 of 2015 4. SMT. SUSHILAVVA W/O. NINGAPPA MELAVANKI, AGE 46 YRS, OCC: H/W, R/O. DANDAPUR, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001. 5. SMT. GOURAVVA W/O. SHANKAR WADER, AGE 44 YRS, OCC: H/W, R/O. DEVANKATTI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001. 6. SMT. LAKKAVVA W/O. MALAKARI NOOLI, AGE 39 YRS, OCC: H/W, R/O. BUDIHAL, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001. 7. SMT. MAYAVVA W/O. MAYAPPA HADIMANI, AGE 36 YEARS, OCC: H/W, R/O. TUKANATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001. 8. SMT. RATNAVVA W/O. LAKKAPPA SURANNAVAR, AGE 34 YRS, OCC: H/W, R/O. SAVASUDDI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001. 9. SMT. SUMAVVA W/O. BHIMAGONDA BORAGONDA, AGE 32 YRS, OCC: H/W, R/O. DANDAPUR, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN O.S. NO.73/2011 DATED 20.11.2015 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAIBAG IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4189 RFA No. 100283 of 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) 1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.73 of 2011 against the judgment and decree dated 20th November 2015, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag. 2. For 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, the suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties. The original propositus Satyappa and his wife Smt. Satyavva had two sons and a daughter by name Satappa, Beerappa (plaintiff) and Satyavva. The propositus, his wife and their daughter Satyavva have all died. Satappa also died leaving behind his sons and daughters who are defendant Nos.1 to 9 in the present suit. 4. The plaintiff contended that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties and the plaintiff is entitled to half share in the suit schedule - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4189 RFA No. 100283 of 2015 properties. With these reasons, the plaintiff prays to decree the suit filed for partition. 5. The contentions of the defendants are that, in the year 1963, the grandfather of the plaintiff - Satappa purchased the lands in Sy. Nos.73/8A, 73/4 to the extent of half share, 74/6 from Satappa and others through a registered sale deed dated 11.06.1962. The said Satappa died on 22.08.1966. After the death of Satappa, name of the father of defendant Nos.1 to 9 and the plaintiff were entered in the revenue records. 6. The defendants further contended that, the plaintiff and the father of defendants entered into a family arrangement and partitioned the joint family properties. In the said partition, R.S. No.80/1 measuring 9 acres 21 guntas was allotted to share of the plaintiff along with 200 sheep and Rs.3,000/- cash were given to the plaintiff. Plaintiff sold the said property in favour of one Yallappa Uppar (DW3). The plaintiff has filed the suit to get the share in the properties allotted to the share of Satappa i.e., the father of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4189 RFA No. 100283 of 2015 defendant Nos.1 to 9. The plaintiff filed suit in O.S. No.169/2010 before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Raibag, which was pending consideration. The said fact is also suppressed in the present suit. After the partition, the plaintiff has no right or interest over suit schedule properties. Accordingly, the defendants pray for dismissal of the suit. 7. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues and additional issues: ISSUES 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the suit schedule properties are ancestral joint family properties? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 1/9th share and separate possession in the suit schedule property? 3. What order or decree. ADDL. ISSUE 1. Whether the defendant Nos.1 to 3 prove that, there was a family arrangement between the parties after 1969, at the partition R.S No.80/1 fallen to the share of plaintiff and other properties mentioned in the schedule fallen to the share of their father as pleaded in the amended written statement?. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4189 RFA No. 100283 of 2015 2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 3. Whether the plaint schedule includes all the properties of joint family? “ 8. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and examined one witness as PW2 and got marked 13 documents at Exs.P1 to P13. The defendants examined three witnesses as DW1 to DW3 and got marked 4 documents at Exs.D1 to D4. 9. The trial Judge, after hearing the learned counsels appearing for parties and on appreciating the pleadings and evidence on record, answered issue Nos.1, 2 and Additional issues Nos.2 and 3 in the negative and additional issue No.1 in the affirmative and by the impugned judgment and decree dated 20th November 2015, dismissed the suit. The same is challenged by the plaintiff in the present appeal. 10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant - plaintiff and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents - defendants. The - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4189 RFA No. 100283 of 2015 following points that would emerge for consideration in this appeal are: “1. Whether the learned trial Judge erred in holding that there was already a partition between the plaintiff and his brother – deceased – Satappa during the lifetime of Satappa? 2. Whether the finding of the learned trial Judge is erroneous and interference by this Court is required?” FINDINGS ON THE ABOVE POINTS: 11. PW1 is the plaintiff and in his evidence he has reiterated the plaint averments stating that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties. Admittedly, Sy.No.80/1 is not a part of the present suit and another suit is filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.169/2010. The plaintiff has produced the RTC extracts of the suit schedule properties at Exs.P1 to P9, the same are standing in the joint names of the father of defendants and the plaintiff. Ex.P10 is the mutation entry, which shows that father of the plaintiff purchased three items of the suit schedule properties under - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4189 RFA No. 100283 of 2015 the registered sale deeds. The said transaction is entered in M.E. No.1362 dated 26.07.1969 and Exs.P.12 and P13 are the certified copies of the plaint and order sheet in O.S. No.169/2010. 12. In the cross-examination of PW1, it is stated that after his marriage with Balavva, the relationship between wife of his brother as well as his wife was not cordial. He denied the suggestion that due to the said reason, he got partitioned the family properties and in the said partition, Sy.No.80/1 was given to his share. He voluntaries that his brother was obtained by misrepresentation by his brother. He also denied the suggestion that after the said property was allotted to his share, he sold the said property as well as the sheep and went to Mugalkhod village to reside in the house of his father-in-law. He also denied the suggestion that he sold the property to one Yallappa Uppar. He voluntaries that the said sale deed is forged one. 13. In the further cross-examination, PW1 has stated that, Sy.No.80 is not included in the present suit. His - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4189 RFA No. 100283 of 2015 brother sold the said property and he has signed on the said sale deed. He has not impleaded the defendants herein in O.S. No.169/2010. He has also denied the other suggestions of the defendants. 14. He got examined PW2 and in his cross- examination PW2 admits that, the plaintiff and the members of his family have been residing in Mugalkhod village and the plaintiff has been residing in the said village for about 35 to 40 years prior to his evidence before the Court. He also admits that, after the death of Satappa his two sons namely plaintiff and his brother’s name were entered in the revenue records. He also admits the suggestion of defendants that after the death of Satappa, the plaintiff and father of defendants partitioned the properties and in the said partition Sy.No.80/1 measuring 9 acres 15 guntas, 200 sheep and Rs.3,000/- cash were given to the share of the plaintiff and the suit properties were given to the share of the father of the defendants. He also admits the suggestion that after the partition, the plaintiff sold Sy.No.80/1 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4189 RFA No. 100283 of 2015 measuring 9 acres 15 guntas in favour of one Yallappa Uppar for Rs.1,000/- during the year 1974. He also admits the suggestion that, the plaintiff sold 200 sheeps given to his share and shifted to Mugalkhod village and started residing in the house of his father-in-law. He also admitted that thereafter defendant Nos.1 to 9 have been peacefully cultivating the suit property and enjoying the fruits of the property. PW2 more or less admitted the case of defendants. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the evidence of PW2 will not bind the rights of the plaintiff. The said contention is not acceptable. PW2 was examined on his behalf that too, to prove that there was no partition and all the properties are enjoyed by the joint family of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 9. Hence, his evidence probablise the case of defendants. 16. Prior to filing of the present suit, plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S. No.169/2010. The said fact is not pleaded in the plaint. The plaintiff has produced the copy of the plaint in O.S. No.169/2010 at Ex.P12. Defendants also produced - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4189 RFA No. 100283 of 2015 the same document at Ex.D1. In the said suit, the plaintiff has sought for the relief of declaration that the sale deed executed in respect of Sy.No.81/1, dated 17.12.1974 be declared as null and void in respect of half share of the plaintiff. Very strangely, the plaintiff did not include defendant Nos.1 to 9 of the present suit in O.S. No.169/2010, if the suit properties are also the joint family properties and father of defendants had executed the sale deed by playing fraud on the plaintiff, then he should have impleaded all the defendants herein as parties in the said suit. There is no explanation in the plaint for not including the said land in the present suit. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that O.S. No.169/2010 is not finally adjudicated and RFA No.101555/2022 is pending before this Court. In view of the pendency of the said litigation, there is no need to comment about the said case in the present appeal. 18. From the materials placed on record as well as the admission of PW2, it is clear that there was a partition - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4189 RFA No. 100283 of 2015 between the plaintiff and father of defendant Nos.1 to 9. Therefore, it appears that the plaintiff cleverly leaving Sy.No.81/1 and other properties given his share filed the suit mentioning the property which was allotted the share of the father of defendant Nos.1 to 9. Plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands. 19. The learned trial Judge appreciated the pleadings and evidence on record and rightly come to the conclusion that as on the date of filing of the suit, the suit properties have lost the status of family properties and they were partitioned long prior to filing of the suit. The said findings are based on pleadings and evidence available on record. Hence, I do not find any error in the said finding. 20. For the aforesaid discussion, this Court answer above questions Nos.1 and 2 in the negative and pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4189 RFA No. 100283 of 2015 (ii) The judgment and decree dated 20th November 2015, passed in O.S. No.73 of 2011 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag, is confirmed. (iii) The Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court Records (TCR) along with the copy of this judgment. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE VNP / CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9