- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2084 RSA No. 6256 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 6256 OF 2012 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MALLAWWA W/O. SHIVALING SANADI, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NANDAGAON, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI, PINCODE: 591307. 2. SHRI. TAMMANNA S/O. SHIVALING SANADI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS AS APPELLANTS NO.2A, 2B AND 2C HEREIN. 2A. SMT. CHANDRAWWA W/O. TAMMANNA SANADI, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK AND AGRICULTURE. 2B. SHRI. SHIVALING S/O TAMMANNA SANADI, AGE. 20 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 2C. KUMARI. SUMITRA D/O. TAMMANNA SANADI, AGE. 09 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT. THE APPELLANT NO.2C IS MINOR AND REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER APPELLANT NO.2A HEREIN. THE APPELLANTS NO.2A TO 2C ARE RESIDING AT NANDAGAON, TALUKA: GOKAK, V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.05 15:15:18 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2084 RSA No. 6256 of 2012 DIST: BELAGAVI, PINCODE: 591307. 3. SHRI. BALAPPA S/O. SHIVALING SANADI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS AS APPELLANTS NO.3A, 3B, 3C AND 3D HEREIN. 3A. SMT. DODDAVVA W/O. BALAPPA SANADI, AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK AND AGRICULTURE. 3B. KUMARI SHIVAKKA D/O. BALAPPA SANADI, AGE. 8 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, 3C. KUMARI. LAXMI D/O BALAPPA SANADI, AGE. 5 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, 3D. KUMAR BASAVARAJ S/O BALAPPA SANADI, AGE. 2 YEARS, OCC. NIL, THE APPELLANTS NO. 3B, 3C AND 3D ARE MINOR AND REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER APPELLANT NO.3A HEREIN. THE APPELLANTS NO. 3A TO 3D ARE RESIDING AT NANDAGAON, TALUKA: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI, PINCODE: 591307. 4. SHRI. KADAPPA S/O. SHIVALING SANADI, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NANDAGAON, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI, PINCODE: 591307. 5. SMT. KRISHNAWWA W/O. YAMANAPPA GUTAGI, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MELMANHATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAVI, PINCODE: 591307. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2084 RSA No. 6256 of 2012 6. KUMARI RENUKA D/O. SHIVALING SANADI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MELMANHATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM. 7. SHRI. MALLAPPA S/O. ARJUN GUTAGI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. ARE THE APPELLANTS HEREIN ONLY. 8. SHRI. IRAPPA S/O. ARJUN GUTAGI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MELMANHATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI, PINCODE: 591307. 9. SHRI. PRAKASH S/O. YAMANAPPA GUTAGI, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NANDAGAON, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI, PINCODE: 591307. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. TIPPANNA S/O. RAMAPPA DALAWAI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUTNAL (SAVAGALI) TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI, PINCODE: 591231. 2. SHRI. SHANKAR S/O. RAMAPPA DALAWAI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUTNAL (SAVAGALI) TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI, PINCODE: 591231. 3. SMT. SUSHILAWWA W/O. KEMPANNA DENDAPPANAVAR, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2084 RSA No. 6256 of 2012 R/O. AVARADI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI, PINCODE: 591310. 4. SHRI. NAGAPPA S/O. HANAMANTH GUTAGI, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. AVARADI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI, PINCODE: 591310. 5. SMT. GOURAVVA W/O. VITHAL DANADAPPANAVAR, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. AVARADI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI, PINCODE: 591310. 6. SMT. LAXMI W/O. GOPA PATIL @ NAIK, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KILLA, GOKAK, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2, NOTICE TO R3 TO R5 ARE SERVED UNREPRESENTED, NOTICE TO R6 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IS PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22-11-2012 PASSED BY THE FAST TRACK COURT AND ADHOC DISTRICT JUDGE, HUKKERI SITTING AT GOKAK IN R.A. NO. 77/2012 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GOKAK DATED 23.02.2012 IN O.S. NO. 46/2010, THEREBY DISMISS THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFFS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2084 RSA No. 6256 of 2012 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH) This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the defendant Nos.1 to 8 and 13, challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2012 in RA No.77/2012 on the file of Fast Track Court and Adhoc District Judge, Hukkeri sitting at Gokak (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’), dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2012 in OS No.46/2010 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gokak (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’), decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in part. 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, schedule property is joint family property of plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 7 to 13. It is stated that the suit schedule property is originally belongs to Tammanna who had two wives namely, Krishnawa and Ningawwa. Krishnawa had three daughters - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2084 RSA No. 6256 of 2012 namely Lagamawwa (mother of the plaintiffs), Gourawwa (who died without issues) and Sattewwa, (mother of defendant Nos.1, 7 to 9 and grand-mother of defendant Nos.10 to 13). The second wife of Tammanna – Ningawwa had a son Shivaling (husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant Nos.2 to 6). It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property together and therefore, OS No.46/2010 is filed seeking relief against the defendants and also stated that the defendants in collusion have given a Vardi to the Revenue Authorities to grab the entire suit schedule property and accordingly, plaintiffs have sought for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property. 4. On service of notice, the defendant No.1 entered appearance and filed written statement contending that, after the death of Tammanna, Shivaling (husband of defendant No.1) has inherited the suit schedule property as same is reflected in mutation entry No.2003 dated 08.01.1980 and also stated that Lagamawwa and Sattewwa had executed relinquish deed in favour of Shivaling and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit. The remaining defendants adopted the written statement filed by defendant No.1. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2084 RSA No. 6256 of 2012 5. On the basis of pleadings and records, the Trial Court framed the issues for its consideration. In order to establish their case, plaintiffs have examined four witnesses as PW1 to PW4 and marked 14 documents as Ex.P1 to P14. Defendants have examined three witnesses as DW1 to DW3 and got marked 16 documents as Ex.D1 to D16. The Trial Court after considering the material on record held that, the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/3rd share together in the suit schedule property and feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred RA No.77/2012 and same was resisted by the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court after considering the material on record by its judgment and decree dated 22.11.2012 dismissed the appeal consequently, confirmed the judgment and decree in OS No.46/2010. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred this appeal. 6. This Court vide order dated 25.07.2013 framed the following substantial question of law; “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Courts below were justified in granting 1/3rd share to the plaintiffs in the suit property?” - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2084 RSA No. 6256 of 2012 7. I have heard Sri. Sanjay S. Katageri, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. Laxman T. Mantagani, learned counsel for the respondents. 8. Sri. Sanjay S. Katageri, learned counsel for the appellants contended that both the Courts below have not considered the fact that Sattewwa and Lagamawwa had relinquished their right insofar as schedule property in favour of the husband of defendant No.1 and accordingly, sought for intereference of this Court. 9. Per contra, Sri. Laxman T. Mantagani, learned counsel for the respondents sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. 10. In the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the original records. In order to understand the relationship between the parties, genealogy is re-produced as under; - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2084 RSA No. 6256 of 2012 Tammanna (Propositus-dead) Krishnawwa (wife-dead) Ningawwa (dead) Lagamawwa Gourawwa Sattewwa Shivaling(dead) (dead) (dead) (dead) =Mallawwa (D.1) Tamanna Balappa Kadappa Krishnawwa Renuka (D.2) (D.3) (D.4) (D.5) (D.6) Tippanna Shankar (P.1) (P.2) Mallawwa Hanamant Yamanappa Mallappa Irappa Sushilawwa (D.1) (dead) (dead) (D.7) (D.8) (D.9) =Mahadevi (dead) Prakash (D.13) Nagappa Gourawwa Laxmi (D.10) (D.11) (D.12) 11. It is not in dispute with regard to the fact the original propositus-Tammanna had two wives namely Krishnawwa and Ningawwa. Krishnawwa had three daughters namely Lagamawwa (mother of the plaintiffs), Gourawwa (who died without issues) and Sattewwa, (mother of defendant Nos.1, 7 to 9 and grand-mother of defendant Nos.10 to 13). The second wife of Tammanna – Ningawwa had a son Shivaling (husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant Nos.2 to 6). It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the plaintiffs are the children of Lagamawwa and as Gourawwa died without issues and therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled 1/3rd share each - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2084 RSA No. 6256 of 2012 together and the branch of Sattewwa and Ningawwa are entitled for 1/3rd share each. On the other hand, the defendant No.1 has pleaded that Lagamawwa and Sattewwa had relinquished their right in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the husband of defendant No.1. Ex.D6 is the relinquish deed produced by the defendant No.1 to substantiate the release of the properties by Lagamawwa and Sattewwa however, the said Ex.D6 unregistered document and cannot confer any right in favour of defendant No.1. 12. In view of the declaration made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yellapu Uma Maheswari and Another v. Buddha Jagadheeswararao and Others1, the deed of relinquishment of immovable property requires compulsory registration and therefore, I do not find any merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Both the Courts below after assessing the evidence on records, rightly arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiffs together entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property and therefore, there is no perversity in the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below and substantial 1 (2015) 16 SCC 787 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2084 RSA No. 6256 of 2012 question of law framed above favours the plaintiffs and accordingly appeal is dismissed. 13. It is pertinent to mentioned that this Court while admitting the matter on 25.07.2013 directed the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- every year subject to modification if the appeal is not dispose off within one year. 14. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the parties that the appellants herein are depositing Rs.20,000/- every year in FDP No.13/2012. 15. In that view of the matter, both the appellants and respondents are entitled for ½ share in the amount deposited in FDP No.13/2012. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31