- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:140 RSA NO.100800 OF 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100800 OF 2024 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: CHINNAPPA S/O MAHANTAPPA HUGAR SINCE DEAD THROUGH HIS LRS. 1. SMT. RENAVVA W/O CHINNAPPA HUGAR AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSE MAKER. 2. SMT. MAHADEVI W/O SANGAPPA HUGAR AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEWIFE. BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF NEAR OPPOSITE TO POLICE STATION, SH BAGALKOT-HUNGUND ROAD, WARD NO.2, AMINAGAD, HUNGUND TAUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT – 587 112. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANTOSHKUMAR G. RAMPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MALLAPPA S/O SHIVABASAPPA HUGAR AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC.: BUSINESS. Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:140 RSA NO.100800 OF 2024 2. SHIVANAND S/O SHIVABASAPPA HUGAR AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC.: BUSINESS. RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ARE R/O NEAR OPPOSITE TO POLICE STATION, SH BAGALKOT-HUNGUND ROAD, WARD NO.2, AMINAGAD, HUNGUND TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT – 587 112. 3. SMT. SHANTAVVA W/O SHARANAPPA HUGAR AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O MYAGERI, BAGALKOT TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT – 587 107. 4. SMT. SUVARNA W/O MAHANTESH HUGAR AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O NEAR OLD GOVT. HOSPITAL, BEHIND MARKHANDESHWAR TEMPLE, ILKAL, BAGALKOT DISTRICT – 587 118. 5. SMT. KASTURAVVA W/O SHANTAPPA HUGAR AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O NAGUR, HUNGUND TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT – 587 118. 6. SMT. GOURAVVA W/O SADAPPA HUGAR AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O WARD NO.3, AMINAGAD, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:140 RSA NO.100800 OF 2024 HUNGUND TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT – 587 112. 7. SM. MAHANTAVVA W/O MALLIKARJUN HUGAR @ JEER AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O BASAVANAGAR, NEAR LIC OFFICE, BASAVANA BAGEWADI, VIJAYAPUR DISTRICT – 586 203. 8. EXECUTIVE OFFICER SRI. SANGAMESHWAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, AMINAGAD, SH BAGALKOT-HUNGUND ROAD, HUNGUND TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT – 581 112. …RESPONDENTS THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN REGULAR APPEAL NO.01 OF 2019 DATED 15TH JULY, 2024 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., HUNGUND, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., HUNGUND IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.290 OF 2013 DATED 20TH DECEMBER, 2018. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH J U D G M E N T (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH) This Regular Second Appeal is preferred by the defendants 6 and 7 challenging the judgment and decree dated 15th July, 2024 passed in Regular Appeal No.01 of 2019 on the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:140 RSA NO.100800 OF 2024 file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Hunagund (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’), confirming the judgment and decree dated 20th December, 2018 passed in Original Suit No.290 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Hungund (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’), wherein the suit filed by the plaintiffs came to be decreed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal shall be referred to in terms of their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 5 are the children of Shivabasappa Hugar. Defendants 6 and the husband of defendant No.7 are the brothers of the father of plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 5. It is stated in the plaint that the defendants 6 and 7 have created the relinquishment deed and based on which, the mutation entries have been changed in their favour in respect of the suit schedule properties and as such, plaintiffs have filed Original Suit No.290 of 2013, seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of suit schedule properties. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:140 RSA NO.100800 OF 2024 4. After service of notice, defendants entered appearance and filed written statement. Defendants 1 to 5 have admitted the averments made in the plaint and accordingly, sought for one-seventh share each in the suit schedule property. Defendants 6 and 7 have filed written statement and took-up a specific contention that the father of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 5 namely Shivabasappa Hugar, had agreed during his lifetime to convey the suit schedule properties to his brothers Sri. Chinnappa (defendant No.6) and husband of the defendant No.7 (Sangappa) and as such, defendants 6 and 7 are in the possession of the suit schedule properties and accordingly, they sought for dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiffs. 5. Based on the pleadings on record, the Trial Court, framed the issues for its consideration. 6. In order to establish their case, plaintiff No.1 had examined as PW1 and got marked 4 documents as Exhibits P1 to P4. On the other hand, defendants examined 4 witnesses as DW1 to DW4 and got marked 4 documents as Exhibits D1 to D4. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:140 RSA NO.100800 OF 2024 7. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by judgment and decree dated 20th December, 2018, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs in-part and held that the plaintiffs are entitled for one-seventh share each along with defendants 1 to 5. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants 6 and 7 have preferred Regular Appeal No.01 of 2019 before the First Appellate Court and same was resisted by the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 5. The First Appellate Court, after re- appreciating the material on record, by its judgment and decreed dated 15th July, 2024, dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendants 6 and 7, consequently, confirmed the judgment and decree dated 20th December, 2018 passed by the Trial Court in Original Suit No.290 of 2013. Being aggrieved by the same, the legal representative of defendant No.6 and defendant No.7 preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 8. Heard Sri. Santosh Kumar G. Rampur, learned counsel appearing for appellants. 9. Sri. Santosh Kumar G. Rampur, learned counsel appearing for appellants contended that the revenue records in respect of the subject matter of the land stands in favour of the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:140 RSA NO.100800 OF 2024 defendants 6 and 7 as the plaintiffs themselves have given Wardi to the Panchayat Authorities stating about entering the name of the defendants 6 and 7 in the revenue records and therefore, the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 5 have relinquished the right in respect of the subject land. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. 10. In the light of submission made by learned counsel appearing for appellants, there is no dispute with regard to relationship between the parties as stated in the plaint. Defendant No.6 and husband of the defendant No.7 are the brothers of the father of plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 5. The entire case of the defendants 6 and 7 is based on the Wardi said to have been given by the plaintiffs to the Panchayat Authorities. Undisputably, no relinquishment deed is produced before the Courts below. In view of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of YELLAPU UMA MAHESWARI AND ANOTHER vs. BUDDA JAGADHESWARARAO AND OTHERS reported in (2015) 16 SCC 787, the relinquishment deed requires to be compulsorily registered and in the absence of the same, defendants 6 and 7 cannot claim any relief in respect of the suit schedule - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:140 RSA NO.100800 OF 2024 properties based on the Wardi as stated in the written statement. In that view of the matter, both the Courts below, after appreciating the material on record held that the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 5 are entitled for one-seventh share each in the suit schedule properties. Therefore, I am of the view that the appellants have not made out a case for formulation of substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and as such, the appeal deserves to the dismissed at the stage of admission itself. Accordingly, Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40