- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7316 RSA No. 100861 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100861 OF 2024 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: 1. GANAPATI SANNATAMMA @ YALLAPPA TALAD, AGE:85 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: BANAVASI, TALUKA:SIRSI, DIST: KARWAR – 581 318. 2. SUDARSHAN GANAPATI TALAD, AGE:44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: BANAVASI, TALUKA:SIRSI, DIST: KARWAR – 581 318. 3. VINAYAK GANAPATI TALAD, AGE:42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: BANAVASI, TALUKA:SIRSI, DIST: KARWAR – 581 318. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRANAV BADAGI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R.H.ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VAMAN SANNATAMMA @ YALLAPPA TALAD, Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7316 RSA No. 100861 of 2024 AGE:70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: BANAVASI, TALUKA:SIRSI, DIST: KARWAR – 581 318. 2. MANJUNATH SANNATAMMA @ YALLAPPA TALAD, AGE:60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: BANAVASI, TALUKA: SIRSI, DIST: KARWAR – 581 318. …RESPONDENTS [BY SMT. HEMAVATHI P.M., ADVOCATE FOR R1 THROUGH (VC)] THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 READ WITH ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DECREE PASSED IN R.A.NO.5019/2023, DATED 04.11.2024, BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT KARWAR, (SITTING AT SIRSI) AT SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA, CONFORMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.57/2018, DATED 01.09.223, BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JMFC COURT, SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA, AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SUIT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7316 RSA No. 100861 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) This appeal is by the defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 aggrieved by the judgement and decree dated 01.09.2023 passed in OS No.57/2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Principle JMFC Court, Sirsi at Uttara Kannada (for short ‘Trial Court’) by which the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein was decreed by granting 1/3 share in the suit schedule properties which is confirmed by the judgment and order dated 04.11.2024 passed in RA No.5019/2023 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karwar sitting at Sirsi, Uttara Kannada (for short ‘First Appellate Court’). 2. The above suit in OS No.57/2018 is filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein seeking partition and allotment of his 1/3 share in the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule properties are (i)land measuring 2 acres 8 guntas in Sy.No.179/3, (ii) land measuring 1 acre 14 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7316 RSA No. 100861 of 2024 guntas in Sy. No.179/5, (iii) land measuring 33 guntas in Sy.No.179/6 all situated at Thigani village of Sirsi taluk. 3. Case of the plaintiff is that, the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of one Sannathamma @ Yallappa Talada, who was the propositus of family of the plaintiff and defendants. Lakshmavva was his wife. Plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the sons of said Sannathamma and Lakshmavva. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 are the children of defendant No.1. That the said Sannathamma and Lakshmavva, the parents of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are no more. That the suit schedule properties are the tenanted lands being cultivated by the father of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 on tenancy basis. Upon the demise of said Sannathamma, names of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 were entered as the legal hairs of deceased Sannathamma. Upon coming into force the Land Reforms Act, defendant No.1 being the head of the family made an application in Form No.7 seeking grant of land before the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7316 RSA No. 100861 of 2024 Land Tribunal, Sirsi. After enquiry, the suit schedule properties are granted in the name of defendant No.1 by issuing Form No.10. The grant was for on behalf of the family consisting of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2. Apart from plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 being the sons, the said Sannathamma and Lakshmavva also had a daughter by name Yellavva and she was married prior to the grant of land as stated above and she had no right over the property. Since, the property was being misused by defendant No.1 availing unnecessary loans without giving share of the plaintiff despite requests, he filed the present suit. 4. Defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 filed written statement specifically contending that the suit schedule properties are the self acquired properties of defendant No.1 as they were granted exclusively in the name of defendant No.1 and not for the benefit of the family. As such, plaintiff had no share, right, title or interest over the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7316 RSA No. 100861 of 2024 suit schedule properties. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. The Trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that suit property is the tenanted land of Sannatamma Talad? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that suit property was granted in the name of first defendant by the Land Tribunal for and on behalf of the family members of Sannatamma Talad? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as sought in the plaint? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share over the suit property by metes and bounds? 5. Whether the defendant No.1 proves suit property is his self-acquired property? 6. What order or decree? - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7316 RSA No. 100861 of 2024 6. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and exhibited 5 documents marked as Ex.P1 to P5. On behalf of defendants, defendant No.4 examined himself as DW1 and one witness as DW2, and exhibited 10 documents as Ex.D1 to D10. The Trial Court answered the issue Nos.1, 2 and 4 in the affirmative and issue No.3 as not arising for consideration. Issue No.5 in the negative and consequently, decreed the suit of the plaintiff by granting 1/3 share in the suit schedule properties. Being aggrieved, defendant Nos.1 to 3 preferred regular appeal in RA No.5019/2023 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration: 1. Whether the defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 are entitled for setting aside of impugned judgment and decree as sought for? 2. What order? 7. On re-appreciation of the evidence, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7316 RSA No. 100861 of 2024 judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal. 8. Sri. Pranav Badagi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. R. H. Angadi, learned counsel for the appellant, reiterating the averments and grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal vehemently submitted that, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court has grossly erred in not appreciating the fact that, the plaintiff and defendants were staying separately and there was neither a joint family nor joint family property. That the grant of subject property under the Land Reforms Act was made exclusively in the name of defendant No.1 for his benefit and not for the benefit of joint family consisting of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2. He submits that since the grant was not for the benefit of family, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court erred in holding the grant was for the benefit of the family consisting of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 and they were allotted 1/3 share each. He submits non-appreciation of the evidence by the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7316 RSA No. 100861 of 2024 Trial Court and the First Appellate Court has given rise to substantial question of law. 9. Per contra, Smt. Hemavathi P.M., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 through Video Conference submits that the land was originally cultivated during the lifetime of father of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2. An application was made for grant of land after the demise of their father in the name of defendant No.1, as he was the eldest member of the family which fact has been mentioned in the very application and report of the Tahasildar. She submits that this aspect of the matter has been taken note of both by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court no substantial question of law would arise for consideration. Hence, she sought for dismissal of the appeal. 10. Heard and perused the records. 11. Certified copies of Form No.7, Form No.10 and the report of the Tahasildar are furnished by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is seen that, the application - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7316 RSA No. 100861 of 2024 in From No.7 is filed in the name of defendant No.1. However, there is specific reference that the said land is being cultivated hereditary for over 35 years. There is also specific reference to the fact that the father of the plaintiff and the defendants being a farmer was cultivating the said land. The said document further reveal that the defendant No.1 himself has given a statement before the Land Tribunal that the said land was being cultivated on lease basis by their father and upon his demise, his children continued to cultivate the same. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have taken note of this aspect of the matter as seen at paragraph No.7(g) of the order passed by the First Appellate Court. 12. In view of the aforesaid admitted position of facts, no error or irregularity can be found with the judgements and conclusion arrived by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court in holding that the grant was made in the name of defendant No.1 for and on behalf of the entire family as the land was being cultivated - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7316 RSA No. 100861 of 2024 even during the lifetime of their father. No substantial question of law would arise for consideration. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. The judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court is confirmed. SMM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37 Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE