- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15309 RSA No. 6072 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 6072 OF 2012 (INJ) BETWEEN: SRI. MAHAVEER S/O. DEVAPPA CHIKKAPARAPPA, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. H.NO.268/B, MAHAVEER GALLI, HONAGA, TAL. AND DIST. BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE) AND. 1. SMT. SUNANDA W/O. BHAVUBALI CHIKKAPARAPPA, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. C/O. PADMAVATI JINNAPPA PATIL, GUDI ONI, BASTWAD, TAL. AND DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. MISS DEEPIKA @ DEEPA D/O. BHAVUBALI CHIKKAPARAPPA, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL MOTHER, RESPONDENT NO.1 SMT. SUNANDA W/O. BHAVUBALI CHIKKAPARAPPA. 3. 3A. SRI. DEVENDRA ANNAPPA DESAI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. SMT. PREMA W/O. DHARMARAJ PATIL, D/O. DEVENDRA DESAI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Date: 2025.11.12 10:43:08 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15309 RSA No. 6072 of 2012 R/O. PLOT NO.469, 3RD BUS STOP, DEVARAJ ARAS COLONY, BASAVAN KUDACHI, BELAGAVI-590001. 3B. SMT. JAYASHRI W/O. IGAPPA NARASINGANNAVAR, D/O. DEVEDRA DESAI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. PLOT NO.400 AND 401, DEVARAJ ARAS COLONY, BASAVAN KUDACHI, BELAGAVI-590001. 3C. SMT. SHANTA W/O. SHANTINATH MANNUR, D/O. DEVENDRA DESAI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. OPPOSITE TO KANNADA SCHOOL, MAJGAVI-590001, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (R1, R3(A), R3(B), R3(C)-NOTICE SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.12.2011 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK- III AND MACT BELAGAVI IN R.A.NO.308/2009, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.01.2005 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC BELAGAVI IN O.S.NO.667/1997, BY ALLOWING THE TOP NOTED APPEAL IN THE INTERST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15309 RSA No. 6072 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER. THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.667/1997 and appellant in R.A.No.308/2009, both of which came to be dismissed by the Courts below. 3. It is the case of the appellant that he and the original defendant No.1- Bahubali were brothers and they jointly had purchased the suit schedule property bearing No.268/B situated at Halga Village, Taluka Belagavi. It was purchased under a registered sale deed dated 27.11.1973 for a consideration of Rs.10,000/-. After the purchase, they were enjoying the said properties jointly and later, the defendant No.1 was in actual possession and enjoyment of the house property. It was contented that the said house property consists of two portions, one is for residence towards the eastern side and the other on the western portion was used for the purpose of tethering cattle. It is contented that both were using and enjoying the said property jointly as members of the Hindu undivided family. It - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15309 RSA No. 6072 of 2012 was contented that on 22.07.1997, the defendant No.1 sold his half portion in the suit schedule property without the consent of the plaintiff and without partition to the defendant No.2 for a consideration of Rs.70,000/-. It was alleged that there was no partition between the brothers by metes and bounds and the defendant No.2 being a stranger, he cannot be inducted into the joint property of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. It was alleged that the defendant No.2 is trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and therefore, an injunction be passed restraining the defendant No.2 from interfering with possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. 4. The defendant No.1 had appeared and resisted the suit contending that though it was purchased in the joint name of the plaintiff and defendant No.1, the property was given VPC Nos.268/A2 respectively and the open space was given VPC Nos.268/C1, 2841/C2 and 268/2. Later, the three numbers were amalgamated and re-numbered as 268/A and 268/B for the house properties and 268/C and 268/D for the open spaces, which are the backyards. It was stated that, there was a partition that took place between the plaintiff and defendant - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15309 RSA No. 6072 of 2012 No.1 and therefore, the share which was fallen to the defendant No.1 was sold to the defendant No.2. They contented that the enjoyment was separate and therefore, there cannot be any injunction against the defendant No.2. The defendant No.2 on his behalf contented that he is a bonafied purchaser and no objections were raised at the time of his purchase of the suit schedule property. 5. The Trial Court framed appropriate issues and in the trial, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and six documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P6. The defendant No.1 did not adduce any evidence and the defendant No.3 was examined as DW1 and Exs.D1 to 15 were marked. 6. After hearing both the parties, the Trial Court had dismissed the suit. 7. Being aggrieved, the appellant had approached the First Appellate Court in R.A.308/2009, which also came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment. 8. A careful perusal of the judgments of the First Appellate Court and the Trial Court show that they have come to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15309 RSA No. 6072 of 2012 the conclusion that there was a partition between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and on the basis of the statements made before the Panchayat, the VPC No.268 was divided into four parts, two of which contained a house and open space each. It was held that since the enjoyment was shown to be separate, there is no material to show that the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 were in the joint possession and enjoyment of the property as contented. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in the absence of any material to show that there was a partition between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1, the remedy open to the defendant No.2 was to file a suit for general partition and seek bifurcation of his share. It is submitted that the plaintiff has a joint share in the suit schedule property and he is enjoying the suit schedule property and therefore, the defendant No.2 cannot be permitted to intrude into the dwelling house and as such, the Courts below have erred in dismissing the suit. 10. A careful perusal of the impugned judgments would show that at the instance of the plaintiff and the defendant No.1, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15309 RSA No. 6072 of 2012 there was amalgamation and bifurcation of the properties and the Panchayat had acted upon it. It is not the case of the appellant that the Grama Panchayat had recorded VPC No.268/A, B, C, D unilaterally without he being heard. The First Appellate Court notes that though there is a contention that the property is being jointly enjoyed, PW1 had clearly admitted that property No.268-A2 was in existence and later the Panchayath authorities had given separate numbers to the properties. He admitted that he had produced the old assessment records but not the new one. There is no explanation by the appellant in respect of the said Panchayat records and it is not his case that those entries made by the Panchayat were behind his back. In that view of the matter, the Courts below came to the conclusion that the enjoyment of the property by the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 was separate and it cannot be held that the plaintiff was also in joint possession and enjoyment of the property sold by the defendant No.1 to defendant No.2. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant also submit that after death of the defendant No.1, the LRS of the defendant No.1 have filed a suit for partition in respect of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15309 RSA No. 6072 of 2012 other properties held by them. He submits that cleverly the present suit schedule property was not included. In that view of the matter, if at all, the appellant is aggrieved by bifurcation of VPC Nos.268/A, 268/B, 268/C, 268/D, he is at liberty to take up such contention in appropriate proceeding and seek for partition. So far as the case on hand is concerned, in view of concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate court, the fact has been finally decided and therefore, no substantial question of law arises. Consequently, the appeal is devoid of any merits and the same is dismissed. SD/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE RKM CT. PA LIST NO.. 1 SL NO.. 20