- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14559 RSA No. 100236 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100236 OF 2019 (PAR) BETWEEN: TUKARAM S/O. LAGAMAPPA UPPAR, AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KABBUR-591201, TAL. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVI S. BALIKAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. NINGAVVA W/O. TUKARAM UPPAR, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK AND AGRIL, R/O. KABBUR 591201, TAL. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. SMT. AVAKKA @ LAXMIBAI W/O. NINGAPPA, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. KATAKABHAVI-591301, TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 3. SMT. REVAKKA D/O. TUKARAM UPPAR, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. KABBUR591201, TAL. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 4. SMT. SAROJINI W/O. REVAPPA PIDAI, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Date: 2025.10.30 11:09:36 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14559 RSA No. 100236 of 2019 R/O. KATAKABHAVI-591301, TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 5. LAGAMAPPA S/O. TUKARAM UPPAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. DANDAPUR-591302, TAL. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI. 6. SUHAS S/O. BASAPPA HATTIKATAGI, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIKANANDI-591304, TAL. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (R1 TO R6- NOTICE SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 30.11.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.51/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHIKODI AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.04.2014, PASSED IN O.S. NO.273/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, CHIKODI AND THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFFS BE DISMISSED AND THIS APPEAL BE ALLOWED WITH COSTS, IN THE INTEREST 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:14559 RSA No. 100236 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. Despite service of notice, the respondents have not appeared. 3. The short point that arises for consideration is whether there is any substantial question of law that needs to be considered by this Court. In the opinion of this Court, there is no such substantial question of law. 4. It is a case of the appellant that he being the defendant No.1 in O.S.No.273/2011 filed by his wife and daughters against him; the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have erred in decreeing the suit for partition. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The plaintiff, who is the wife of the appellant herein, was living separately due to strained relationship along with her daughters and defendant No.2. The daughters are now married. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition along with the daughters, which came to be decreed. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that a few of the suit schedule properties especially - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14559 RSA No. 100236 of 2019 Sy.No.11/1 was the undivided property of defendant No.1 and his brothers. Therefore, unless his brothers are also made parties, the suit would not have been maintainable. The second contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the there are some debts, which existed prior to the filing of the suit and those debts are also to be considered while effecting the partition, which has not been done by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Therefore, he submits that the appeal deserves to be admitted. 5. A perusal of the written statement of the defendants as may be found from the contentions raised in the impugned judgments would show that there was no such specific plea as to which are the debts contracted by the appellant/defendant No.1 for the benefit of the family. Specific contentions regarding the said debt were not raised in the written statement and therefore, this submission is not sustainable in law. 6. So far as the ancestral property of defendant No.1 is concerned, it is needless to mention that such a contention may be taken up by the appellant in the final decree proceedings and also that in the share which defendant No.1/appellant would be entitled in the Sy.No.11/1, the plaintiff and other defendants - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14559 RSA No. 100236 of 2019 would be entitled for the partition. There cannot be any partition in respect of a property of which defendant No.1 would not have any right. This aspect also can be raised by the appellant before the final decree proceedings. Hence, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal and as such, the same is dismissed. SD/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SSP Ct:pa LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 22