- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1700 RSA No. 200288 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 200288 OF 2024 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. LAXMIBAI W/O ESHWARAPPA, AGED 42 YEARS,OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: VILLAGE REKULGI, TALUK AND DISTRICT BIDAR – 585 401. 2. MANIKPRABHU S/O ESHWARAPPA,AGED 25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,R/O: VILLAGE REKULGI, TALUK AND DISTRICT BIDAR – 585 401. 3. MALLIKARJUN S/O ESHWARAPPA, AGED 21 YEARS, R/O: VILLAGE REKULGI, TALUK AND DISTRICT BIDAR – 585 401. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI JAIRAJ K.BUKKA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VIJAYLAXMI D/O ESHWARAPPA, AGED 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 2. SUREKHA D/O ESHWARAPPA, AGED 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1700 RSA No. 200288 of 2024 3. MANGALA D/O ESHWARAPPA, AGED 34 YEARS,OCC: HOUSEHOLD ALL R/O: VILLAGE REKULGI, TALUK AND DISTRICT BIDAR – 585 401. …RESPONDENTS THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF C.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE LEARNED HON’BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE AT BIDAR IN R.A.NO.04/2022 DATED 13.12.2023 IS LIABLE TO SET ASIDE AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE HON’BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.-II BIDAR IN O.S.NO.84/2018 DATED 08.12.2021 AND THEREBY ALLOT 1/4th LEGITIMATE SHARE TO THE PLAINTIFF WHICH IS STANDING IN THE NAME OF DEFENDANT, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard Sri Jairaj K.Bukka learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 2. This appeal is arising out of concurrent finding in a suit for partition. The Trial Court decreed the suit holding that each of the plaintiffs and defendants is having - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1700 RSA No. 200288 of 2024 1/5th share in the suit schedule property. The First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the defendants are before this Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for defendants/ appellants would submit that property originally belonged to Eshwarappa who is the father of defendants from Eshwarappa’s third wife. It is further stated that third marriage took place after the demise of first wife as well as the second wife. The second wife died issueless. First wife had three children. Those three children of first wife are the plaintiffs. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the propositus Eshwarappa acquired right over the property under a gift deed executed by Bhimanna S/o Lingappa and it is stated that Bhimanna’s daughter has raised a dispute before the revenue authorities challenging the alleged transfer by way of gift and it is pending - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1700 RSA No. 200288 of 2024 consideration. Under these circumstances, the suit could not have been decreed, is the submission. 5. He would also submit that the plaintiffs are married long back and during the life time of propositus Eashwarappa, lot of money is spent on their marriage, as such, the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any share in the suit properties as the money spent on their marriage should be treated as the share given to the daughters. 6. It is further stated that Eashwarappa’s brother Laxman is not made a party to the proceeding and suit ought to have been dismissed on this ground. 7. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the record. 8. Admittedly, propositus Eashwarappa had three wives. Plaintiffs are the children from first wife. After the demise of the first wife, he married second time. The second wife died issueless and then he married third time. Defendants are the children from the third marriage. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1700 RSA No. 200288 of 2024 9. Plaintiffs are claiming under Eashwarappa. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have also not disputed the fact that the property stood in the name of Eashwarappa at the time of his death. The contention is one Bhimappa had transferred the property to Eashwarappa through oral gift deed. 10. It is further stated that Bhimappa’s daughter has raised a dispute before the revenue court disputing the said oral gift. Any judgment rendered in this case would not bind on the daughter of Bhimappa who is said to have transferred the property to Eashwarappa. The present dispute is only among the children of Eashwarappa. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any error in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 11. The contention that the amount spent during marriage, and the ornaments given at the time of marriage of the plaintiffs should be taken as the share - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1700 RSA No. 200288 of 2024 allotted to the plaintiffs does not merit any consideration. Said payment or gift is not established. If any money spent or gift made will not be in lieu of the share. No materials are placed to establish the contention. 12. It is further made clear that this decree does not bind those persons who are not parties to the suit, if at all anyone else is having any right over the property, same is to be established in the manner known to law. 13. No substantial question of law would arise. The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36