- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1478 RFA No. 200065 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.200065 OF 2020 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: 1. SIDDAPPA S/O PARASAPPA DEVARNAVADGI AGE: 82 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: LALASANGI, TQ: INDI, DIST: VIJAYAPUR. 1a. MADEWWA @ BAWWA W/O NEELKANTRAYA PATIL, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: HANDIGNOOR, TQ: SINDAGI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA. 1b. SHIVAPUTRA S/O SIDDAPPA DEVARNAVADGI, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: LALSANGI, TQ: INDI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA. 1c. SHARADABAI S/O SIDDAPPA SONNAD, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: DUDHNI, TQ: AKKALKOT, DIST: SOLAPUR, STATE : MAHARASTRA Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1478 RFA No. 200065 of 2020 1d. MALAMMA W/O RAJASHEKHAR GUDDALLI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: C/O: SHIVAPUTRA S/O SIDDAPPA DEVARNAVADGI, R/O: LALSANGI, TQ: INDI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI D.P.AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HANAMANTH S/O PARASAPPA DEVARNAVADGI, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: LALASANGI, TQ: INDI, DIST: VIJAYAPUR – 586 217. 2. PARASHURAM S/O HANAMANT DEVARNAVADGI AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: LALASANGI, TQ: INDI, DIST: VIJAYAPUR – 586 217. 3. SADANAND S/O HANAMANT DEVARNAVADGI AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: LALASANGI, TQ: INDI, DIST: VIJAYAPUR – 586 217. 4. KUM. SHIVANAND S/O HANAMANT DEVARNAVADGI AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: LALASANGI, TQ: INDI, DIST: VIJAYAPUR – 586 217. 5. KUM. SAYABANNA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1478 RFA No. 200065 of 2020 S/O HANAMANT DEVARNAVADGI AGE: 14 YEARS, MINOR, BY M/G AND NEXT FRIEND HANAMANT S/O PARASAPPA DEVARNAVADGI, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: LALASANGI, TQ: INDI, DIST: VIJAYAPUR – 586 217. …RESPONDENTS (V/O DATED 21.08.2023 NOTICE TO R1 TO R4 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT; (R5 IS MINOR REP. BY R1) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.02.2020 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, INDI, IN O.S.NO.65/2017 AND FURTHER DECREE THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF AND ETC. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, 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) 1. This appeal is arising from the dismissal of a suit for partition. The plaintiff had filed a suit seeking partition and separate position of property bearing Survey No.230/1, measuring 19 acres 07 guntas and Survey No.230/2, measuring 4 acres 12 guntas, situated in Lalasangi village, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1478 RFA No. 200065 of 2020 district Vijayapur. The plaintiff claimed that the aforementioned properties originally belonged to his father Parasappa and after the death of his father Parasappa, in the year 1983, the properties were inherited by plaintiff and his brother Hanumant, who is defendant No.1. Defendants No.2 to 5 are the children of Hanumant-defendant No.1. 2. The plaintiff claimed that behind his back in the 1991, the mutation is certified recording a partition which has not taken place and thus he claimed partition and separate possession of the properties. 3. The defendant contested the suit and took a stand that, the partition has taken place in the year 1991 with the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff and less fertile land is allotted to the defendants, as such, the extent of land allotted to the defendant is more and fertile land is allotted to the share of the plaintiff though the plaintiff’s land is less in extent. The defendants also took a stand that, partition has been acted upon and hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1478 RFA No. 200065 of 2020 4. The trial court has accepted the plea of the defendants relating to previous partition and dismissed the suit. 5. Learned counsel Sri. D.P.Ambekar, appearing on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff would contend that, the plaintiff is a rustic villager and he could not understand the tenor of the questions put in the cross-examination and merely because the plaintiff has admitted the separate possession of the properties, it does not mean that there is a partition by metes and bonds. It is also his further submission that, the huge disparity in the extent of land said to have been allotted to the share of the plaintiff and said to have been allotted to the share of the defendants itself would indicate that the alleged partition is inequitable assuming that it has taken place. Thus, he would contend that, the trial Court could not have dismissed the suit merely based on the admission which is not conclusive and the records produced by the defendants itself would indicate that no partition has been taken place by metes and bounds. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1478 RFA No. 200065 of 2020 6. The respondents though served are unrepresented. 7. This court has considered the contentions raised the Bar and perused the records. 8. The following point arises for consideration: “Whether the trial court is justified in dismissing the suit based on the admission of the plaintiff.” 9. The mutation entry No.2956 which is said to be the mutation based on the partition is marked at Ex.P.9. It is certified in the year 1991. The mutation would also reveal that it is certified after service of notice to the concerned parties. From the said mutation, it is noticed that Survey No.230/2 measuring for 04 acres 12 guntas, is allotted to the share of plaintiff and Survey No.230/1, measuring 19 acres 05 guntas was allotted to the share of defendant No.1. 10. The trial Court has also referred to the cross- examination of plaintiff which is extracted in paragraph No.15 of the Judgment. From the answer given in the cross- examination it is noticed that, the plaintiff and defendants are residing separately. The plaintiff has been cultivating - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1478 RFA No. 200065 of 2020 Survey No.230/2 exclusively and the defendants have cultivating the land exclusively standing in their name. The plaintiff has also stated in the cross-examination that, his land is more fertile than the land of the defendants. It is also stated that there is a bund demarcating the property of the plaintiff and defendants. 11. If at all the claim relating to alleged partition is incorrect, the plaintiff would have filed a suit immediately after the certification of mutation entry or at least when the defendants started asserting their right based on the alleged mutation which has been certified in the year 1991. The suit is filed 25 years after the said mutation. 12. Assuming that the mutation is not certified without notice to the plaintiff, the evidence on record more particularly the admission of the plaintiff itself would reveal that the parties have been residing separately for long and enjoying the property separately for long. This itself would indicate that there was a kind of arrangement between the parties and said arrangement appears to be arrangement - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1478 RFA No. 200065 of 2020 based on oral partition as noticed in the aforesaid mutation entry. 13. Though the contention that the admission in the cross examination by itself is not conclusive is the established principle of law, the admission appears to be conclusive as the parties are living separately and cultivating their property separately and said fact appears to be corroborated by mutation and the entry in the record of rights. 14. Hence this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the Judgment and degree passed by the trial Court. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE SVH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45