- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1896 RSA No. 200226 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 200226 OF 2016 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. DODDA VIRUPANNA S/O NAGANNA AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRI R/O: DINNI VILLAGE TQ: & DIST: RAICHUR. 2. EASHAPPA S/O NAGANNA AGE:50 YEARS, OCC: AGRI, R/O: DINNI VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: RAICHUR. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SHIVANAND PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT ADIVEMMA W/O LATE SIDDRAMAPPA AGE:76 YEAS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD & AGRI R/O: C/O: CHANDA MARIAPPA SHETTY S/O AYYANNA HOUSE NEAR TOWN MUNICIPALITY, MANVI POST: MANVI Amended as per order dated 09.11.2020 Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1896 RSA No. 200226 of 2016 DIST: RAICHUR – 584 101. SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS WHO ARE R2 TO R4 2. SMT. SHARANAMMA W/O MARIAPPA SHETTY CHANDA AGE: 48 YEARS, , OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: C/O: CHANDA MARIAPPA SHETTY S/O AYYANNA HOUSE NEAR TOWN MUNICIPALITY, MANVI POST: MANVI DIST: RAICHUR – 584 101. 3. SMT. PARAVATAMMA W/O LATE SANNA VIRUPANNA AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD & AGRI R/O: DINNI VILLAGE TQ & DIST: RAICHUR – 584 101. 4. SIDDARAM S/O LATE SANNA VIRUPANNA AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRI R/O: DINNI VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: RAICHUR – 584 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR KALLOOR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 DEAD, R2 TO R4 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED; R1, R3 & R4 SERVED) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1896 RSA No. 200226 of 2016 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO, TO CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.06/2008 OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AT RAICHUR AND R.A.NO.37/2015 OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE RAICHUR, AND ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.01.2016 IN R.A.NO.37/2015 OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE RAICHUR AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.02.2009 IN O.S.NO.06/2008 OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AT RAICHUR AND DISMISS THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFFS OR ALTERNATIVELY MODIFY THE DECREE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1896 RSA No. 200226 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This appeal is arising from the judgment and decree in O.S.No.06/2008 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Raichur and also judgment and decree in R.A.No.37/2015 on the file of II Additional District Judge at Raichur. 3. The appellants claim that a suit in O.S.No.06/2008 is filed on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Raichur, was one for partition filed by two persons namely Adivemma wife of Siddramappa and Sharanamma wife of Mariyappa Shetty Chanda. 4. The suit is filed against two persons namely Parvatamma wife of late Sanna Virupanna and Siddramma son of late Sanna Virupanna. 5. In the said suit, the plaintiffs sought partition and separate possession of two properties bearing Survey No.125/1 measuring 6 acres 23 guntas and Survey No.115/A measuring - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1896 RSA No. 200226 of 2016 4 acres 4 guntas in Dinni Village, Taluk: Manvi, District: Raichur. Admittedly, the present appellants are not parties to the said appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the appellants own 2 acres 25 guntas in Survey No.125/1. Though the names of the appellants find place in the property records of the suit in Sl.No.1 of the property, the appellants are not made parties to the proceeding as such, the impugned judgment and decree affect the rights of the appellants. Appellants came to know about the said decree for partition in O.S.No.06/2008 and on receipt of notice in FDP No.7/2012. After coming to know that there is a decree in respect of the appellants' property, the appellants filed an appeal in R.A.No.37/2015. The appeal is dismissed on the premise that the appellants before the Final Decree Court have given-up their claim in respect of the suit properties based on alleged memo issued by the appellants' counsel in the aforementioned Final Decree Proceedings. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have not given any such instructions to file the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1896 RSA No. 200226 of 2016 memo. Under these circumstances, he would submit that the impugned judgment and decree have to be set-aside. Admittedly, the appellants' names appear in respect of Survey No.125/1 measuring 2 acres 25 guntas. Hence, the matter has to be remitted to the trial Court for fresh consideration is the submission. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents referring to paragraph No.5 of the plaint would submit that the suit is filed not in respect of entire 6 acres 23 guntas in Survey No.125/1 of the Dinni Village, Taluk Manvi, District Raichur, the suit is filed only in respect of 3 acres 38 guntas in the said Survey No.125/1. The extent of the property is erroneously shown as 6 acres 23 guntas in the schedule to the suit and the respondents have no claim over 2 acres 25 guntas standing in the name of the appellants. 9. The said submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is placed on record. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that in case respondents do not have claim over 2 acres 25 guntas in Survey No.125/1 of Dinni Village, and suit is only - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1896 RSA No. 200226 of 2016 confined to 3 acres 38 guntas as mentioned in paragraph No.5 of the plaint as well as the claim shown below the cause-title of the plaint, appellants are not aggrieved and they will not prosecute the appeal. 11. Submission of the learned counsel is also placed on record. 12. Since, the plaintiffs/respondents make a claim that the decree be confined to 3 acres 38 guntas in Survey No.125/1, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and confirmed the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court have to be modified. 13. Hence, the following: ORDER (a) Appeal is allowed in part. (b) The impugned judgment and decree passed by Trial Court in O.S.No.06/2008 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge at Raichur are modified holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/3rd share each in item No.1 property in - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1896 RSA No. 200226 of 2016 Survey No.125/1 measuring 3 acres 38 guntas at Dinni Village, Taluk Manvi, District Raichur and in Survey No.115/A measuring 4 acres 4 guntas in Dinni Village, Taluk Manvi, District Raichur. (c) It is further made clear that 2 acres 25 guntas in Survey No.125/1 in Dinni Village, Taluk Manvi, District Raichur belongs to the appellants. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31