Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16850 (KAR)

S G RAMACHANDRAPPA v. D RAMACHANDRAPPA

RFA/175/2005 · 2026-02-20

M G S Kamal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 175 OF 2005 (DEC) C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 174 OF 2005 REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2195 OF 2012 REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2196 OF 2012 IN RFA No. 175/2005 BETWEEN: S G RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O LATE S.G.HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PINCODE-577 217. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. R GOPAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. D RAMACHANDRAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS. 1(a) BALACHANDRAPPA S/O LATE D.RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O SUTTUKOTE VILLAGE, HOLALUR HOBLI, HARAMAGHATTA POST, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT PINCODE - 577 201. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 1(b) SHIVASHANKARAPPA S/O LATE D. RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE HONNALLI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PINCODE-577 217. 1(c) RENUKAMMA D/O LATE D. RAMACHANDRAPPA, W/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE HONNALLI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PINCODE-577 217. 1(d) LALITHAMMA D/O LATE D.RAMACHANDRAPPA, W/O RAVISHA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O BHYRANAPADA, KIRIGERE GRAMA, THIMMANAKATTE POST, RATTEHALLI TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT, PINCODE-581 119. LRS OF R1 ADDED AS PER ORDER DATED 02.01.2024. 2. D MANJAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA MAJOR, R/O SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE HONNALLI TALUK-577 217. 3. D BASAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS 3(a) PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE D. BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 3(b) D.B.MANJUNATHA S/O LATE D. BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. 3(c) D.B.RAVINDRA, S/O LATE D.BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. 3(d) D.B.SRINATHA, S/O LATE D.BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS ALL R/O SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE, HONNALLI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PINCODE-577 217. LRS OF R3 ADDED AS PER ORDER DATED 02.01.2024 4. SMT PADMAMMA W/O LATE S.G.RAMAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS 4(a) S.G.LOKESHAPPA S/O LATE S.G.RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 4(b) S.G.SURESHAPPA S/O LATE S.G.RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 4(c) KENCHAPPA , S/O LATE S.G RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R4(a) TO R4(c) ARE R/O SUTTUKOTE VILLAGE HARAMAGHATTA-POST, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 HOLALURU-HOBLI, SHIMOGA-TALUK AND DISTRICT. PIN CODE: 577 216. 4(d) PARVATHAMMA D/O LATE S.G RAMAPPA, W/O LATE BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O SUNKADAKATTE, HONNALI-TALUK, DAVANAGERE-DISTRICT. PIN CODE: 577 217 4(e) SEETHAMMA, D/O LATE S.G.RAMAPPA, W/O HEMANAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O AND POST: CHIKKAKABBAR, RATTEHALLI-TALUK, HAVERI-DISTRICT. PIN CODE: 581 116 4(f) SAROJAMMA, D/O LATE S.G.RAMAPPA, W/O LATE PRAKASH,, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O SOMINAKOPPA, HARAMAGHATTA-POST, HOLALURU-HOBLI, SHIMOGA-TALUK AND DISTRICT. PIN CODE: 577 216. 4(g) CHANNAMMA, D/O LATE S.G.RAMAPPA, W/O SURESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O HANAGAVADI VILLAGE, HONNALI- TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. PIN: 577 217. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 4(h) MANJULA, D/O LATE S.G.RAMAPPA, W/O RAJU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O KULAGATTE VILLAGE, HONNALI -TALUK, DAVANAGERE - DISTRICT. PIN CODE: 577 217 4(i) PREMA, D/O LATE S.G.RAMAPPA, W/O SURESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O HIREKABBAR, RATTEHALLI TALUK, HAVERI-DISTRICT, PIN CODE: 581116 4(j) SAVITHRAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA BIN LATE S.G.RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 4(k) KAVITHA, D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA BIN LATE S.G.RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 4(l) GEETHA, D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA BIN LATE S.G RAMAPPA, W/O MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O SUNKADAKATTE, HONNALI-TALUK, DAVANAGERE-DISTRICT. PIN COE: 577 217 4(m) HARISH, S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA BIN LATE S.G.RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 R4(j) (k) AND (m) ARE R/O SUTTUKOTE VILLAGE HARAMAGHATTA POST, HOLALURU HOBLI, SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT. PIN COE: 577 216. LRS OF R4 ADDED AS PER ORDER DATED 19.01.2026 5. SMT NARASAMMA W/O LATE RANGAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS 5(a) B.R.MANJAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS. 5(b) B.R.NARASHIMAPPA, S/O LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. 5(c) JAYAMMA D/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R5(a) to (c) ARE R/O SOMINAKOPPA, HARAMAGHATTA POST HOLALUR HOBLI, SHIMOGA TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT, PINCODE-577 216. 5(d) NIRMALAMMA D/O LATE RANGAPPA W/O D.MANJAPPA, R/O SUNKADAKATTE POST, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 PINCODE-577217. LRS OF R5 ADDED AS PER ORDER DATED 23.10.2024 6. SMT. KENCHAMMA @ MEENAKSHAMMA W/O LATE S.N.MANJAPPA AGED MAJOR, R/O HOSAMANE EXTENSION BHADRAVATHI - 577301 7. SMT. MANJAMMA W/O NARASIMHAPPA AGED MAJOR, R/O SUTHUKOTE SHIMOGA TALUK - 577201 8. SMT. VRINDAMMA W/O D.RAMACHANDRAPPA 9. SMT NEELAMMA W/O LATE S.G.RUDRAPPA 10. 10(a) JAGADEESHA S/O LATE S.G.RUDRAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS SMT LAKSHMI J W/O LATE JAGADEESHA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. 10(b) PRIYANKA D/O LATE JAGADEESHA AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN ABOVE R10(a) LAKSHMI J - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 10(c) SUJENDRA S/O LATE JAGADEESHA AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN ABOVE R10(a) LAKSHMI J R10(a) TO R10(c) ARE R/O SUTHUKOTE VILLAGE, HARAMAGHATTA POST, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT. LRS OF R10 ADDED AS PER ORDER DATED 23.10.2024 11. MANJUNATH S/O LATE S.G.RUDRAPPA 12. VENKATESHA S/O LATE S.G.RUDRAPPA RESPONDENTS 8, 9, 11 AND 12 ARE AGED MAJOR, R/O SUTHOKOTE VILLAGE SHIMOGA TALUK & DISTRICT. PIN - 577201 13. S G SURESH S/O LATE S.G.HANUMANTHAPPA 14. SMT SANNATHAYAMMA SECOND W/O LATE S.G.HANUMANTHAPPA RESPONDENT NOS. 13 AND 14 ARE MAJORS, R/O SUTHOKOTE HONNALI TALUK - 577217 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 15. S G SHANTHAMMA W/O VENKATESHAPPA AGED MAJOR, R/O HIREKABBAR HIREKERUR TALUK - 581113. 16. S G ANASUYA D/O LATE S.G.HANUMANTHAPPA AGED MAJOR, R/O SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK - 577217 17. SMT S.G. JAYAMMA W/O VASANTHAPPA AGED MAJOR, R/O HARALAHALLI HARIHAR TALUK - 577601 18. MANJAPPA S G S/O LATE KAMBAPPA R/O SUTHUKOTE SHIMOGA TALUK - 577201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ASHWIN S. HALADY, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R6 AND R7; R1(A TO C), 3(A TO D), 4(A TO G & I TO M), R5(A TO D), R8, R10(A) SERVED, R10(B & C) ARE MINORS REP. BY R10(A), R13, R15, R16, R17 & R18 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; V/O DTD 06.07.2022, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1(D) IS HELD SUFFICIENT; V/O DTD 02.12.2024, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R4(H) IS HELD SUFFICIENT; SRI S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R9 TO R12; V/O DTD. 17.03.2021, R14 DEAD, R13, R15 TO 17 ARE LRS OF DECEASED R14) THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.11.2004 PASSED IN O.S.No.119/90 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) & CJM, SHIMOGA, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION. IN RFA NO. 174/2005 BETWEEN: 1. 1(a) S G RUDRAPPA S/O S.G.HANUMANTHAPPA DEAD BY HIS LRS NEELAMMA W/O LATE S.G.RUDRAPPA MAJOR, R/O SUTHUKOTE, SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT 1(b) 1(b)(i) JAGADEESHA S/O LATE S.G.RUDRAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS SMT LAKSHMI J W/O LATE JAGADEESHA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. 1(b)(ii) PRIYANKA D/O LATE JAGADEESHA AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS 1(b)(iii) SUJENDRA S/O LATE JAGADEESHA AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS A1(b)(ii) AND A1(b)(iii) ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN A1(b)(i)-LAKSHMI J ALL ARE R/O SUTHUKOTE VILLAGE, HARAMAGHATTA POST, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT. AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 06.12.2025 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 1(c) MANJUNATHA S/O LATE S.G.RUDRAPPA MAJOR, R/O SUTHUKOTE, SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT 1(d) VENKATESH S/O LATE S G RUDRAPPA MAJOR, R/O SUTHUKOTE, SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S V PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. D RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA 2. D MANJAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA 3. D BASAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA 4. 4(a) DEVEERAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS PADMAMMA W/O LATE S.G.RANGAPPA 4(b) NARSAMMA W/O LATE RANGAPPA R/O SOMINA KOPPA HOLALUR HOBLI SHIMOGA TALUK - 577201 4(c) KENCHAMMA @ MEENAKSHAMMA W/O LATE S.R.MANJAPPA HOSAMANE EXTENSION BHADRAVATHI - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577201 4(d) MANJAMMA W/O NARASIMHAPPA RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3, 4(a) TO 4(d) ARE MAJORS, AGRICULTURISTS R/O SUTHUKOTE, SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577201 5. 5(a) S G HANUMANTHAPPA DEAD BY HIS LRS VRINDAMMA W/O D.RAMACHANDRAPPA MAJOR, 5(b) S G RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O LATE S.G.HANUMANTHAPPA MAJOR, 5(c) S G SURESH S/O LATE S.G.HANUMANTHAPPA MAJOR, 5(d) SANNATHAYAMMA W/O LATE S.G.HANUMANTHAPPA MAJOR, 5(e) S G SHANTHAMMA W/O VENKATESHAPPA MAJOR, R/O HIREKABBAR HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT - 581110 5(f) S G ANASUYA D/O LATE S.G.HANUMANTHAPPA 5(g) JAYAMMA W/O VASANTHAPPA MAJOR, R/O HALALAHALLI VILLAGE HARIHARA TALUK - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577004 RESPONDENTS 5(a) TO 5(d) AND 5(e) AND 5(f) ARE AGRICULTURISTS AND R/O SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577217. 6. MANJAPPA S G S/O LATE KAMBAPPA R/O SUTHUKOTE SHIMOGA TALUK & DISTRICT - 577201 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHWIN S HALADY, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2,R3 & R4 (A TO D); SRI R.GOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R5(B); R5 (A, C TO G) AND R6 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC 96 CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.11.2004 PASSED IN O.S.NO.119/1990 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND C.J.M., SHIMOGA, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION. IN RFA NO. 2195/2012 BETWEEN: 1 S G RUDRAPPPA S/O LATE S G HANUMANTHAPPA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS SMT NEELAMMA W/O LATE S G RUDRAPPA MAJOR AGRICULTURIST RESIDENT OF SUTTUKOTE VILLAGE SHIMOGA TALUK 2 JAGADEESHA S/O LATE S.G.RUDRAPPA - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 2(b)(i) SINCE DEAD BY LRS SMT LAKSHMI J W/O LATE JAGADEESHA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. 2(b)(ii) PRIYANKA D/O LATE JAGADEESHA AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS 2(b)(iii) SUJENDRA S/O LATE JAGADEESHA AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS A2(b)(ii) AND A2(b)(iii) ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN A2(b)(i)-LAKSHMI J ALL ARE R/O SUTHUKOTE VILLAGE, HARAMAGHATTA POST, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT. AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 06.12.2025 3. MANJUNATHA S/O LATE S G RUDRAPPA MAJOR AGRICULTURIST RESIDENTS OF SUTTUKOTE VILLAGE SHIMOGA TALUK 4. VENKATESHA S/O LATE S G RUDRAPPA MAJOR AGRICULTURIST RESIDENTS OF SUTTUKOTE VILLAGE SHIMOGA TALUK ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S V PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. D RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 MAJOR AGRICULTURIST RESIDENT OF SUTTUKOTE VILLAGE SHIMOGA TALUK 2. D MANJAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA MAJOR AGRICULTURIST RESIDENTS OF SUTTUKOTE VILLAGE SHIMOGA TALUK 3. D BASAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA MAJOR AGRICULTURIST RESIDENT OF SUTTUKOTE VILLAGE SHIMOGA TALUK 4. 4(a) S G HANUMANTHAPPA DECEASED BY HIS LRS SMT SANNATHAYAMMA W/O LATE S G HANUMANTHAPPA MAJOR RESIDENT OF SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK 4(b) S G RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O LATE S G HANUMANTHAPPA MAJOR RESIDENT OF SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK 4(c) S G SURESH S/O LATE S G HANUMANTHAPPA MAJOR RESIDENT OF SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK 4(d) SMT S G SHANTHAMMA W/O VENKATESHAPPA MAJOR R/O HIREKABBUR VILLAGE - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 HIREKERUR TALUK 4(e) SMT S G ANASUYA D/O LATE S G HANUMANTHAPPA MAJOR R/O SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK 5. S G RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O LATE S G HANUMANTHAPPA RESIDENT OF SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK 6. S H SURESH S/O LATE S G HANUMANTHAPPA RESIDENT OF SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ASHWIN S HALADY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; R4 (A TO E), R5 AND R6 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.11.2004 PASSED IN O.S.77/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.) AND CJM, SHIMOGA, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.WITH THE ABOVE INFORMATION THIS FILE IS SENT TO PENDING BRANCH FOR TAKING FURTHER ACTION. IN RFA NO. 2196/2012 BETWEEN: S G RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O LATE S G HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O SUNKADAKATTE, HONNALLI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. R GOPAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. D RAMACHANDRAPPA - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 S/O LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O SUTTUKOTE VILLAGE, HARAMAGHATTA POST, SHIMOGA TALUK SINCE DEAD BY LRS 1(a) BALACHANDRAPPA S/O LATE D.RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O SUTTUKOTE VILLAGE, HOLALUR HOBLI, HARAMAGHATTA POST, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT PINCODE - 577 201. 1(b) SHIVASHANKARAPPA S/O LATE D.RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PINCODE-577 217. 1(c) RENUKAMMA D/O LATE D.RAMACHANDRAPPA, W/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PINCODE-577 217. 1(d) LALITHAMMA D/O LATE D.RAMACHANDRAPPA, W/O RAVISHA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O BHYRANAPADA, KIRIGERE GRAMA, THIMMANAKATTE POST, RATTEHALLI TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT, PINCODE-581 119. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 2. D MANJAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE, HONNALLI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 3. D BASAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BY LRS. 3(a) PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE D. BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. 3(b) D.B.MANJUNATHA S/O LATE D. BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. 3(c) D.B.RAVINDRA, S/O LATE D.BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. 3(d) D.B.SRINATHA, S/O LATE D.BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R3(a) TO R3(d) ARE R/O SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE, HONNALLI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PINCODE-577 217. 4. SMT SANNATHAYAMMA SECOND W/O LATE S G HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE, HONNALLI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 APPELLANT AND R9 AND R10 ARE TREATED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF R4 5. NEELAMMA W/O LATE S G RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O SUTTUKOTE VILLAGE, SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT 6. 6(a) JAGADEESHA S/O LATE S.G.RUDRAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS SMT LAKSHMI J W/O LATE JAGADEESHA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. 6(b) PRIYANKA D/O LATE JAGADEESHA AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS 6(c) SUJENDRA S/O LATE JAGADEESHA AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS R6(b) AND R6(c) ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN R6(a)-LAKSHMI J ALL ARE R/O SUTHUKOTE VILLAGE, HARAMAGHATTA POST, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT. AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 06.12.2025 7. MANJUNATHA S/O LATE RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O SUTTUKOTE VILLAGE, - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT. 8. VENKATESHA S/O LATE RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/O SUTTUKOTE VILLAGE, SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT 9. S G SURESH S/O LATE S G HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O SUTHOKOTE, HONNALLI TALUK 10. S G SHANTHAMMA W/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O HIREKABBAR VILLAGE, HIREKERUR TALUK ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHWIN S HALADY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1(A TO C), R3 ( A TO D) & R10 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; V/O DATED 06.07.2022 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1(D) IS HELD SUFFICIENT; V/O DATED 17.03.2021 R4 DEAD & R9 AND R10 ARE LRS OF DECEASED R4; SRI S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R5, R6(A), R7 AND R8 R6(B) & R6(C) ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R6(A) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.11.2004 PASSED IN O.S.77/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.) AND CJM, SHIMOGA, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT Suit in O.S.No.119/1990 is filed by D.Ramachandrappa, D.Manjappa, D.Basappa and Smt.Deveeramma claiming to be the sons and wife of one late Rangappa against one S.G.Hanumanthappa and his sons, S.G.Ramachandrappa, S.G.Suresh, S.G.Rudrappa and Manjappa, S/o Kambappa seeking following reliefs; "a. Declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit properties and that their title is confirmed from prior to 1967 and also from the date of Palupatti dated 25.06.1967 and that the defendants have no manner of right, title and interest in the properties. b. Grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 4 their men, representatives, etc., from in any manner interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs. c. Grant of injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 4 from proceeding with O.S.No.1496/1989 on the file of the Addl. Munsiff, Shimogga, and for stay of the said suit and also, d. Grant of court costs, and such other reliefs." 2. The subject matter of the above suit are the following properties:- "Agricultural lands situated in Suttukote village, Shimoga Taluk - all dry lands - bearing: a) Sy.No.98 : measuring 4-00 acres. b) Sy.No.99 : measuring 4-00 acres. c) Sy.No.30 : measuring 3 acres 33 guntas (excluding Bhoodan land). d) Sy.No.138 : measuring 2 acres 16 guntas. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 e) Sy.No.140 : measuring 3 acres 20 guntas. f) Sy.No.80/2 : measuring 7 acres 17 guntas. g) Sy.No.102 : measuring 3 acres 02 guntas." 3. It is contended that one Kambappa and his wife Nanjamma had five sons and a daughter namely, Manjappa- defendant No.5, Halappa-died, S.G.Hanumanthappa-defendant No.1, Deveeramma-plaintiff No.4, S.G.Basappa-not a party and S.G.Ramappa-not a party. 4. The aforesaid S.G.Hanumanthappa the defendant No.1 - had two wives namely, Lakkamma and Sannathayamma. From his first wife - Lakkamma, S.G.Rudrappa-defendant No.4 was born and from his second wife - Sannathayamma, S.G.Ramachandrappa-defendant No.2 and S.G.Suresh- defendant No.3 were born. 5. That all the sons and daughters of Kambappa were living together in Sunkadakatte village. Manjappa-defendant No.5 was managing the affairs of the family as a kartha. 6. Halamma sister of Rangappa was married to Manjappa- defendant No.5. Vrindamma eldest daughter of defendant No.1 is married to D.Ramachandrappa- the plaintiff No.1. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 Padmamma the daughter of Deveeramma-plaintiff No.4 was married to S.G.Ramappa the youngest son of Kambappa. S.G.Ramappa's daughter is the wife of D.Basappa the plaintiff No.3. All the family members including defendant No.5 - Manjappa were residing together. 7. Manjappa- the defendant No.5 was the manager of the family. Since there were fear of he squandering away the properties, he had executed a deed of relinquishment in respect of properties situated in Sunkadakatte in favour of S.G. Basappa on 01.02.1949. There was certain debts, which required to be discharged by S.G.Basappa who went out of the family. Since the family did not have sufficient income, it was at that time, Rangappa, the husband of Deveeramma -plaintiff No.4 and father of plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 took over the management of the family. 8. During the year 1955-56, Rangappa acquired land measuring 4 acres in Sy.No.30/2 and another extent of 4 acres in Sy.No.30/1 at Suttukote village in the name of defendant No.1 under darkhast. Thereafter, defendant No.1 had acquired the land measuring 3 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.25 during the - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 year 1962-63. Rangappa was the main earning member of the family, while his wife - Deveeramma-plaintiff No.4 was looking after the household affairs. As such, all the legal heirs of Kambappa had high regard for Rangappa and Deveeramma. 9. Plaintiff No.1 acquired 5 acres of land in Sy.Nos.25 and 26 under darkhast. An extent of 2 acres 26 guntas and 4 acres 39 guntas in Sy.No.80/2 in Suttukote village was purchased in the name of Deveeramma by the family under the deed of sale dated 27.03.1961. However, for the purpose of convenience, the said property was transferred to the name of defendant No.1 under Vargarajinama, which has no legal status. Even in the year 1961, after the purchase, Deveeramma through defendant No.1 had made an application for survey of the land. Another extent of land measuring 3 acres 31 guntas was also made in the name of Manjappa under darkhast during the year 1955-56. This land was made in the name of defendant No.1 under Rajikhabuli. Another extent of 2 acres 16 guntas of land was also obtained under darkhast in favour of plaintiff No.1 in Sy.No.25. Thus, Rangappa was the main person, who was looking after the cultivation work and - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 since Deveeramma being the only sister looking after the household, even prior to 1967, the parties namely, Manjappa, Hanumanthappa, Ramappa and Rangappa, who were cultivating the respective properties, entered into Palupatti on 25.06.1967 in the presence of Panchayatdars dividing the properties as being enjoyed by them separately shown in the Palupatti. In terms of the said palupatti, Rangappaa and Deveeramma was allotted the following items of the properties:- a. 9 acres 33 guntas in Sy.No.30. b. 6 acres in Sy.No.25. c. 7 acres 17 guntas in Sy.No.80/2 d. 3 acres 2 guntas in Sy.No.26 e. half portion in 7 Ankanams House. All of Suttukote village, Shimoga Taluk. 10. Though the partition had taken place in the year 1967, revenue records were not entered into, as the parties shared cordial relationship. Since certain differences arose, the plaintiffs applied and sought for regularization of khata and pahani in their name on 05.10.1989. To counter the same, the defendants filed a suit in O.S.No.1496/1989 seeking permanent injunction constraining the plaintiffs to file the present suit. - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 11. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 have filed written statement denying that Rangappa in the year 1955-56 had acquired lands in Sy.Nos.30/1 and 30/2 under darkasth in the name of defendant No.1. That on the other hand the said properties were the self acquired properties of the defendant No.1. It is contended that defendants are absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the properties described in their suit in O.S No.1496/1989 which are acquired by defendant No.1 on his own capacity under darkasth also by way of sales, Vargarajinama as well as Rajikabali. That all the revenue documents are standing in the name of defendant No.1 and the defendants are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said properties growing Coconut, Groundnut, Jawar, Sunflower, Ragi, Pulses etc., That the plaintiff was the distant relative of the defendants with an intention of making wrongful gain had made unsuccessful attempts to interfere with possession and enjoyment of the properties of the defendants which were resisted including filing of the suit in O.S.No.1469/1989. The claim of the plaintiffs regarding entering into a palupatti dated 25.06.1967 is specifically denied. That plaintiffs with an intention of defrauding the defendants of their valuable rights - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 of the properties on the strength of illegal and void palupatti having no value in the eye of law have been causing trouble to the defendants. That after the marriage, Deveeramma seems to be the member of family of Kambappa only as blood relative cannot claimed to be the family member of the defendants. Contending as above, sought for dismissal of the suit. 12. Defendant No.5 filed separate written statement supporting the claim of the plaintiff. 13. The Trial Court based on the pleadings framed the following issues in O.S.No.119/1990; "1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that their title to the suit properties is confirmed prior to 1967 and also from the date of palupatti dated 25.6.1967 and they are owners in possession of suit properties and defendants have no manner of right title or interest over the suit properties? 2) Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged interference of defendants in respect of suit properties? 3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaratory relief as prayed for? 4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for order of permanent injunction as against the defendants as sought for? 5) To what relief the parties are entitled? 6) What decree or order?" - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 Suit in O.S.No.77/2003 (Old No.1496/1989) 14. A suit in O.S.No.1496/1989 is filed by S.G.Hanumanthappa and his sons, S.G.Ramachandrappa, S.G.Suresh, S.G.Rudrappa (defendants in O.S.No.119/1990) against D.Ramachandrappa, D.Manjappa and D.Basappa (plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 in O.S.No.119/1990) seeking following reliefs; "a. for permanent injunction restraining the defendant 1 to 3 and their henchmen supporters, agents, laborers, agents, collies, assigned by representatives etc., from interfering in any manner with the peaceful possession and enjoyment as well as cultivation of the suit schedule properties by the plaintiffs. b. for court costs, expenses and also to pass such other reliefs as this court deems fit to grant in favour for the plaintiff under the circumstances of the case and against the defendants 1 to 3 by allowing this suit in the ends of justice." 15. Subject matter of the above suit are the following properties; Lands situated at Suthukote village, Holalur Hobli, Shimoga Taluk, Shimogga District. 1. Sr.No.27, 1-21 hectares in extent, bounded by East: Lands of D.Ramachandrappa, West: Lands of Mallappa, North: Lands of Chatnahalli Manjappa, South: Lands of Plaintiffs in Sr.No.98 & lands of Rangappa in Sr.No.99 & lands of plaintiffs in Sr.No.30. 2. Sr.No.30, 1.53 Hectares in extent, bounded on the East: Lands of Koviara, West: Lands of Rangappa, in Sr.No.99, North: Lands of plaintiffs in Sr.No.27, South: Lands of Padmamma in Sr.No.33. - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 3. Sr.No.90/2, 3 Hectares, bounded on the East: Lands of Balaji Rangappa in Sr.No.80/3, West: Lands of Gaddadara Narasappa in Sr.No.80/1, North: Matti and Gomala, South: Cart Track. 4. Sr.No.98, 1-62 Hectares in extent, bounded on the East: lands of Rangappa in Sr.No.99, West: lands of Dodderi P Basappa, North: lands of plaintiffs in Sr.No.27, South: Lands of Padmamma in Sr.No.33. 5. Sr.No.140, 1-42 Hectares in extent, bounded on the East: Danagala Oni, West: Lands of D.Ramachandrappa, North: Lands of S.G.Manjappa, South: lands of S.G.Ramappa." 16. In the said suit it is contended that the property referred to therein have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs that defendants having no manner of right, title and interest attempted to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, constraining them to file the suit for permanent injunction. 17. Written statement has been filed in the said suit by the defendants therein reiterating the averments made in the plaint in O.S.No.119/1990. 18. That the suit in O.S.No.1496/1989 was transferred from the Court of I Additional Munsiff, Shimogga to Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM, Shimogga. After transfer of suit in - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 O.S.No.1496/1989, the same was renumbered as OS No.77/2003. 19. Trial Court framed the following issues in O.S.No.77/2003; "1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they have been in lawful actual possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property? 2) Whether the plaintiffs further prove the alleged interference by the defendants? 3) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for relief sought for? 4) What order or decree?" 20. Common evidence was recorded. Four witnesses have been examined on behalf of the plaintiffs as PW.1 to PW4 and 96 documents have been marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P96, while two witnesses have examined on behalf of defendants as DW.1 and DW.2 and 18 documents were marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D18. 21. That by order dated 24.11.2004 both the suits were clubbed together by the trial Court and joint memo was filed by the parties adopting the evidence adduced in O.S.No.119/1990 and in O.S.No.77/2003. - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 22. The Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence answered the issues framed in O.S.No.119/1990 as under; "Issue No.1: In the affirmative Issue No.2 In the affirmative Issue No.3: In the affirmative. Issue No.4: Partly in the affirmative Issue No.5: Accordingly Issue No.6: As per final order" 23. Issues framed in OS No.77/2003 have been answered as under; "Issue No.1: In the negative Issue No.2 In the negative Issue No.3: In the negative Issue No.4: As per final order" 24. Consequently, decreed the suit in O.S No.119/1990 in its entirety declaring the plaintiffs to be the absolute owners of suit schedule properties and defendant Nos. 2 to 4 restrained from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and consequently dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.77/2003. 25. Being aggrieved by the same, S.G. Rudrappa- defendant No.4 represented by his legal representatives is before this Court in RFA No.174/2005, while S.G.Ramachandrappa- - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 defendant No.2 in O.S.No.119/1990 has filed RFA No.175/2005. 26. Similarly, S.G. Rudrappa who was the plaintiff No.1(b) in OS No.77/2003 is before this Court in RFA No.2195/2012 and S.G.Ramachandrappa the plaintiff No.2 in OS No.77/2003 is before this Court in RFA No.2196/2012. 27. Sri. S.V.Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/Sri. S.G.Rudrappa and Sri. R.Gopal, learned counsel appearing for Sri.S.G.Ramachandrappa raising common grounds submit; (a) that the trial Court has completely misconceived the facts of the case and the provisions of law applicable thereto. They submit that the very premise on which the suit is filed, is claiming independent right over the suit properties alleging that the same are acquired by and through the efforts of late Rangappa the husband of plaintiff No.4 and father of the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3. (b) Rangappa was not a family member of Kambappa. He was though married to Deveeramma D/o Kambappa cannot be - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 considered to be the family member. As such, reliance placed on by the plaintiffs on the palupatti and the same having been accepted by the Trial Court is erroneous and unsustainable. (c) They further submit that even if there were to be any such partition, the same cannot be taken as having been executed in the manner known to law. Palupatti as such would not create any right, title, interest in favour of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties. (d) Referring to the document at Ex.P1 he submits that the very document furnished by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.119/1990 namely, Grant Certificate dated 11.03.1955 issued in the name of defendant No.1 in respect of land in Sy.No.98 measuring 4 acres (earlier known as Sy.No.30) establishes the case of the defendant No.1 of he being the owner of the said property. (e) Referring to document at Ex.P3 it is submitted that the said document is a grant order in respect of land bearing Sy.No.30, measuring 3 acres 31 guntas- Item No.(c) of the suit schedule property made on 05.04.1955 in the name of Manjappa, S/o Hanumanthappa. That the said land was - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 subsequently made over to the name of defendant No.1 in terms of Rajikabuli which is reflected in the mutation register extract at Ex.P4. (f) That appellants' claim only in respect of Sy.No.98, measuring 4 acres -item No.(a), Sy.No.30, measuring 3 acres 33 guntas-item No.(c), Sy.No.140, measuring 3 acres 20 guntas-item No.(e), Sy.No.80/2, measuring 7 acres 17 guntas - item No.(f). That appellants have no concern or claim with respect of land bearing Sy.No.99 measuring 4 acres-item No.(b), Sy.No.138 measuring 2 acres 16 guntas-item No.(d), Sy.No.102 measuring 3 acres 2 guntas -item No.(g). (g) Referring to document at Ex.D6 RTC extract it is contended that land in Sy.No.140 measuring 3 acres 20 guntas (shown in hectare as 1.42) was acquired by S.G. Hanumanthappa- defendant No.1 through darkasth and his name has been consistently reflected in the revenue records. (h) Referring to document at Ex.D1 a letter dated 09.01.1968 it is contended that land in Sy.No.80/2, measuring 7 acres 17 guntas was purchased in terms of deed of sale dated - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 27.03.1961 in the name of Deveeramma the plaintiff No.4 which she had made over in the name of defendant No.1 by virtue of vargarajipatra which is reflected in mutation entry as per Ex.D8. (i) Thus, referring to these documents it is contended that these four items of the suit properties absolutely belonging to the defendant No.1 and only defendant Nos.1 to 4 were entitled to any manner of share, right, title, interest over the same. The plaintiffs not being the members of the family of the defendants cannot claim to have got the same in terms of partition palupatti. The trial Court without appreciating these aspects of the matter has erroneously decreed the suit for declaration merely because the parties staying together. Such a course of action was not available. Hence, seeks for allowing of the appeals to the extent of aforesaid four items of the suit properties. (j) As regards the judgment and decree passed in O.S No.77/2003, it is contended apart from the four items of the properties in O.S No.119/1990, namely, item Nos. (a), (c), (e) and (f) the defendants (plaintiffs in the said suit in OS - 36 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 No.77/2003) also possess and owns Sy.Nos.25 and 27 over which the plaintiffs in OS No.119/1990 have not made any claim. As such, the trial Court could not have dismissed the suit. The least the Trial Court could have granted was the relief of injunction in respect of the said 2 items of the property. Therefore, they submit that on both the counts the appeals are required to be allowed. 28. Per contra, Sri.Ashwin S.Halady, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs in O.S No.119/1990 and defendants in OS No.77/2003, submit; (a) that since there is no dispute of Deveeramma being sister of defendant No.1 and Rangappa being her husband the relationship of the parties have to be taken into consideration along with the incidental circumstances under which they lived together. He submits that the same has been elaborately set out in the plaint referring to the events that had transpired back in the year 1950's. He submits it was Rangappa the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 who was assisting and supporting the family and it was he who had facilitating in acquiring suit properties. It was in consideration - 37 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 of this support rendered by Rangappa, the parties had entered into Palupatti at an undisputed point in time recognizing their rights and dividing the same. Though, they had not entered into registered deed, everything went on good faith and belief until the dispute arose two decades subsequent to entering into Palupatti. (b) He submits that the defendants are not claiming any right over item Nos.(b), (d) and (g) of the properties indicate that there was a clear understanding between the parties as to how division has taken place. He submits that therefore the trial Court has not committed any error in accepting the Palupatti dated 25.06.1967 though the same had not been registered. (c) He submits that the parties in furtherance to the said palupatti had acted upon as they were enjoying the properties which were subject matter of the appeals separately and individually. (d) Adverting to the claim of the defendants in respect of Sy.No.80/2, measuring 7 acres 17 guntas he submits that admittedly the said property was purchased under deed of sale - 38 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 in the name of Deveeramma and though the plaintiffs in the plaint have stated that the said property was made over in the name of defendant No.1 in terms of Vargarajipatra, they have also specifically expressed that it was an arrangement of convenience and the said document was not binding. Therefore, he submits that the defendants cannot claim right over the said Sy.No.80/2 measuring 7 acres 17 guntas of land. (e) He also fairly submits that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.119/1990 have no claim or interest of any nature over the land in Sy.No.27 measuring 3 acres 9 guntas which is item No.1 in O.S No.77/2003 while item Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 of the said suit are the one which is the subject matter of suit in O.S.No.77/2003 as well. (f) He submits that since the plaintiffs and defendants had mutually entered into the said palupatti had acted upon, they are estopped from making any claim other than what was agreed upon on the technical issue of the document not being registered. Hence, he submits that the appellants have not made out any grounds for interference and seeks for dismissal of the appeals. - 39 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 29. Heard. Perused the records. 30. Points that arise for consideration are; "(i) Whether the plaintiffs in O.S.No.119/1990 are the owners in possession of suit properties as claimed based on the Palupatti dated 25.6.1967 and thus entitled for declaratory and consequential reliefs of permanent injunction.? (ii) Whether the plaintiffs in O.S.No.77/2003 are in actual lawful possession of the said suit properties being entitled for relief of permanent injunction?" 31. Relationship between the parties are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that land in Sy.No.98, measuring 4 acres- item No.(a) was indeed granted in the name of defendant No.1. 32. It is also not in dispute that the land in Sy.No.99, measuring 4 acres-item No.(b) was granted in the name of Rangappa. 33. As regards Sy.No.30, measuring 3 acres 33 guntas -item No.(c) of the suit schedule properties, the same appears to have granted in favour of one Manjappa-defendant No.5 in terms of grant certificated dated 05.04.1959 at Ex.P3. - 40 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 34. There appears to be misreading of the fact with reference to the name of said Manjappa-defendant No.5. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants, Manjappa- defendant No.5, referred to in document at Ex.P3 is the son of S.G.Hanumanthappa/defendant No.1 and not son of Rangappa or Kambappa. Therefore, he submits that the said property has no concern to the family of the plaintiffs for them to claim any right over the same. The said submission appears to be acceptable as perusal of Ex.P3 indicate the same had been granted by the Manjappa son of S.G Hanumanthappa and the said S.G Hanumanthappa apparently has made out the said property in terms of vargarajipatra. If at all there is anyone who have to dispute the same is only the said Manjappa and since there is no such dispute, it has to be accepted and concluded that the said property belonged to S.G Hanumanthappa-defendant No.1. 35. As regards the land bearing Sy.No.138, measuring 2 acres 16 guntas-item No.(d), learned counsel for the appellants submits that they have no concern with regard to the said property. - 41 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 36. As regards to property bearing Sy.No.140, measuring 3 acres 20 guntas-item No.(e) the same was also subject matter of the grant made in favour of the S.G.Hanumanthappa- defendant No.1. 37. There is also no dispute of the fact that land in Sy.No.80/2, measuring 7 acres 17 guntas-item No.(f) was purchased in the name of Deveeramma-plaintiff No.4. Though admittedly the said property was made over in the name of S.G.Hanumanthappa- defendant No.1 in terms of vargarajipatra the validity of the same has been disputed by the plaintiffs. 38. As regards property bearing Sy.No.102, measuring 3 acres 2 guntas-item No.(g) there is no dispute of the fact that the said property was granted in the name of Rangappa father of plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and husband of plaintiff No.4. 39. Thus, the undisputed facts with regard to the properties narrated above, indicate that Rangappa, husband of plaintiff No.4 and father of plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 had acquired item Nos.(b), (d), and (g) of the suit properties. While defendant - 42 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 No.1 had acquired item Nos. (a), (c) and (e) of the suit schedule properties. 40. The question which requires consideration is in the light of claim made by the plaintiffs based on Palupatti dated 25.06.1967 in respect of lands in item Nos. (a), (c), (e) and (f). 41. That the palupatti which is heavily relied upon by the plaintiffs to contend that the parties had entered into partition of the family properties purportedly on the premise that all the family properties were acquired with the aid and assistance of Rangappa. This leads to a further question as to the status of Rangappa vis-à-vis the family of Kambappa. Rangappa admittedly the son-in-law of Kambappa, he cannot be considered as family member of Kambappa either on fact or on law or the customs as admittedly which is not the case as pleaded by the parties. 42. If the properties were acquired jointly with the efforts of family members of Kambappa and Rangappa, the same cannot be made subject matter of the family partition, inasmuch as, - 43 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 Rangappa admittedly not family member of Kambappa. Merely because Rangappa was staying with the family members of Kambappa he would not become member or the coparcener. On the other hand, Rangappa may have to be considered as a co-owner as such the palupatti dated 25.06.1967, therefore would not support the case of the plaintiffs. 43. As rightly contended, since plaintiffs in O.S.No.119/1990 being wife and sons respectively of Rangappa claiming right, title, interest in respect of item Nos. (a), (c), (e) and (f) of the suit schedule properties, based on the Palupatti dated 25.06.1967 at Exs.P6 and Ex.P84 over which they do not have any pre-existing rights, cannot be granted relief. 44. The trial Court has apparently proceeded to accept the case of the plaintiffs on the premise, since all the parties of the suit were residing together the palupatti was acceptable. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants the trial Court has missed out the legal requirement of parties qualifying to be the member of Palupatti/partition. - 44 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 45. Plaintiffs are claiming their independent rights through and under Rangappa in terms of the said Palupatti. Even if the said document was executed it would not create any right, title, interest over the properties in item Nos. (a), (c) and (e) which were not granted in the name of Rangappa. Therefore, Rangappa cannot have any pre-existing right over the properties in Sy.No.98 measuring 4 acres-item no.(a), in Sy.No.30, measuring 3 acres 33 guntas-item no.(c), in Sy.No.140 measuring 3 acres 20 guntas-item no.(e) which admittedly exclusively belonged to S.G.Hanumanthappa- defendant No.1. The palupatti to the said extent cannot be accepted. 46. Appropriate to refer to paragraph 20 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SHASIDARA AND OTHERS VS. ASHWINI UMA MATHAD AND ANOTHER reported in (2015) 11 SCC 269 which is as under; "20. We may consider it apposite to state, being a well- settled principle of law that in a suit filed by a co-sharer, coparcener, co-owner or joint owner, as the case may be, for partition and separate possession of his/her share qua others, it is necessary for the court to examine, in the first instance, the nature and character of the properties in suit such as who was the original owner of the suit properties, how and by which source he/she acquired such properties, whether it was his/her self-acquired property or ancestral - 45 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 property, or joint property or coparcenary property in his/her hand and, if so, who are/were the coparceners or joint owners with him/her as the case may be. Secondly, how the devolution of his/her interest in the property took place consequent upon his/her death on surviving members of the family and in what proportion, whether he/she died intestate or left behind any testamentary succession in favour of any family member or outsider to inherit his/her share in properties and if so, its effect. Thirdly, whether the properties in suit are capable of being partitioned effectively and if so, in what manner? Lastly, whether all properties are included in the suit and all co-sharers, coparceners, co- owners or joint owners, as the case may be, are made parties to the suit? These issues, being material for proper disposal of the partition suit, have to be answered by the court on the basis of family tree, inter se relations of family members, evidence adduced and the principles of law applicable to the case." 47. In the instant case, though the suit is one for declaration of ownership based on Palupatti at Ex.P6 and Ex.P84, unless it was established that Rangappa was co-sharer or joint owner or the coparcener, plaintiffs cannot be granted relief as sought for. Grant of any share or creation of any right, title interest in respect of the said items of the properties in favour of Rangappa, have to be made in the manner known to law, that is, in terms of the Section 17(b) of the Registration Act, 1908. That not having been done, plaintiffs cannot claim right over the properties which belonged to the S.G.Hanumanthappa- defendant No.1. - 46 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 48. That same principle would apply in respect of land in Sy.No.80/2, measuring 7 acres 17 guntas-item No.(f), which admittedly purchased in the name of Deveeramma/plaintiff No.4 in terms of registered deed of sale dated 27.03.1961. Though the document is not produced there is no dispute to the said effect. A revenue entry purportedly made in the name of S.G.Hanumanthappa- defendant No.1 on the premise of alleged vargarajipatra, in the considered view of this Court the same would not create any right, title, interest in favour of the S.G.Hanumanthappa-defendant No.1 as the said property was the absolute property of Deveeramma/plaintiff No.4. As such, the claim of the defendants of the said property also cannot be countenanced. 49. Since there is no claim or dispute with regard to the lands in Sy.Nos.27, 30, 98 and 140 being item Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 of the suit in O.S.No.77/2003, the said properties have to be held as the same belonging to the plaintiffs. 50. Plaintiffs' suit in O.S.No.119/1990 to the extent of item Nos.(a), (c), (e) would not succeed. Since defendants in the - 47 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 said suit who are the appellants in RFA No.174/2005, RFA No.175/2005 have not claimed any right in respect of item Nos. (b), (d) and (g) and since this Court has held item No.(f) has not been conveyed in favour of S.G.Hanumanthappa- defendant No.1 in the manner known to law, suit of the plaintiffs to the said extent of said items of the suit properties has to be decreed. 51. For the aforesaid discussion/analysis the following; ORDER (i) Appeals in RFA Nos.174/2005 and 175/2005 are partly allowed. (ii) Judgment and decree dated 26.11.2004 passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.119/1990 is modified declaring the plaintiffs to be the owners to the extent of lands in; (a) Sy.No.99 measuring 4 acres- item No.(b); Sy.No.138 measuring 2 acres 16 guntas-item No.(d); Sy.No.102 measuring 3 acres 2 guntas- item No.(g); Sy.No.80/2 measuring 7 acres 17 guntas- item No.(f). (b) Consequently, said suit in respect of lands in; Sy.No.98 measuring 4 acres-item No.(a); Sy.No.30 measuring 3 acres 33 guntas-item No.(c); Sy.No.140 measuring 3 acres 20 guntas, item No.(e), stands dismissed. - 48 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012 iii. Appeals in RFA Nos.2195/2012 and 2196/2012 are partly allowed. Suit in O.S.No.77/2003 is decreed granting permanent injunction as sought for in respect of Sy.Nos.27, 30, 98 and 140 being item Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 of the suit schedule properties. Consequently, suit in respect of land in Sy.No.90/2, item No.3 of the suit schedule property is dismissed. iv. Draw decree accordingly. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE PMR/RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12