- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3144-DB RFA No. 1958 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1958 OF 2017 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. S SHIVAPPA S/O SHERAPURADA BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OPP IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT SHIMOGA ROAD, HARIHARA, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001. SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LRs. 1(a) LALITHAMMA, WIDOW OF LATE S.SHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT OPP: IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT SHIMOGA ROAD, HARIHARA, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577601. 1(b) VANI, W/O BENAKAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT ARAKERE VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE-577217. 1(c) S.SHANKAR, S/O LATE S.SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT OPP: IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT SHIMOGA ROAD, HARIHARA, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577601. Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3144-DB RFA No. 1958 of 2017 1(d) S.SATISHA, S/O LATE S.SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT OPP. IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT SHIMOGA ROAD, HARIHARA, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577601. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANATHKUMAR SHETTY K., ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS I.E., A1(A-D)) AND: 1. SMT GOWRAMMA W/O LATE BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS OPP IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT SHIMOGA ROAD, HARIHARA TOWN DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001. SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HER LRs I.E., RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 5 WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD. 2. SMT SUVARNAMMA W/O LATE SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS KODIHALLLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DAVANAGERE, TALUK AND DISTRICT-577001. 3. SMT SHIVAKKA W/O LATE THIPPE RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS KENGANHALLI HOBLI AND VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577001. 4. SMT GANGAMMA W/O HANUMANTHAPPA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3144-DB RFA No. 1958 of 2017 AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS YALAVATTI VILLAGE HARIHAR TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001. 5. SMT SAVITRAMMA W/O HALESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS KOOLAMBI VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001. 6. MR RAJAPPA S/O SHERAPURADA BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS AGRICULTURIST OPP IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT SHIMOGA ROAD,HARIHAR DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001. 7. MR NAGAPPA S/O PATEL SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS KENGANAHALLI, HONNALI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001. 8. SRI HARISH S/O NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS KENGANAHALLI HONNALI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001. 9. MR S CHENNABASAPPA S/O SHREPURADA BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS OPP IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT SHIMOGA ROAD, HARIHAR TOWN DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001. …RESPONDENTS - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3144-DB RFA No. 1958 of 2017 (BY SRI. B.M.HALASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R8; R2-R5 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED R1; R9 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W RULE 1 ORDER XLI OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.9.2017 PASSED IN OS NO.21/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARIHAR, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present appeal has been filed impugning the Judgment and Decree dated 21.09.2017 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Harihar, Davanagere District, in Original Suit No.21/2015 filed by the plaintiffs seeking partition of the suit schedule properties. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3144-DB RFA No. 1958 of 2017 3. The father of the defendants Sherapurada Basappa died intestate. The plaintiff No.1 is the mother, plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 are the sisters, plaintiff No.6 is the brother of the defendants and plaintiff Nos.7 and 8 are the Husband and Son of the deceased Sarojamma (one of the daughter of late Sherapurada Basappa). The plaintiffs had filed the suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession of their 1/9th share in each of the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds. They have also prayed for mesne profits. The defendants had filed their written statement after they received the summons in the suit, denying the plaint averments. The defendants denied that the suit schedule properties were self acquired properties of late Sherapurada Basappa. 4. According to the defendants, their father had acquired Item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit schedule properties under the registered partition deed, which took place between him and his brothers on 27.12.1974. It was also stated that property bearing Survey Nos.33/P, 33/2 and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3144-DB RFA No. 1958 of 2017 5/2P were purchased by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the name of their father Sherapurada Basappa under the registered sale deed dated 29.05.1975, 17.08.1968 and 28.02.1988 respectively. These properties were self acquired properties of the defendant Nos.1 and 2. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues: "1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of Late Basappa ? 2) Whether the defendants prove that a plaintiff 1 No.2 to 5 are owners and in possession of land Sy.No.48/3P1 measuring 1 acre 31 guntas as per will dated 09/06/1963 ? 3) Whether the defendants prove that the suit schedule properties item No.1 and 5 are their self acquired properties ? 4) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for share in the suit schedule properties ? If so, what is the share of plaintiffs ? - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3144-DB RFA No. 1958 of 2017 5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs sought in the suit ? 6) What order or decree ? ADDITIONAL ISSUE 1) Whether the defendants prove that during lifetime of Basappa, he made arrangement to his wife and children in respect of all family properties?" 5. Issue No.2 was deleted vide order dated 29.08.2017 by the Trial Court. The Trial Court after considering the evidence including the deposition and documentary evidence brought on record by the parties decided Issue Nos.1, 3 and Additional Issue No.1 together and held that defendants could not prove their contention, that the suit properties were not self-required properties of their father. The stand of the defendants that they had paid the amounts to their father for purchasing the properties, in the name of their father under the registered sale deeds dated 27.12.1974, 29.05.1975, 17.08.1968 and 28.02.1988 respectively, was not found correct. On careful scrutiny of the registered sale deeds produced by - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3144-DB RFA No. 1958 of 2017 the plaintiffs and defendants, the Trial Court noted that the contention of defendant Nos.1 and 2 was not correct that they had paid the sale consideration for purchasing these properties from their own earnings and such a recital was not present in the sale deeds anywhere. 6. In respect of the stand of the defendants, that their father had acquired Item Nos. 2 and 3 of the suit schedule properties under the registered partition deeds, which took place between him and his brothers on 27.12.1974, the Trial Court had held that the documentary evidence i.e., the partition deed dated 27.12.1974 (Exhibit D4), the certified copy of the Will (Exhibit D84), certified copy of sale deed dated 15.03.1975 (Exhibit D86) would go to show that Sherapurada Basappa and his brothers had got divided the family properties, in which he had got the properties bearing Survey Nos.114, 23 and 57 and the house property bearing Nos.75 and 76. Under Exhibits D85 and D86, Basappa had purchased another property. Thus, On the basis of the registered sale deeds and the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3144-DB RFA No. 1958 of 2017 registered partition deed, the Trial Court concluded that Basappa had acquired the properties during his lifetime and they were his personal properties not the joint Hindu family properties. 7. In view of the aforesaid findings, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed and it was held that the plaintiffs and the defendants and the children of deceased Sarojamma would be entitled for 1/9th share each together 7/9th share and 2/9th share respectively in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds. 8. The issue which arises for consideration in this appeal is that "Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is based on the evidence or whether the same calls for interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 9. It is not in dispute that all the suit schedule properties were in the name of late Basappa. In respect of the four properties, the defendants have taken the plea - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3144-DB RFA No. 1958 of 2017 that though they were purchased in the name of their father vide registered sale deeds dated 14.08.1968, 01.02.1960, 16.01.1957 and 28.02.1988, but the consideration was paid by the defendants from their own earnings. The defendants did not produce any documentary evidence to substantiate the payment made by them nor there exists any recital in the sale deeds to that effect. Therefore, the defendants' contention that the four properties were acquired by their father, for which the sale consideration was paid by the defendants, cannot be believed. Further, in respect of the two items of suit schedule properties, i.e., the properties bearing Survey Nos.114, 23, 57 and house property bearing Nos.75 and 76, which were acquired by their father in pursuance to the partition deed/Will dated 27.12.1974 as well as vide sale deeds dated 29.05.1975 and sale deed dated 28.02.1988 (Exs.D83, D85 and D86) respectively, would suggest that Basappa and his brothers had divided the family properties in which he had got the properties - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3144-DB RFA No. 1958 of 2017 bearing Survey Nos. 114, 23 and 57 and house property bearing Nos.75 and 76 under the sale deeds (Exhibit D85 and Exhibit D86), he had purchased the other properties. In view of the aforesaid registered sale deeds and certified copy of the partition deeds, Sherapurada Basappa had acquired these properties. These properties were the self- acquired properties of Late Basappa as he had died intestate, all the legal heirs would be entitled for equal share. And thus the trial Court has rightly allowed the suit and directed that the plaintiffs and defendants would be entitled for equal share in the properties left behind by late Sherapurada Basappa. 10. We have considered the evidence as discussed above and have gone through the impugned judgment and perused the record of the Court. 11. The Plaintiffs and defendants are the legal heirs of Late Sherapurada Basappa. They have equal right over all the properties left behind by late Sherapurada Basappa as - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3144-DB RFA No. 1958 of 2017 he had died intestate. All the properties standing in the name of Late Sherapurada Basappa, which are the suit schedule properties, were self-acquired properties. Therefore, after his demise, all the legal heirs would be entitled to equal share in the suit schedule properties being Class I heirs. 12. Therefore, we do not find that there is any scope to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. We thus dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment and decree dated 21.09.2017 passed by the Trial Court. 13. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending interim applications if any, stand closed. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7