- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:337 RSA No. 6096 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 6096 OF 2012 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PREMA W/O. CHANDRAPPA HOTTIGOUDRA @ MALLENAHALLI, AGE:MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HADRIHALLI, HIREKERUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT-58111. 2. SMT. MAHADEVAKKA W/O. SHIVANAGOUDA MUDIGOUDRA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KALAGONDA, NOW RESIDING AT: HADRIHALLI, HIREKERUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT-58111. &APPELLANTS (BY SRI S. G. KADADAKATTI AND SRI M. B. GONDI, ADVOCATES.) AND: 1. SHIVAPPAYYA @ SHIVANAGOUDA VEERAPPA MUDIGOUDRA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRIL., R/O. KALAGONDA, HIREKERUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT-581111. SINCE DEAD, REP. BY L.RS. APPELLANTS NO.1 AND 2 AND RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 7 WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD. 2. BASAVARAJ SHIDDANAGOUDA HOTTIGOUDRA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRIL., R/O. KALAGONDA, HIREKERUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT-581111. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:337 RSA No. 6096 of 2012 3. SHANKARAGOUDA SHIDDANAGOUDA HOTTIGOUDRA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRIL., R/O. HADRIHALLI, HIREKERUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT-581111. SINCE DEAD, REP. BY L.RS. 3A. SMT. RATNAVVA @ NAGARATNA W/O. LATE SHANKARAGOUDA HATTIGOUDRA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEMAKER, R/O. HADRIHALLI, HIREKERUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT. 4. SMT. RATNAVVA W/O. SHIVAPPAYYA MUDIGOUDRA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KALAGONDA, HIREKERUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT-581111. 5. SMT. LALITA W/O. UMESHAPPA GUMMANAL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRIL., R/O. BETAKERUR-58111, HIREKERUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT-581111. 6. SHIDDANAGOUDA SHIVAPPAYYA MUDIGOUDRA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRIL., R/O. KALAGONDA, HIREKERUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT-581111. 7. NAGANGOUDA SHIVAPPAYYA MUDIGOUDRA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRIL., R/O. KALAGONDA, HIREKERUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT-581111. 8. SMT. SHANKRAVVA W/O. HEMAPPA SORATUR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRIL., R/O. SUTTAKOTI MAHAL KODA, HIREKERUR TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT-581111. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI AVINASH BANAKAR, ADV. FOR R2, R4 TO R8; APPELLANTS AND R4 TO R7 ARE LRS OF DECEASED R1; NOTICE TO R3(A) SERVED.) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:337 RSA No. 6096 of 2012 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.07.2012 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HIREKERUR, IN RA NO.6/2011 BY MODIFYING THE SHARE OF 1ST APPELLANT AND CANCELLING THE SHARE OF 2ND APPELLANT IN THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HIREKERUR, DATED 15.04.2005 IN O.S.NO.156/1997 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND RESTORE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE TRIAL COURT AND ETC.,. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) The regular second appeal is filed by plaintiffs challenging the judgment decree dated 23.07.2012 passed in RA No.6/2011, on the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Hirekerur1, thereby granting share only to plaintiff No.1, denying the share to plaintiff No.2 by modifying the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2005 passed in O.S.No.156/1997 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Hirekerur2 and prays for confirming judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 1 Hereinafter referred to as “ first appellate Court” 2 Hereinafter referred to as “trial Court” - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:337 RSA No. 6096 of 2012 2. For the purpose of convenience and easy reference, ranking of the parties is referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 3. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties claiming 1/3rd share in jointly family properties. 4. The admitted genealogy is as follows. Pedigree Bharamagouda (Died) Veerappa Siddaiah Nagappa Died on 22.01.2001 (Died (Died) Gouramma Shivappaiah@ Shivanagouda Shankravva (Died) (Deft.-2) (Deft.-5) Maadevakka (wife) (Pltf.-2) Basavaraj Shankaragouda (Deft.-3) (Deft.-4) Mallamma (Died) Prema (Pltf-1) 5. There is no dispute regarding the nature of the properties, i.e., the suit schedule properties are ancestral - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:337 RSA No. 6096 of 2012 and joint family properties. The relationship between the parties, as shown in the genealogy, is also undisputed. The plaintiffs have stated that Defendant No.6 is the second wife of defendant No.2 Shivappayya @ Shivanagouda, and that defendant Nos.7, 8, and 9 are the children of defendant No. 2 and defendant No.6. These facts are not disputed. 6. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, decreed the suit, granting 4/9th share in the suit schedule properties to the plaintiffs. 7. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 and 6 to 9 filed Regular Appeal No.6/2011 before the first appellate Court and the first appellate Court modified the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, declaring that plaintiff No.1 alone is entitled to 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties, and that no share is granted to Plaintiff No.2. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal by raising various grounds and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:337 RSA No. 6096 of 2012 contending that the substantial question of law involved in this case. 9. Heard argument from both sides and perused records. 10. Having heard argument from both sides, the following substantial question of law arise for consideration; <Whether, under the facts and circumstance involved in the case, both the trial Court and first appellate Court were justified in granting 4/9th share to the plaintiffs and 1/4th share to plaintiff No.1 alone in the suit schedule properties, when considering the admitted relationship of both parties as pleaded, and the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Revanasiddappa and another Vs Mallikarjun and others3? 11. Upon considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants, the admitted facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, it is noted that Bharamgouda is the original propositus, who had three children. There was a partition among the children of 3 (2023) 10 SCC 1 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:337 RSA No. 6096 of 2012 Bharamagouda and these facts are not disputed. Defendant No.1 Veerappa has received separate share in the partition held between his two brothers. Therefore, the suit properties are the shares that were obtained by Veerappa. 12. The plaintiffs have stated that, defendant No.6 is second wife of defendant No.2 and defendant Nos.7 to 9 are children of defendant No.2 and defendant No.6. Therefore, considering the evidence on record and facts, both the trial Courts and first appellate Courts have committed error in granting the allotment of shares to the respective parties. Also, defendant Nos.7 to 9 are entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties as per the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Revanasiddappa and another Vs Mallikarjun and others, as stated supra. Therefore, plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 who are the daughter and wife of defendant No.2 Shivappayya are entitled 1/3rd share together in the suit schedule properties. It is stated that Defendant No.1 died on 22.01.2001. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:337 RSA No. 6096 of 2012 being children of Gouramma are entitled 1/3rd share together. Defendant No.5 Shakrawwa is entitled 1/3rd share. 13. It is not disputed that defendant No.6 is the second wife of defendant No.2 Shivappayya and defendant Nos.7 to 9 are the children of Defendant No.2 and defendant No.6. Therefore, defendant Nos.7 to 9 are entitled only to the share of defendant No.2 Shivappayya equally as that of plaintiff No.1. Since defendant Nos.7 to 9 are the children of second wife of defendant No.2, therefore, they are entitled 1/3rd share of Shivappayya only. When the 1/3rd share allotted to the Shivappayya is further divide into three equal shares, then plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are entitled 1/9th. Therefore, defendant Nos.7 to 9 are entitled share only to the share of Shivappayya. Thus, defendant Nos.7 to 9 are entitled 1/36th share each and plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to 4/9th share. 14. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered to the effect that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are each - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:337 RSA No. 6096 of 2012 entitled 4/9th share, defendant Nos.7 and 8, 9 are each entitled 1/36th share. Further defendant Nos.3 and 4 are each entitled 1/6th share and defendant No.5 Shakarawwa entitled 1/3rd share. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court is liable to be set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is modified. 15. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The judgment decree dated 23.07.2012 passed in RA No.6/2011 of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Hirekerur, is hereby set aside. iii. The judgment and decree dated 15.04.2005 passed in O.S.No.156/1997 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Hirekerur is modified. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:337 RSA No. 6096 of 2012 iv. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are each entitled 4/9th share, defendant Nos.7 and 8, 9 are each entitled 1/36th share. Further defendant Nos.3 and 4 are each entitled 1/6th share and defendant No.5 Shakarawwa entitled 1/3rd share. v. Registry is directed to transmit the TCR along with copy of this order to the trial Court forthwith. vi. Draw decree accordingly. vii. No order as to costs. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE ASN /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17