- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:271 RSA No. 101584 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.101584 OF 2022 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: SUBHAS S/O. FAKKIRAPPA GOUDANNAVAR, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HAROBELAVADI, TQ. DHARWAD. …APPELLANT (BY SRI V. G. BHAT AND SRI. SURAJ M. KATAGI, ADVOCATES.) AND: 1. SMT. SHANKRAVVA W/O. FAKKIRAPPA GOUDANNAVAR, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. HAROBELAVADI, TQ. & DIST. DHARWAD-580201. 2. SMT. IRAVVA W/O. BASAPPA HITTALAMANI, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. MORAB, TQ. NAVALGUND, DIST. DHARWAD-580112. 3. SMT. CHANDRAVVA W/O. BABU NEELAMMANVAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. TURKARASHIGIHALLI, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-591115. 4. SMT. GANGAVVA W/O. SHETTEPPA HITTALAMANI, Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:271 RSA No. 101584 of 2022 AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. MORAB, TQ. NAVALAGUND, DIST. DHARWAD-580112. 5. SMT. KASTUREVVA W/O. CHNNAMALLAPPA GOUDANNAVAR, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. HAROBELAVADI, TQ. & DIST. DHARWAD-580201. 6. SATYAPPA S/O. CHANNAMALLAPPA GOUDANNAVAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HAROBELAVADI, TQ. & DIST. DHARWAD-580201. 7. SMT. KAMALAVVA W/O. CHANNAMALLAPPA GOUDANNAVAR, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. HAROBELAVADI, TQ. & DIST. DHARWAD-580201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M. C. HUKKERI, ADV. FOR R1, R2 & R3; SRI SURESH S. GUNDI, ADV. FOR R5, R6 & R7; NOTICE TO R4 SERVED) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE COURT OF III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD IN R.A.NO.45/2021 DATED 16.04.2022, AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM DHARWAD, IN O.S.NO.175/2012 DATED 18.01.2013, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:271 RSA No. 101584 of 2022 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON IA, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This Regular Second Appeal is filed by defendant No.1 in O.S.No.175 of 2012 questioning the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2022 passed in R.A.No.45 of 2021 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad1, which modified the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2013 passed in O.S.No.175 of 2012 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad2. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 3. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition and separate possession claiming their 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties by contending that the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties. 1 hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’ for short 2 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:271 RSA No. 101584 of 2022 4. The plaintiffs have shown the genealogy as follows: GENEALOGY Satyappa Goudannavar (died) (Propositus) Veerappa Fakirappa Channamallappa (Adopted to (Died) (Died) Gadigeppa Hittalamani (1) Smt. Shankravva (wife)-(P-1) (1) Smt. Kasturevva (Wife) (Def-3) (2) Smt. Iravva (Daughter)-(P-2) (2) Sri. Satyappa (Son)-(Def-3) (3) Smt. Chandravva (Daughter)-(P-3) (3) Smt. Kamalavva (Son)-(Def-4) (4) Sri. Subhas (Son)-(Def-I) (5) Smt. Gangavva (Daughter)-(Def-2) 5. The Trial Court decreed the suit declaring that plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are each entitled to a 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties. 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in the suit, defendant No.1 has preferred a regular appeal in R.A.No.45/2021 before the First Appellate Court. 7. The First Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal, partly set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:271 RSA No. 101584 of 2022 modified the same by holding that plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 are each entitled to 1/10th share in Item Nos.1 to 3 and 5 of the suit schedule properties; defendants No.3 to 5 are jointly entitled to half share in Item Nos.1 to 3 and 5 of the suit schedule properties; and that the suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed in respect of Item No.4 of the suit schedule properties. 8. After hearing the submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the appellant and respondents, the following substantial question of law arises for consideration is: “Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, allotment of shares made by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court is justified, when admittedly the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties?” 9. Plaintiffs No.1 to 3 and defendants No.1 and 2 are the legal heirs of deceased Fakkirappa Satyappa Goudannavar. Plaintiff No.1 is wife of deceased Fakkirappa, plaintiffs No.2 and 3, and defendants No.1 and 2 are his children. Defendant No.3 is the wife of deceased Channamallappa Satyappa Goudannavar and defendants No.4 and 5 are his children. Therefore, both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, instead of holding that - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:271 RSA No. 101584 of 2022 the legal heirs of deceased Fakkirappa and Channamallappa are each entitled to half share in the suit schedule properties, erroneously proceeded by applying notional partitions and individual shares. 10. Further, the First Appellate Court did not grant any share in Item No.4 of the suit schedule property. Item No.4 of the suit schedule property is an agricultural land granted by the land Tribunal to the joint family of the plaintiffs and defendants. However, the First Appellate Court erroneously held that the grant of occupancy rights did not enure to the benefit of the joint family. Such a finding is unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. 11. Considering the admitted relationship as per the genealogy furnished by the plaintiffs and the fact that all the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties, therefore plaintiffs No.1 to 3 and defendants No.1 and 2 are entitled to half share in all the suit properties, and defendants No.3 to 5 are entitled to half share in all the suit properties. Accordingly, the judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are modified. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:271 RSA No. 101584 of 2022 12. The substantial question of law is answered in the ‘negative’, holding that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are not justified in allotment of shares to the plaintiffs and defendants in the manner stated above. 13. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER a) The appeal is allowed in part; b) The judgment and decree dated 18.01.2013 passed in O.S.No.175/2012 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad, and the judgment and decree dated 22.04.2022 passed in R.A.No.45/2021 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, are set aside; c) Plaintiffs No.1 to 3 and defendants No.1 and 2 are entitled to half share in all the suit schedule properties, and defendants - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:271 RSA No. 101584 of 2022 No.3 to 5 are entitled to half share in all the suit schedule properties; d) Draw decree accordingly; e) No order as to costs. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA: Para 1 to 3 PMP: Para 4 to end CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16