- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:673 RSA No. 100855 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100855/2025 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: VEERENDRA S/O. MAHARUDRAPPA ITIGATTI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HOLEBASAVESHWAR PRASANNA, MARTHAKURPA, C/O. MARKHANDAYYA HIREMATH, H. NO.221, NANDI BADAVANI, RTO, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD, REPRESENTED BY HIS SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SMT. SAMEERA W/O. BABU NADAF, (AFTER MARRIAGE SMT. KUSUMA W/O. VEERENDRA ITIGATTI, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: GOVERNMENT SERVICE, R/O. H. NO.221, NANDI LAYOUT, OPPOSITE RTO, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580009. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SATISH S. RAICHUR AND SRI ANAND D. BAGEWADI, ADVOCATES.) AND: 1. SMT. KRUPAVATI W/O. VEERABHADRAPPA PATTAR, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. WARD NO.4, LINGASUGURU ROAD, Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:673 RSA No. 100855 of 2025 BEHIND HOSTEL, MANIKANTH NAGAR, KOTWAL, RAICHUR-584102. 2. SUKANYA D/O. MAHARUDRAPPA ITIGATTI, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: PENSIONER, R/O. EWS-403, GAMANAGATTI ROAD, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DHARWAD-580009. 3. SMT. NAGARATNA W/O. MALTESH ITIGATTI, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. EWS-403, GAMANAGATTI ROAD, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DHARWAD-580009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S. R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.10.2025 IN R.A.NO.81/2024 IS PASSED BY III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE, DHARWAD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN O.S.NO.277/2022 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, DHARWAD AT DHARWAD DATED 22.02.2024 AND DISMISS THE SUIT OF THE RESPONDENTS/ PLAINTIFFS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:673 RSA No. 100855 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This regular second appeal is filed by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.10.2025 in R.A.No.81/2024 passed by III Additional District and Sessions Judge and Spl. Judge, Dharwad1 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2024 in O.S.No.277/2022 passed by the Principal Senior Judge and CJM, Dharwad2. 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, who are the daughters of Maharudrappa Itigatti, have filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the suit property against the defendant, stating that the plaintiffs are the daughters and the defendant is the only son of Maharudrappa Itigatti, and 1 Hereinafter referred to as “First Appellate Court” 2 Hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court” - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:673 RSA No. 100855 of 2025 that the suit property is joint family property belonging to the father of Maharudrappa Itigatti. Therefore, they filed the suit for partition claiming 1/4th share each in the suit schedule property. 4. The relationship as stated above is not disputed by the defendant in his written statement. 5. The suit property described as the suit schedule property is as follows: i) Agricultural land bearing its Block No.201/1 measuring 04 acres 05 guntas assessed at Rs.14.28 situated at Navalur village Dharward taluk. 6. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition only in respect of the landed property described in the plaint schedule as stated above. The defendant has filed a counter-claim in the suit stating that there is another house property bearing No.403, measuring 55.83 sq. meters, situated at Navanagar, Hubballi, which is not included in the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:673 RSA No. 100855 of 2025 suit. Therefore, the counter-claim is filed seeking a share in the said property. 7. In the suit, the defendant received summons and filed his written statement but did not pursue the matter thereafter. The Trial Court decreed the suit by allotting 1/4th share each to the plaintiffs and dismissed the counter-claim of the defendant. 8. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the counter- claim, the defendant preferred a regular appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 9. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have concurrently recorded findings of fact that the suit schedule property is joint family property belonging to their father, Maharudrappa Itigatti, and accordingly decreed the suit by allotting 1/4th share each to the plaintiffs. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:673 RSA No. 100855 of 2025 10. An additional issue was framed by the Trial Court placing the burden on the defendant to prove that the counter-claim property is joint family property and not the self-acquired property of plaintiff No.2. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court held that the defendant failed to prove that the counter-claim property is joint family property. It was held that the counter-claim property is the self-acquired property of plaintiff No.2, as she was working as a Manager in KSFC and had purchased the property out of her own earnings. Accordingly, the counter-claim property was declared to be the self-acquired property of plaintiff No.2. 11. Against the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the defendant has preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 12. This Court, while admitting the appeal on 17.11.2025, framed the following substantial question of law - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:673 RSA No. 100855 of 2025 i) Whether the First Appellate Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by not remanding the matter for fresh consideration? 13. Though the defendant appeared and filed a written statement, he did not pursue the trial, did not cross- examine PW-1, and did not adduce evidence. As a result, the decree was passed. Thereafter, he filed an appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and also filed an application for production of additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC. However, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal without remanding the matter. Therefore, the defendant prayed for remand of the case to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that in paragraph No.2 of the written statement, the defendant admitted that the suit schedule property belonged to his father Maharudrappa - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:673 RSA No. 100855 of 2025 Itigatti and that after his demise, the plaintiffs and defendant succeeded to the suit schedule property. Based on this admitted fact, the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 15. When the plaintiffs have claimed a share in the suit schedule property and their relationship is admitted, and when the defendant himself has admitted that it is joint family property, both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are correct in holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/4th share each. Therefore, there was no necessity to remand the matter to the Trial Court. Even if the matter were remanded, the result would remain the same based on the admitted facts. Hence, no interference is required, and the judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are liable to be confirmed. 16. Insofar as the counter-claim made by the defendant seeking partition of the counter-claim property is concerned, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:673 RSA No. 100855 of 2025 opposed the same on the ground that the counter-claim property is the self-acquired property of plaintiff No.2, who was working as a Manager in KSFC and purchased the property out of her own earnings during her service period. Therefore, it is not inherited property. 17. In the First Appeal, the defendant/appellant filed an application for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC along with a certified copy of the sale deed and encumbrance certificate pertaining to the counter-claim property. The First Appellate Court considered the application that the trial Court has appreciated the documentary evidence and held that the defendant has failed to demonstrate that out of the joint family fund the counter claim property was purchased. 18. The certified copy of the sale deed produced as additional evidence was already appreciated by the Trial Court as Ex.P-2. The encumbrance certificate was also considered by the First Appellate Court, which held that - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:673 RSA No. 100855 of 2025 there was no evidence to establish that the defendant and his mother jointly paid the sale consideration. The trial Court and First appellate Court further found that plaintiff No.2 had sufficient income during her service in KSFC and retired on 30.06.2018, and therefore purchased the counter claim property out of her own income. In the absence of contrary evidence, the said finding cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered in the negative. 19. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are justified in decreeing the suit and dismissing the counter-claim of the defendant. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE ASN /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17