This regular first appeal challenged a partition decree in a suit where the trial court decreed a 1/7th share to the plaintiff-dispute arose over relationship of parties. The High Court held that appellants failed to refute evidence and dismissed appeals.
The appeals were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100105 OF 2022 (PAR/POS-)
C/W
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100378 OF 2022
IN RFA NO.100105/2022 BETWEEN:
MALLAPPA TOTANNAVAR SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S
ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI
Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. V. G. BHAT AND SRI. S.A. LANGTI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA R. PUROHIT, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 HELD SUFFICIENT; R4 TO R6 – SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RFA FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE COURT OF 1ST ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM., DHARWAD IN O.S.NO.302/2016 DATED 11.07.2019, AND BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE SUIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN RFA NO.100378/2022 BETWEEN:
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. HEMANTHKUMAR L. HAVARAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRI. MALLAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA TOTANNAVAR, DECEASED LRS. DEFENDANT NO.3
(R3 AND R4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R2 KAVITA)
TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD PIN CODE - 580005.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA A. PUROHIT, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 - SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED; R3 AND R4 ARE MINORS R/BY R2; R5 TO R6 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS RFA FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS, PERUSE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DAED 11.07.2019, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., DHARWAD IN O.S.NO.302/2016, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL JUDGMENT
These two appeals arise from the judgment and decree in a suit for partition. Defendants No.1 and 2 have filed RFA No.100378/2022. The legal representatives of defendant No.3 have filed RFA No.100105/2022. Since both appeals arise from the common judgment and decree, the appeals are taken up together for hearing.
Ningappa (Dead)
son Basavantapa alias Basappa (Dead) son Ningappa (Dead) wife Bhimavva (Predeceased)
Basavva Mallavva Paravva Gangavva Basappa Parappa Mallappa (Deft. 4) (Deft. 5) (Pltf.) (Deft. 6) (Deft. 1) (Deft. 2) (Deft. 3)
death, the properties were inherited by his son
Basavantappa alias Basappa. On their death, his son Ningappa inherited the property. The said Ningappa died on 30.11.2015. Bhimavva was wife of Ningappa. Ningappa and Bhimavva have seven children.
the contention that plaintiff is the daughter of late Ningappa and Bhimavva. The death certificate of Ningappa is marked at Ex.P-5. The mutation No.1380 is marked at
Ex.P-6. The school admission certificate of plaintiff is marked at Ex.P-7.
would contend that the plaintiff has shown her age as 45 years in the plaint and in the Ex.P-7- the school admission certificate, her date of birth is shown as 01.08.1966. Thus, he would contend that if she was born on 01.08.1966, and the suit was filed in the year 2016, then her age should have been 50 years. Thus he would contend that the plaintiff is not the person who is mentioned in Ex.P-7. Thus, it is urged that the relationship is not established. He would also contend that date of admission is not mentioned in the school admission certificate. Thus, he would contend that the school admission certificate is to be rejected.
proceeding and cross examine the plaintiff. The rest of the defendants also did not participate in the proceeding and they remained ex-parte. These factors would clearly suggest that the plaintiff has proved her relationship.
shown in the cause title is only an approximate age. By referring to the said age in the cause title, the Ex.P-7public document cannot be disbelieved.
raised at the Bar and perused the records. The following point arise for consideration:
taken a stand that the plaintiff is his cousin. He does not elaborate as to how she is the cousin of defendant No.3. The names of plaintiff’s parents are not mentioned by
defendant No.3. Age of the plaintiff is shown as 45 years in the cause title of the plaint, in Ex.P-7, it is noticed that she was born in the year 1966, in that event, her age would come to 50 years. Merely, because there is discrepancy in the age shown in the cause title with reference to the date of birth shown in the school record, it does not mean that the school record does not belong to the plaintiff. Rest of the contents of the school records would refer to the plaintiff as the daughter of Ningappa. This being the position, this Court is of the view that the contention that Ex.P-7 cannot be looked into to prove the relationship of the plaintiff has to be rejected.
say that who is the father and mother of the plaintiff. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE
RKM CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellants succeeded in establishing that the plaintiff is not the daughter of the late propositus Ningappa?
Whether the discrepancy in the plaintiff's age between the plaint and school records vitiates the evidence of relationship?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Paravva W/o Channabasappa Talwai
Shri. Basappa S/o Ningappa Totanna
Shri. Parappa S/o Ningappa Totanna
L.Rs. of Demised Ningappa
Anant Ramanath Hegde
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
