Three appeals against a preliminary decree granting plaintiffs' branch half share in ancestral service Inam lands and against the subsequent final decree. The High Court found re-grant of inam lands did not make them the re-grantee's self-acquired property and dismissed all three appeals.
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 AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1033 OF 2004 (PAR) C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1034 OF 2004 (PAR) REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 560 OF 2021 (PAR)
IN RFA No. 1033/2004
BETWEEN:
HARIHAR TQ, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.B. HALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2024:KHC:37697 RFA No. 1033 of 2004 C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004 RFA No. 560 of 2021
R1(A) TO R1(C) ARE R/O YALODAHALLI VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TQ, DIST-DAVANGERE
R/O ELAKKI LAVANGABEEDI SHIKARIPURA TQ, SHIVAMOGGA DIST.
ALL ARE R/O HIREKABBAR VILLAGE HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT.
OCC. PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER CHATTAKAMBA VILLAGE CHALLAKERE TQ, CHITRADURGA DIST.
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R6(A) TO R6(C) ARE R/O MALLANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE HARIHAR TALUK.
W/O VARPUTRACHARI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O UJJANI, KUNIGAL TALUK BALLARI DISTRICT.
Page No.5 is re-typed and re-placed vide chamber order dated 09.04.2025
R8, R9 AND R10(A) TO R10(E) ARE R/O GULLADAHALLI VILLAGE, HARAIHAR TALUKA
Page No.6 is re-typed and re-placed vide chamber order dated 09.04.2025
ALL ARE R/O K.R. BHADAVANE NEAR GANESH TEMPLE DAVANAGERE
R15(A) TO R15(C) ARE AGRICULTURIST R/O GULADAHALLI VILLAGE HARIHAR TQ.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. GOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A-E), R2(A-E), R3(A-D), R4 AND R5;
V/O DATED 08.07.2013 APPEAL AGAINST R2 STANDS ABATED;
R6 DECEASED, R6(A, B, C AND D) ARE SERVED; R7(A, B, C, D, E, F, G), R8, R9, R10(B, C, D AND E), R11, R12, R13, R14(A, B, C, D, E), R15( A, B, C) AND R16 ARE SERVED;
V/O DATED 25.06.2024 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R10(A) IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC 96 R/W O 41 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:03.08.2004 PASSED IN OS.NO.374/02, ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), HARIHAR, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED BY RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 5 FOR PARTITION AND SEPERATE POSSESSION AND FOR MESNE PROFITS.
IN RFA NO. 1034/2004
BETWEEN:
APPELLANTS 1(A) TO 1(F) ARE R/O HARALAHALLI VILLAGE HARIHAR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DIST.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.B. HALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/O MALLIGENAHALLI, HONNALI TQ DIST-DAVANAGERE
ALL ARE R/O HIREKABBAR VILLAGE HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT.
NC: 2024:KHC:37697 RFA No. 1033 of 2004 C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004 RFA No. 560 of 2021
R6(A) TO R6(C) ARE R/O MALLANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE HARIHAR TALUK.
NC: 2024:KHC:37697 RFA No. 1033 of 2004 C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004 RFA No. 560 of 2021
R7 TO R8 AND R9(A) TO R9(E) ARE R/O GULLADAHALLI VILLAGE HARIHAR TALUK
NC: 2024:KHC:37697 RFA No. 1033 of 2004 C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004 RFA No. 560 of 2021
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O K.R. BHADAVANE NEAR GANESH TEMPLE DAVANAGERE
R14(A) TO R14(C) ARE AGRICULTURIST R/O GULADAHALLI VILLAGE HARIHAR TQ.
HARIHAR TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
SRI. D.P. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R13;
THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC 96 R/W O 41 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:3.8.04 PASSED IN OS.NO.374/02, ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), HARIHAR, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPERATE POSSESSION AND FOR MESNE PROFITS.
IN RFA NO. 560/2021
BETWEEN:
APPELLANTS NO. 1 TO 5 ARE R/AT HARALAHALLI VILLAGE HARIHARA TALUK DAVANGERE (D) - 577 601.
APPELLANTS NO. 7 AND 8 ARE R/AT GULADAHALLI VILLAGE HARIHARA TALUK DAVANGERE (D) - 577 601.
...APPELLANTS
AND:
R1 TO R3 ARE R/AT YALODAHALLI VILLAGE DAGINIKATTE POST, CHANNAGIRI (T) DAVANAGERE (D) - 577 213
R4 TP R11 ARE R/AT NANDIGUDI VILLAGE HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE (D) - 577 601.
R12 TO R15 ARE R/AT NANDAGUDI VILLAGE HIREKERURU TALUK HAVERI (D) - 581 111.
CHALLAKERE (T) CHITRADURGA - 577 522.
HANUMANTHACHARI DECEASED REP BY LRS R18 TO R21
R18 TO R21 ARE R/O MALLANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001
BHEEMAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
NC: 2024:KHC:37697 RFA No. 1033 of 2004 C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004 RFA No. 560 of 2021
1ST CROSS, MAJJAGI FLAT RANEBENNUR - 581 115.
MALLIKARJUNA S/O LATE RUDRACHARI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
NC: 2024:KHC:37697 RFA No. 1033 of 2004 C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004 RFA No. 560 of 2021
ALL ARE RESIDENT OF K.R. BADAVANE NEAR GANESH TEMPLE DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
NC: 2024:KHC:37697 RFA No. 1033 of 2004 C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004 RFA No. 560 of 2021
RESPONDENTS NO. 11 AND 13 ARE ALL R/AT GULADAHALLI VILLAGE HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE - 577 601.
NC: 2024:KHC:37697 RFA No. 1033 of 2004 C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004 RFA No. 560 of 2021
R38 TO R45 ARE ALL R/O 3RD CROSS, MOUNESHWAR LAYOUT NITTUVALLI ROAD, DAVANAGERE - 577 601.
...RESPONDENTS
R26 IS EXPIRED;
V/O DATED 18.01.2024 NOTICE TO R43 IS HELD SUFFICIENT;
V/O DATED 22.08.2024 NOTICE TO R21, R26, R30 TO R34, R38 AND R40 TO R42 ARE SERVED BY WAY OF PAPER PUBLICATION)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.06.2019 PASSED IN FDP.NO.1/2005 ON THE FILE FO SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., COURT HARIHARA, ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 54 AND ORDER 20 RULE 18 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC., FOR DRAWING FINAL DECREE.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL JUDGMENT
RFA.No.1033/2004 is filed by defendant No.12 assailing the preliminary decree drawn in O.S.No.374/2002. RFA.No.1034/2004 is filed by the
brother of defendant No.12 who is arrayed as defendant No.2 represented by his legal representatives i.e., defendant Nos.2(a) to 2(g). RFA.No.560/2021 is filed by defendant Nos.2(a) to 2(g) questioning the final decree in FDP.No.1/2005.
- 25 - NC: 2024:KHC:37697 RFA No. 1033 of 2004 C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004 RFA No. 560 of 2021
HANUMAPPA (DIED)
| | | | | | BHEEMANNA NAGA CHANNABASAPPA ESHWARAPPA MAHADEVAPPA (DIED) (DIED) (DIED) (DIED) (DIED) | | | 1ST BRANCH | |_____________________ | | | | | | MANAPPA P1 AMRUTHACHARI P2 BHRAMACHARI P3 NIRANJANAMURTHY | (DEAD) | | | | | P4 YOGESHAPPA | P5 DODDAVEERAPPA | | | | ______________________________________________________________| | | | | | | | | D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 | HANUMANTHACHARI KRISHNACHARI RUDRACHARI MAHESHWARAPPA RANGAPPA YOGESHAPPA BHEEMAPPA | (DIED) (DIED) | | | | | ____________________________ | | | | | | | | | D6 D7 _________ | | | PADMAMMA SUBHADRAMMA | | | D8 RINDAMMA D10 MALLIKARJUNA SINCE DEAD BY DEFENDENTS 1(a) TO (g) D9 KANTHAMMA D11 MALLESHAPPA AND DEFENDANT No. 12 - APPELLANTS
4. Plaintiffs who are the legal heirs of one Naga
have instituted a suit seeking relief of partition and separate possession against the defendants. Plaintiffs have specifically contended that the suit schedule properties are joint family ancestral properties and plaintiffs and defendants thereby constitute undivided
Joint Hindu Family and they are in joint possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties. Plaintiffs have further contended that their father Naga and Bheemanna predeceased Mahadevappa and thereafter Mahadevappa continued to act as the Kartha of the family and was managing the suit schedule properties and distributed the yield to all the family members. After the demise of Mahadevappa, defendant No.2/Maheshwarappa applied for re-grant as suit lands were service Inam lands and the authority has accordingly re-granted in favour of
defendant No.2. Plaintiff therefore contended that the suit schedule properties being joint family ancestral properties and defendant No.2 having blindly refused to share the yield generated in the suit land is compelled to file the present suit for partition.
No.2/Maheshwarappa contested the proceedings. Pending
suit, he died and his children namely defendant Nos.2(a) to 2(g) appeared and filed written statement and
NC: 2024:KHC:37697 RFA No. 1033 of 2004 C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004 RFA No. 560 of 2021
contested the suit. Defendant Nos.5 to 11 who are the brothers and sisters and grandchildren also contested the suit by filing written statement.
the Court failed to cross-examine the plaintiffs. An application was filed after seeking thirteen adjournments by defendant Nos.2(a) to 2(g) seeking leave of the Court to cross-examine the plaintiff. Said application was rejected. Several adjournments were sought and the contesting defendants namely defendant Nos.2(a) to 2(g) failed to lead evidence in support of their contention.
failed to file written statement and therefore, learned Judge passed an order indicating that written statement is not filed on 19.03.2004. Defendant No.12 filed application seeking leave of the Court to file written statement. Said application was rejected and defendant No.12 challenged the order by filing writ petition in W.P.No.30808/2004.
Balaji Singh .vs. Diwakar Cole and others1 and Zolba .vs. Keshao and others2 .
consideration:
(1) Whether the trial Court erred in rejecting the application filed in I.A.No.13 by defendant No.12 seeking leave to file the written statement?
(2) Whether the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court suffers from infirmities and therefore, warrants interference at the hands of this Court?
(3) Whether the decree drawn in the FDP warrants interference at the hands of this Court?"
1 AIR 2017 SC 2402
2 (2008) 11 SCC 769
13. Finding on Point No.1:
In this case, defendants 2(a-g) initially failed to cross-examine the plaintiffs despite being granted numerous opportunities by the trial court. Consequently, the trial court recorded that there was no crossexamination on behalf of defendants 2(a-g). Subsequently, defendant No.5 provided evidence that supported the plaintiffs’ claim, affirming their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties.
allowed her writ petition, but since no stay was granted, the trial court proceeded to decree the suit, granting the plaintiffs half of the suit schedule properties. Importantly, this Court allowed defendant No.12 to raise all grounds in the appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:37697 RFA No. 1033 of 2004 C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004 RFA No. 560 of 2021
No.12, in an attempt to prolong the litigation. This conduct, along with the fact that the same counsel, D.P. Basavaraj, represents both defendants 2(a-g) and defendant No.12, raises questions about the bona fides of defendant No.12’s claims. Even before this Court, the same lawyer has filed appeals on behalf of both defendants 2(a-g) and defendant No.12, which further corroborates the inference that defendant No.12 is being used to continue the litigation after defendants 2(a-g)’s failure to contest the suit properly.
based on documents that are neither relevant nor decisive to the current suit. Specifically, she relies on a sale deed executed by Lingachari in favor of the defendants' father, Maheshwarappa, which pertains to property not claimed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have made no assertion regarding their rights in one acre purchased by defendant No.2, making this document irrelevant to the dispute over
the suit schedule properties, which include Survey
NC: 2024:KHC:37697 RFA No. 1033 of 2004 C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004 RFA No. 560 of 2021
No.24/1P and Survey No.24/2P. Furthermore, defendant No.12's counsel argues that the plaintiffs relinquished their share, but when pressed by this Court, it was revealed that the alleged relinquishment deed is not even a registered document, thus lacking the legal validity required to substantiate such a claim. Given these circumstances, defendant No.12's attempt to seek a remand on the basis of unregistered and irrelevant documents appears to be an attempt to prolong the litigation without any substantive grounds.
3 [(1998) 3 SCC 573]
V. Chandrasekaran & Anr. v. Administrative Officer &
Ors.4 , the Court emphasized that legal proceedings must not be misused for achieving a collateral purpose, and a party cannot be allowed to harass the other party by endless litigation.
4 [(2012) 12 SCC 133]
evidence. Consequently, point No.1 is answered in the
negative.
21. My findings on Point No.2:
On independent assessment of the pleadings and oral and documentary evidence, this Court needs to take cognizance of the conduct of defendants in the present case on hand. Defendant No.2(b) and defendant No.5 filed separate written statements. Defendant No.2(b) in his written statement while contesting the suit has raised a specific defence that these lands being admittedly inam lands are regranted to defendant No.2. Therefore, defendant No.2(b) asserts that these properties are the self acquired properties of Maheshwarappa and therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled for any share in the suit schedule properties.
originally held by Bheemanna and their father Naga have
placed reliance on Exs.P2 to 8. Exs.P3 to 5 are the RTC extracts indicating that Survey Nos.24/1 and 24/2 were originally standing in the name of Bheemanna and Naga respectively. Exs.P8 is the index of land relating to Survey Nos.24/1, 24/2 and 24/3. In the said index of lands, the land in question are notified as Badagi service inam lands and the names of Bheemanna and Naga and one Malla S/o. Bheemanna are indicated therein. Ex.P7 is also the index of land relating to Survey No.24/5, which is not the subject-matter of the suit.
NC: 2024:KHC:37697 RFA No. 1033 of 2004 C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004 RFA No. 560 of 2021
Bheemanna, Naga, and one Malla, son of Bheemanna, as the recognized holders.
their character as family property despite the re-grant process. This understanding aligns with the principle that properties originally held by joint family members remain within the collective domain of the family unless explicitly severed through lawful means. Thus, the examination of these documents not only confirms the plaintiffs' claim to the inam lands but also emphasizes the continued entitlement of all heirs to their rightful shares in the joint family property .
K.K. Verma v. State of U.P.5 clarifies that a re-grant of property, particularly in the context of inam lands, does not convert the property into personal ownership but instead acknowledges the collective rights of the family members. This principle emphasizes that the benefits arising from re-grant are intended for the entire joint family, as the original holders, Bheemanna and Naga, were joint owners. Consequently, the assertion that the properties belong solely to Maheshwarappa contradicts the intent of the re-grant, which inherently recognizes the
joint family’s entitlement to the benefits derived from such lands. Hence, the plaintiffs, as heirs of Bheemanna and Naga, retain a legitimate claim to their share in the suit properties.
5 (AIR 1954 SC 391)
have fairly acknowledged and admitted that lands which were re-granted in the name of Maheshwarappa are admittedly ancestral lands and therefore, they have sought share in the suit schedule properties. If plaintiffs' father Naga was the holder as an Inamdhar, merely because defendant No.2(b) having sought for re-grant, he cannot assert that it is his self acquired properties. The fact that Naga was holder of all these lands and the regrant order was passed in favour of defendant No.2 will definitely enure to the benefit of the plaintiffs and they are
entitled for half share in the suit schedule properties. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered in the Negative.
28. Findings on Point No.3:
The final decree drawn by the FDP Court in FDP.No.1/2005 is challenged primarily on the ground that when the regular first appeals are pending consideration, the FDP Court has no jurisdiction. From the records, it is gathered that the Commissioner's report is not contested by defendant No.2(a-g). In a final decree proceedings,
NC: 2024:KHC:37697 RFA No. 1033 of 2004 C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004 RFA No. 560 of 2021
the scope of review by the appellate Court is very limited. The FDP Court is required to examine the equities and whether the feasibility report submitted by the Commissioner is reasonable and adverts to the interest of the joint family members. On reading the grounds urged in the appeal memo filed in RFA.No.560/2021, no specific grounds are raised indicating as to how the feasibility report submitted by the Commissioner would warrant interference at the hands of this Court. The fact that defendants 2(a-g) have not chosen to file objections to the Commissioner's report, they would obviously lose the locus to challenge the final decree drawn in FDP.No.1/2005. Therefore, no grounds are made out. Accordingly, point No.3 is answered in the negative.
In view of the dismissal of the appeals, all pending I.As,. do not survive for consideration and are accordingly, disposed of.
SD/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE
CA/ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial Court erred in rejecting defendant No.12's application for leave to file a written statement?
Whether the trial Court's judgment decreeing partition of joint family inam lands warranted interference?
Whether the final decree drawn in FDP.No.1/2005 warranted interference?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
J. Balaji Singh v. Diwakar Cole and othersDistinguished¶29
AIR 2017 SC 2402 · Who else cites this
Zolba v. Keshao and othersDistinguished¶29
(2008) 11 SCC 769 · Who else cites this
K.K. Modi v. K.N. ModiRelied on¶18
(1998) 3 SCC 573 · Who else cites this
V. Chandrasekaran & Anr. v. Administrative Officer & Ors.Relied on¶18
(2012) 12 SCC 133 · Who else cites this
K.K. Verma v. State of U.P.Relied on¶26
(AIR 1954 SC 391) · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kum Nagaratna
Maheshwarappa (dead) by LRs
Chandrachari
Amruthachari (dead) by LRs / Sharadamma
Brahmachari (dead) by LRs
Niranjanamurthy (dead) by LRs
Sachin Shankar Magadum
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
