This 2nd appeal challenges a lower court decree granting 1/5th shares to plaintiffs as legal heirs of a deceased. The appellate bench dismissed the appeal, holding appellants failed to prove prior partition and refused additional evidence on procedural grounds.
Regular Second Appeal No. 100581 of 2016 dismissed at the admission stage.
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 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100581 OF 2016 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SHRI SHANKARAYYA CHANNABASAYYA CHARANTIMATH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
Digitally signed by BHARATHI H M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI REKHA PATIL AND SHEKARGOUDA M. NAGANURI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
SMT.CHAMBAWWA W/O SHIVAPUTRAYYA HIREMATH, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.
AGE: 58 YAERS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: TARIHAL-590004, TALUKA & DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
RAJASHEKHAR CHARANTIMATH, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: SOMAWAR PETH, KITTUR-591215, TALUKA: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI, NOW AT C/O ULAVAYYA BASAVANNAYYA HIREMATH, H.NO.130, AKKI PETH KALAGHATAGI-581204, DIST: DHARWAD.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; R6, R7 AND R9 SERVED; R-8 DECEASED)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 READ WITH ORDER XLII RULE 1 CPC, 1908 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.03.2016 PASSED BY THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN R.A.NO.361/2011 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.11.2011 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KHANAPUR IN O.S.NO.105/2008 AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL THROUGHOUT COSTS BY DISMISSING THE SUIT IN O.S.NO.105/2008 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KHANAPUR.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORAL ORDER
heirs of deceased defendant No.1 challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2016, passed in R.A.No.361/2011, by the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, (for short, ‘the First Appellate Court’) and the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2011, passed in O.S.No.105/2008, by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Khanapur, (for short, ‘the trial Court’).
parties is referred to as per their status before the trial Court.
there was previous partition and accordingly confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.
have filed this second appeal by raising various grounds contending that there are substantial questions of law involved.
not produced any document to prove that there was previous partition. Though in the first appeal, application is filed for production of additional evidence attempting to prove mutation entries issued by revenue authorities proves that there was previous partition. These documentary and additional evidence were very much available during pendency of the suit, but defendant Nos.1(A to G) have not produced this additional documentary evidence. In the appeal, the Additional Evidence cannot be considered as a matter of routine but sparingly can be exercised. None of the conditions enumerated under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC filed for production of additional evidence is made out before the First Appellate Court. Mere revenue entries do not prove that there was previous partition and is acted upon.
Therefore, upon considering the matter, the appeal is found to be devoid of merits, much less, no substantial question of law involved. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at admission stage itself.
Sd/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE
AC:Para Nos.1 to 5 SRA:Para Nos.6 to end. List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there was a previous partition of the suit property during the lifetime of the deceased
Whether additional evidence regarding revenue mutation entries can be admitted to prove prior partition
Whether the appeal involves substantial questions of law for allowance
3 provisions across 1 enactments
SHANKARAYYA CHANNABASAYYA CHARANTIMATH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
SMT.SHANKRAYYA HIREMATH
HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
