Shantavva W/O.Ramappa Adin Vs Hanamant S/O Ramappa Adin

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:17102-DB RFA No. 100079 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100079 OF 2021 (PAR/POS)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SHANTAVVA W/O. RAMAPPA ADIN AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NEAR KARISIDDESHWAR TEMPLE, WARD NO.4, HANAMASAGAR, TQ: KUSHTAGI-584121.

¶10

SMT. SIDDAVVA W/O. SINDOORAPPA ADIN AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE, AT/POST. KAMATAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT-584121.

¶11

SMT. NINGAVVA W/O. MUTTANNA BANGARI AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SUBHAS NAGAR, WARD NO.6, AT/POST. LOKAPUR, DIST: BAGALKOT-584122.

¶12

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR

¶13

Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.12.04 10:04:37 +0530

¶14

SMT. LAXMAVVA W/O. KASHINATH HUDED AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SUBHAS NAGAR, WARD NO.6, AT/POST. LOKAPUR, DIST: BAGALKOT-584122.

¶15

SMT. REKHA D/O. RAMAPPA ADIN AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. NEAR KARISIDDESHWAR TEMPLE, WARD NO.4, HANAMASAGAR, TQ: KUSHTAGI-584121.

¶16

SIDDALINGAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA ADIN AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. NEAR KARISIDDESHWAR TEMPLE, WARD NO.4, HANAMASAGAR, TQ: KUSHTAGI-584121.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC-D:17102-DB RFA No. 100079 of 2021

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

(BY SRI. S.C.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

HANAMANT S/O. RAMAPPA ADIN AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BEHIND LAKE, SHIRUR, TQ AND DIST: BAGALKOT-587120.

¶24

SMT. GANGAVVA W/O. DYAVAPPA BAGAWATI AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. CHOUDAPUR, TQ & DIST: BAGALKOT-587120.

¶25

SMT. SHARAVVA W/O. HANAMANTH ADIN AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BEHIND LAKE, SHIRUR, TQ AND DIST: BAGALKOT-587120.

¶26

SMT. SAVITRAVVA D/O. RAMAPPA ADIN AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NEAR KARISIDDESHWAR TEMPLE, WARD NO.4, HANAMASAGAR, TQ: KUSHTAGI-584121.

¶27

SMT. MANJULA D/O. RAMAPPA ADIN AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. NEAR KARISIDDESHWAR TEMPLE, WARD NO.4, HANAMASAGAR, TQ: KUSHTAGI-584121.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. VIJAYENDRA BHIMAKKANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; NOTICE TO R4 AND R5 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶30

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.11.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.19/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, BAGALKOT, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FORPARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION AND ETC.

¶31

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17102-DB RFA No. 100079 of 2021

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND

¶35

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

¶36

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶37

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS)

¶38

This Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the

¶39

CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2016 passed in O.S.No.19/2014 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bagalkot.

¶40

The suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties and the counter claim made by defendant No.1 to declare that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have half share in R.S.Nos.36/1 and 36/2 situated at Mudotagi village of Kustagi Taluk and VPC No.45 of Hanamasagar village in Kustagi Taluk have been rejected by the trial court.

¶41

In the counter claim, defendant No.1 had also sought for half share in the service benefits of deceased Ramappa Adin, who was working as a teacher in Government School.

¶42

4 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC-D:17102-DB RFA No. 100079 of 2021

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

4. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs has

¶46

drawn the attention of this to court the issues framed by the trial court, which are as follows:

¶47

1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, the suit schedule "B" properties are the hindu undivided ancestral properties of themselves and defendants?

¶48

2. Whether plaintiff further proves that, they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property along with the defendants?

¶49

3. Whether defendants prove that, there was a partition took place between plaintiffs and defendants by way of family arrangement held on 14.9.2001?

¶50

4. Whether the defendants prove that, deceased Ramappa had executed relinquishment deed in favour of defendant No.1 and plaintiff No.8 along with family arrangement partition deed during his lifetime?

¶51

5. Whether the defendants prove that, suit filed by the plaintiffs is bad for non-inclusion of other properties like R.S.No.36/1 and house property VPC No.45?

¶52

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17102-DB RFA No. 100079 of 2021

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

6. Whether defendant No.1 proves that, the land R.S.No. 1049/3 measuring 5Acres situated at Shirur village is his self-acquired?

¶55

7. Whether defendants are entitled for the relief of counter claim as prayed in "ABC" column of written statement?

¶56

8. Whether plaintiffs are entitled their share in the suit schedule properties? If entitled, what is their extent?

¶57

9. What order or decree ?

¶58

ADDITIONAL ISSUE:

¶59

1. Whether suit is in time?

¶60

The additional issue was also framed, as to whether the suit is in time. While answering issue Nos.1 to

¶61

4 and 6, the trial court has held that, admittedly, Sri.Ramappa Adin was working as a teacher and he was having separate earnings. The trial court therefore proceeded to hold that suit item No.3 in schedule-B bearing R.S.No.1049/3 of Shirur village which was purchased by Ramappa Adin in the name of defendant No.1 who was then a minor, and he himself had executed the sale deed on

¶62

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17102-DB RFA No. 100079 of 2021

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

behalf of the purchaser, the same has to be construed as a self-acquired property of Ramappa Adin. In that view of the matter, though the relinquishment deed dated 14.09.2001 marked as Ex.D18 is not a registered instrument, nevertheless, the trial court has proceeded to hold that change of the revenue entries at that point of time would clearly show that there was a partition between the family members, more particularly, between plaintiff No.8 and defendant No.1 in the year 2001, and the two branches of the family have been enjoying the partitioned properties from 2001. Therefore, the trial court has proceeded to hold that there was a prior partition. The trial court also noticed the fact that the properties which fell to the share of plaintiff No.8 were not included in the suit schedule which itself proves that parties have admitted to the partition that took place in the year 2001. On that ground, the trial court has held that the suit is bad for non-joinder or non-inclusion of all the joint family properties. On the same lines, since the suit of the plaintiffs was rejected, the counter claim

¶65

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17102-DB RFA No. 100079 of 2021

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

made by defendant No.1 was also rejected for the same reason.

¶68

However, learned counsels on both sides jointly submit that matter requires re-consideration. Firstly, the relinquishment deed is admittedly an unregistered document. Secondly, the claim of defendant No.1 in the counter claim regarding service benefits of Sri.Ramappa Adin is also not decided by the trial court. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendant Nos.1 and 2 also submits that in the counter claim at prayer-A, defendant Nos.1 and 2 had sought for half share in the property bearing VPC No.45 of Hanamasagar of Kustagi Taluk which has not been considered by the trial court. It is also pointed out from prayer-A that, in the counter claim the properties bearing R.S.Nos.36/1 and 36/2 situated at Mudotagi village were purchased by Sri.Ramappa Adin in the name of plaintiff No.8, who was a minor, under sale deed dated 16.08.1989. However, during the lifetime of Sri.Ramappa Adin, he sold the said two properties under registered sale deed dated

¶69

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17102-DB RFA No. 100079 of 2021

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

27.03.2001 and Sri.Ramappa Adin died on 02.02.2003. Therefore, it is the contention of the defendants that the sale proceeds recovered from the sale made in the year 2001 have been retained by the family of the plaintiffs to the disadvantage of the defendants. It is for this reason, in the counter claim defendant Nos.1 and 2 have sought for partition of the said two properties bearing R.S.Nos.36/1 and 36/2. Insofar as property bearing VPC No.45 of Hanamasagar village is concerned, the contention of plaintiff No.8 is that, plaintiff No.1, mother of the other plaintiffs purchased the property in the year 1992 in the name of plaintiff No.8 when he was a minor. It is contended that plaintiff No.1 purchased the property by her selfearnings. However, no material is placed on record to show that plaintiff No.1 was earning substantially to purchase the said property from her own earnings.

¶72

7. Having regard to the submissions of the learned

¶73

counsels on both sides, this court is of the considered opinion that the matter requires re-consideration at the

¶74

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17102-DB RFA No. 100079 of 2021

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

hands of the trial court. The plaintiffs as well as the defendants should be given an opportunity to place additional evidence, if required, either to support their contention or to demolish the contentions of the other side.

¶77

Accordingly, this court proceeds to pass the following:

¶78

ORDER

¶79

i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶80

ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 26.11.2016 passed in O.S.No.19/2014 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bagalkot is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶81

iii) Parties are directed to appear before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bagalkot on 12.01.2026 without waiting for further notice.

¶82

Ordered accordingly.

¶83

Sd/(R.DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶84

Sd/(B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE

¶85

MBS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Shantavva W/O.Ramappa Adin v. Hanamant S/O Ramappa Adin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shantavva W/O.Ramappa Adin v. Hanamant S/O Ramappa Adin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basavanagouda S/O Fakkiragouda Patil Vs Fakkiragouda S/O Basavanagouda Patil

Shashikla F Patil D/O Fakkiragouda Patil, Vs Fakkiragouda B Patil

Suvarna W/O Hanamant Magi Vs Tanabai W/O Anantrao Bagal

Smt. Pushpa Mahadev Kinagi Vs Shri. Ashok Nagappa Sulebhavi

Shri. Bhimesh @ Bhimasen S/O. Venkatrao Deshpande Vs Shri. Ajit S/O. Hanumant Deshpande

The Registrar General High Court of Karnataka Vs Shri Neelappa Bover S/O Amarappa Bover