Dismissed¶71

Bhimappa S/O Shivappa Kori v. Mallappa S/O Bhimappa Kori

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2025RFA/100140/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Partition and separate possession of ancestral joint family property; declaration of half share; binding effect of prior partition and mutation extract M.R. No.2777 (Ex.P.2) on R.S.No.82/2; revenue entries confer no title; RTC names of strangers and non-joinder of necessary parties; Section 96 CPC; RFA No. 100140 of 2025; High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench; Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi; Bagalkot district; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant; the decree of the Trial Court declaring the plaintiff entitled to half share stands. ¶71

Bhimappa S/O Shivappa Kori Vs Mallappa S/O Bhimappa Kori — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant; the decree of the Trial Court declaring the plaintiff entitled to half share stands.

¶71

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court has committed any error in decreeing the suit?

¶62

Ratio / Principle

Mere entries in the revenue records do not confer or deprive any right, title or interest; Ex.P.2, mutation extract bearing M.R. No.2777, disclosed that Girimallappa, his brother Lakkappa and the father of the defendants (Shivappa) had partitioned R.S.No.82/2, Shivappa getting 3 acres 28 guntas out of suit item No.2.

¶65

Key takeaways

The defendants were bound to prove that the partition of the joint family assets was effected and that it was equitable, and failed to do so; even assuming the partition was made, it was behind the back of the plaintiff and did not bind him in any manner.ratio¶65
The non-joinder contention is incorrect: the revenue records showed suit item No.2 measured 10 acres 19 guntas, of which only the 3 acres 28 guntas standing in the name of the plaintiff's brother was the subject matter of the suit, so the property was easily identifiable and the persons named in the revenue records were not related to the family and were not necessary parties.ratio¶68

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Defendant No.2 in O.S.No.34/2024 (Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi), under Section 96 CPC, challenged the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2025 decreeing the suit for partition and separate possession and declaring the plaintiff entitled to half share in ancestral joint family properties. The Division Bench held: (i) mere revenue-record entries confer or deprive no title; Ex.P.2 (mutation extract, M.R. No.2777) only recorded a partition of R.S.No.82/2 whereby the plaintiff's brother Shivappa took 3 acres 28 guntas out of suit item No.2; (ii) the defendants failed to prove that this partition of joint family assets was effected equitably, and even if made it was behind the plaintiff's back and did not bind him; (iii) the plea of non-joinder failed because the suit was confined to the identifiable 3 acres 28 guntas out of 10 acres 19 guntas of R.S.No.82/2, and the other names in the revenue records belonged to persons unrelated to the family; (iv) with the relationship undisputed, the Trial Court rightly declared the plaintiff entitled to half share and defendants No.1 and 2 to 1/4th share each. No error warranting interference was found; the appeal was dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8469-DB RFA No. 100140 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY 2025

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶10

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100140 OF 2025 (PAR/POS)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

BHIMAPPA, S/O. SHIVAPPA KORI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HULYAL, TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587301.

¶13

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P.MUDHOL AND SRI. ANAND D.BAGEWADI, ADVOCATES)

¶14

Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.07.26 11:08:21 +0530

¶15

AND:

¶16

MALAPPA, S/O. BHIMAPPA KORI, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HULIYAL, TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587301.

¶17

SMT. BHAGAWWA, W/O. GURULINGAPPA KANKANAWADI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. KULAHALLI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587301.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8469-DB RFA No. 100140 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.01.2025 PASSED IN O.S.NO.34/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JAMKHANDI, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION AND FOR OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEFS.

¶23

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

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

¶27

The defendant No.2 in O.S. No.34/2024 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi, is before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2025 by which the Trial Court decreed the suit for partition and separate possession and declared that plaintiff was entitled to half share in the suit schedule properties.

¶28

For the sake of convenience and easy understanding, the parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8469-DB RFA No. 100140 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

i) The suit in O.S. No.34/2024 was filed for partition

¶32

and separate possession. The plaintiff claimed his genealogy as follows:

¶33

Bhimappa Kori (dead)

¶34

Mallavva Kori (dead)

¶35

Shivappa (Dead) Mallappa (Plaintiff) Kallavva (Dead) Bhagawwa Bhimappa (Deft–1) (Deft–2)

¶36

ii) He contended that the suit properties were

¶37

ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiff and his brother and that all of them were cultivating the suit properties jointly. He alleged that his brother, with intent to usurp the properties, got his name entered in the revenue records in respect of R.S. No.82/2 which irked the plaintiff and therefore, he sought for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties.

¶38

The suit was contested by the defendant No.2 who

¶39

admitted the genealogy mentioned in the plaint. He also admitted that the suit properties were ancestral properties of

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8469-DB RFA No. 100140 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and himself. However, he denied that the suit properties were the joint family properties of plaintiff and the defendants. He denied that the plaintiff had half share in the suit properties and contended that the plaintiff did not disclose the death of his daughter namely Jakkawwa in year 2014. He claimed that the suit property bearing R.S.No.82/2 stood in the name of Vithal – son of Girimallappa, Mutturaj - son of Narendra Rathi, Murali – son of Narendra Rathi, Ramesh – son of Narendra Rathi, and Shankar Laxminarayan Rathi, who were not arrayed as parties to the suit and therefore, the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. He contended that the suit was instituted at the instigation of one Sri.Pandit – Son of Girimallappa Kori.

¶43

Based on these contention, the Trial Court framed

¶44

the following issues:

¶45

“ISSUES

¶46

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties of himself & defendants?

¶47

2. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that she is entitled for half share in the suit properties as sought in the counter claim?

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8469-DB RFA No. 100140 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as sought for?

¶51

4. What order or decree?”

¶52

The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and he marked Exs.P.1 to P.12. Defendants No.1 and 2 got themselves examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2, and D.W.2 marked Exs.D.1 and D.2.

¶53

Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the

¶54

Trial Court held that the plaintiff proved that the suit properties were the ancestral joint family properties and consequently, held that the plaintiff was entitled to his share in the suit properties and decreed the suit and declared that the plaintiff was entitled to half share in the suit schedule properties.

¶55

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree,

¶56

the defendant No.2 is before this Court in this appeal.

¶57

The learned counsel for the defendant No.2 contended that the Trial Court specifically observed in paragraph 15 of its judgment that suit item No.2 stood in the name of one Sri. Vittal, Mutturaj, Shankar, and that they were not arrayed as parties to the suit. Hence, he contended that

¶58

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8469-DB RFA No. 100140 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

the decree passed by the Trial Court is improper and incorrect and warrants interference. He also contends that the daughter of the plaintiff is not arrayed as a party to the suit and therefore, it is necessary to implead her in the suit. He contended that the Trial Court failed to observe that there was a prior partition between the family members in terms of which the father of the appellant got 3 acres and 34 guntas in suit item No.2 and after his death, the appellant succeeded to the property. He contends that the Trial Court committed a serious error in holding that the plaintiff was entitled to half share despite the fact that there was a prior partition. He also contended that the Trial Court committed an error in declaring the share of the plaintiff which is not in accordance with law.

¶61

We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the defendant No.2 and we have also perused the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. The only point that arises for our consideration in this appeal is,

¶62

Whether the Trial Court has committed any error in decreeing the suit?

¶63

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8469-DB RFA No. 100140 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

A perusal of the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court shows that the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 had admitted that the suit properties were ancestral properties. In order to prove the averments of the plaint, Exs.P.1 to P.12 were marked. After the death of the father of the plaintiff, his two sons namely Shivappa i.e., the father of defendants No.1 and 2, and the plaintiff, who was then a minor and under the guardianship of his uncle Girimallappa, jointly succeeded to the property bearing R.S. No.82/2. Ex.P.2 is the mutation extract bearing M.R. No.2777 which disclosed that the said Girimallappa, his brother Lakkappa and brother of the plaintiff and the father of the defendants-Shivappa had partitioned R.S.No.82/2, thereby the plaintiff’s brother Shivappa got 3 acres 28 guntas as his share out of the suit schedule item No.2. It is now well settled that mere entries in the revenue records does not confer or deprive any right, title or interest. The defendants were bound to prove that the partition of the joint family assets was effected that it was equitable. The defendants failed to do so. Assuring that the partition was made, it was behind the back of the plaintiff and therefore, it did not bind the plaintiff in any manner

¶66

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8469-DB RFA No. 100140 of 2025

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

whatsoever. The contention of the defendants that names of other persons were found in the RTC and therefore, they also had to be included in the suit, is incorrect inasmuch as the revenue records of the suit item No.2 showed that the suit property measured 10 acres 19 guntas out of which 3 acres 28 guntas that stood in the name of plaintiff’s brother was the subject matter of the suit. Therefore, the property of the plaintiff and defendants was easily identifiable and plaintiff was not claiming any share in suit item No.2 beyond 3 acres 28 guntas and hence, the persons whose names were found in the revenue records were not related to the family of the plaintiff and defendants and were not necessary parties to the suit. Since the suit properties are the properties of the joint family and there was no dispute regarding the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants, the Trial Court was right in decreeing the suit and declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to half share in the suit schedule properties and defendants No.1 and 2 are entitled to 1/4^th share each in the suit schedule properties. Therefore, there is no error apparent on the face of record and the Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and has rightly returned a finding

¶69

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8469-DB RFA No. 100140 of 2025

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

that the plaintiff is entitled to an equal share in the suit properties. In that view of the matter, there is no error warranting interference and accordingly, it is held that the Trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit. Therefore, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.

¶72

Sd/(R.NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶73

Sd/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶74

KMS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Bhimappa S/O Shivappa Kori v. Mallappa S/O Bhimappa Kori

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhimappa S/O Shivappa Kori v. Mallappa S/O Bhimappa Kori

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

Udayakumar Vitthalarao Kambale Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Satish Laxman Kale Vs Sri. Sadashiv Laxman Kale

Sri. Angad S/O Thaku Gunagi Vs Smt. Bagaribai @ Rukma D/O Rumma Gunagi

Chandrabhaga W/O Lingappa Rashinkar Vs State of Karnataka

Shyalaja Prasad Vs Guthi Chennappa S/O Late G. Kotrappa

Sri Dilleppa S/O Neelappa Shanbhogar Vs Smt. Gouravva W/O Nagappa Jagati