Smt. Basavva Alias Rukmini W/O Revani Bommannaji Vs Smt. Tayawwa W/O. Siddappa Mutagekar

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:18000-DB RFA No. 100278 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

¶6

R.F.A. NO.100278 OF 2023 (PAR/POS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. BASAVVA @ RUKMINI W/O. REVANI BOMMANNAJI, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MARIKATTI VILLAGE, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADV. FOR SRI PUNEET BADIGER, ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench.

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT. TAYAWWA W/O. SIDDAPPA MUTAGEKAR, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND COOLIE, R/O. TARIHAL VILLAGE-590020, TQ. & DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶14

SMT. GANGAVVA W/O. BASAVARAJ BOMMANNAVAR, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. TARIHAL VILLAGE-590020, TQ. & DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC-D:18000-DB RFA No. 100278 of 2023

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

SMT. LAXMI W/O. BHIMA BASARIKATTI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MUCHANDI-590016, TQ. & DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶19

SHRI NAGAPPA

¶20

S/O. MALLAPPA MUTAGEKAR, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRI., R/O. BURUD GALLI, BALEKUNDRI K.H., TQ. & DIST. BELAGAVI-591103.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI VITTHAL S. TELI, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3; SRI ASHOK A. NAIK, ADV. FOR R1; VAKALAT FILED, NOC OBTAINED); NOTICE TO R4 IS SERVED, BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶23

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BAILHONGAL, AT BAILHONGAL, DATED 15.02.2022 IN O.S.NO.103/2021, AND ALLOW THE REGULAR FIRST APPEAL WITH COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC-D:18000-DB RFA No. 100278 of 2023

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI)

¶31

Defendant No.1 in O.S. No.103/2021 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal has come up with this regular first appeal questioning correctness of the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2022 passed therein and praying to set aside impugned judgment and decree.

¶32

The trial court record has been secured in the case. With the consent of counsels appearing for both side, this matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶33

Parties to this appeal are hereinafter referred with their original ranking before the trial court.

¶34

The plaintiffs namely Smt. Tayawwa and her two daughters namely Smt. Gangawwa and Smt. Laxmi instituted the suit in O.S. No.103/2021 against Smt. Basawwa @ Rukminibai and Sri Nagappa, claiming their 1/4^th share in three landed properties, one house and an open site situated at Marikatti Village, more fully described in Schedule-A and Schedule-B of the plaint.

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18000-DB RFA No. 100278 of 2023

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

The papers available on record go to show that though the summons had been served on both the defendants, none of them choose to appear before the trial court. As such the trial court proceeded with the matter by placing them exparte.

¶38

Thereafter, the plaintiffs adduced their evidence by examining plaintiff No.1 – Smt. Tayawwa as PW-1 and produced the relevant documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P24. Subsequently, the trial court heard the arguments addressed on the side of the plaintiffs, considered the materials on record and passed impugned judgment and decree, holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/4^th share in the schedule properties and for separate possession of their share by metes and bounds.

¶39

Being aggrieved, Defendant No.1 has come before this Court by way of the appeal, praying to set aside the impugned judgment and decree.

¶40

During the course of argument, Sri Laxman T. Mantagani learned Counsel appearing for Sri Punit Badiger, learned Counsel for Appellant submitted that the trial court has proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree by placing the defendants exparte though the summons were not served on

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18000-DB RFA No. 100278 of 2023

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

them. As such he contended that Defendant No.1 did not get an opportunity of contesting the suit, which is against the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the plaintiffs have not produced relevant and genuine documents before the trial court, which were required for deciding the suit. As such he prayed to allow the appeal and remand the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

¶44

Per Contra , Sri Vitthal S. Teli learned Counsel for Plaintiffs submitted that the trial court has disposed of the matter in accordance with law. He submitted that the summons issued to the defendants came to be returned with an endorsement of refusal and as such the trial court rightly held such refusal as deemed service of summons on the defendants and placed them exparte. He further submitted that thereafter the trial court has passed impugned judgment and decree on merits of the case after carefully appreciating the case of the plaintiffs in the light of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by them.

¶45

The case papers go to show that one Sri Yallappa Siddappa Anandi and Sri Ningappa Yallappa Anandi were cousin

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18000-DB RFA No. 100278 of 2023

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

brothers. The parties to this suit belong to the branch of Sri Yallappa Siddappa Anandi. According to the plaintiffs Sri Ningappa Yallappa Anandi and his wife died issueless. It is stated that Sri Yallappa Siddappa Anandi had two daughters by name Smt. Siddawwa and Sri Mallawwa. Defendant No.1 is said to be the daughter of Smt. Siddawwa. Defendant No.2 and one Sri Siddappa are said to be the children of Smt. Mallawwa. The Plaintiffs claim to be the wife and daughters of the said Sri Siddappa.

¶49

It is the specific case of the Plaintiffs that Schedule-B properties were the ancestral properties of Sri Yallappa Siddappa Anandi and that Item Nos.1 and 3 of Schedule-A properties were exclusively owned by the said Sri Yallappa Siddappa Anandi. It is their further case that Item No.2 of Schedule-A was originally owned jointly by Sri Yallappa Siddappa Anandi and Sri Ningappa Yallappa Anandi and that on death of Sri Ningappa Yallappa Anandi and his wife, Sri Yallappa Siddappa Anandi succeeded to the share of Sri Ningappa Yallappa Anandi and became owner of entire land.

¶50

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18000-DB RFA No. 100278 of 2023

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

The Plaintiffs have contended that after the death of Sri Yallappa Siddappa Anandi, his wife Smt. Balawwa and his two daughters namely Smt. Siddawwa and Smt. Mallawwa succeeded to these properties and that after the death of Smt. Balawwa, her two daughters became absolute owners of the schedule properties, having half share each therein. It is their case that after the death of Smt. Siddawwa, Defendant No.1 has succeeded to the half share of her mother and that after the death of Smt. Mallawwa, her two sons succeeded to her half share. The Plaintiffs have stated that Sri Siddappa i.e., the husband of Plaintiff No.1 died on 09.08.2009 and that when they approached Defendant No.1 to affect partition, the said request was refused. In the said circumstances, the Plaintiffs maintained the suit for partition and separate possession of their share in the schedule properties.

¶53

The papers available on record go to show that during her evidence as PW-1, Plaintiff No.1 has reiterated the averments of the plaint and produced relevant revenue records pertaining to the schedule properties. The entries in the revenue records support the claim of the Plaintiffs. Thereby the materials

¶54

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18000-DB RFA No. 100278 of 2023

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

on record go to show that the Plaintiffs have adduced sufficient evidence before the trial court to support of their case for partition and separate possession in the schedule properties.

¶57

As already pointed out, Defendant No.1 has maintained the present appeal challenging the impugned judgment and decree only on the ground that in this case the suit summons was not served on her and thereby she did not get an opportunity of contesting the suit. Whereas, the trial court record indicates that as both the defendants refused to receive the summons, service of summons on them held sufficient and they were placed exparte.

¶58

Added to the above, it is to be noted that Defendant No.1 has not come up with a specific defense/contention to dispute/deny the entitlement of the plaintiffs for the reliefs claimed in the suit. On noticing this aspect, this Court vide Order dated 02.12.2025 gave an opportunity to the Defendant No.1 to come up with additional grounds to seek for a chance to contest the suit or to remand the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal. Even then, Defendant No.1 has not urged any new ground to challenge the correctness of the impugned judgment

¶59

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18000-DB RFA No. 100278 of 2023

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

and decree. As already pointed out, the materials on record clearly indicate that the trial court has properly considered the evidence placed before it and held that Defendant No.1 is entitled for half share in the schedule properties apart from 1/4^th share each to the plaintiffs and Defendant No.2 respectively. Defendant No.1 has not pointed out any error committed by the trial court in arriving at such a conclusion. In the above narrated facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that no purpose would be served by simply remanding the matter as prayed by Defendant No.1, only for the sake of providing an opportunity to Defendant No.1 to appear before the trial court, particularly when she has failed to disclose her defense and the grounds on which she wishes to dispute the claim of the plaintiffs.

¶62