Laxman S/O. Siddappa Paschapur, Vs Smt. Shantawwa W/O. Fakiragouda Patil

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 R

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100561 OF 2019 (PA/DE/IN-)

¶8

C/W

¶9

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100113 OF 2020 REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100152 OF 2020

¶10

IN RFA NO. 100561 OF 2019: BETWEEN:

¶11

LAXMAN S/O. SIDDAPPA PASCHAPUR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: RADARATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶12

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR

¶13

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD

¶14

SHIVAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA PASCHAPUR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: RADARATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶15

SANNAPPA S/O RAJAPPA BHOVI, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOUJALAGI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶16

LAXMAN S/O. RAJAPPA BHOVI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S.

¶17

4A. BHIMMAVVA W/O. LAXMAN BHOVI, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOUJALAGI,

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶21

4B. MANJULA RAJU BHOVI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOUJALAGI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶22

4C. ANIL S/O LAXMAN BHOVI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOUJALAGI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶23

4D. ANNAPURNA FAKIRAPPA BHOVI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOUJALAGI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶24

4E. SUNIL S/O. LAXMAN BHOVI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOUJALAGI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶25

4F. PREMA LAXMAN BHOVI,

¶26

AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOUJALAGI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶27

4G. CHETANA LAXMAN BHOVI, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOUJALAGI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶28

…APPELLANTS

¶29

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

SMT. SHANTAWWA W/O. FAKIRAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIKKAMULANGI, TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

SMT. MANGALA W/O. VASANT PUJARI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BASAPUR, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶35

NAGARAJ S/O. VASANT PUJARI, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT & AGRICULTURE, R/O: BASAPUR, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶36

NAVEEN S/O. VASANT PUJARI, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT & AGRICULTURE, R/O: BASAPUR, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶37

VENKANGOUDA S/O. BALAGOUDA @ HALEGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BELLATTI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG.

¶38

HANAMANTGOUDA S/O BHIMAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BELLATTI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG.

¶39

MAHANANDA S/O. SHIVANAND YALLIGAR @ LOKANNAVAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KOUJALAGI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶40

SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O. VEERAPPA DEMASHETTI, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KULAGOD, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶41

SIDDAPPA S/O. LAXMANAPPA DADDI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶42

4 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

R/O: NEAR GOVT. PRIMARY SCHOOL, MERAL TOTA, KOUJALAGI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶46

SHANKAR S/O. VITTAL JAWAN @ MUJAWAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BILLAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶47

SMT. SHANTAWWA W/O. LAXMAN ARAMANI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SUNADHOLI, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶48

SMT. SHEELA W/O. BASAPPA SANADI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: GOKAK, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶49

SMT. RUKAMAVVA @ BHAGYASHREE W/O. MURAGESH MUCHCHANDI, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BELAGAVI, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶50

…RESPONDENTS

¶51

(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. S.B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R4; SRI. G.B. NAIK & SMT. P.G. NAIK ADVOCATES FOR R7; NOTICE TO R5, R6, R8, R9 & R11-SERVED; NOTICE TO R10, R12 & R13 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 19.09.2022)

¶52

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.11.2019 IN O.S.NO.90/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶54

5 -

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, GOKAK AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SUIT.

¶57

IN RFA NO. 100113 OF 2020: BETWEEN:

¶58

SMT. MAHANANDA W/O. SHIVANAND YALIGAR @ LOKANNAVAR, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KOUJALAGI-591227, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶59

…APPELLANT

¶60

(BY SRI. G.B. NAIK & SMT. P.G. NAIK, ADVOCATES)

¶61

AND:

¶62

SMT. SHANTAWWA W/O. FAKIRAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIKKAMULANGI-591123, TAL: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶63

SHRI VASANT ANNAPPA PUJARI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 4

¶64

SMT. MANGALA W/O. VASANT PUJARI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOUJALAGI, TAL: GOKAK, NOW RESIDING AT BASAPUR VILLAGE-591109, TAL: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶65

SHRI NAGARAJ S/O. VASANT PUJARI, AGE: 22 YEARS,

¶66

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶67

6 -

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

OCC: STUDENT & AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOUJALAGI, TAL: GOKAK, NOW RESIDING AT BASAPUR VILLAGE-591109 TAL: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶70

SHRI NAVEEN S/O. VASANT PUJARI, AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT & AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOUJALAGI, TAL: GOKAK, NOW RESIDING AT BASAPUR VILLAGE-591109 TAL: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶71

SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O. ANNAPPA PUJARI, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS RESPONDENT NOS. 2 TO 4

¶72

SHRI VENKANGOUDA BOLAGOUDA @ HALEGOUDA PATIL AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BELLATTI VILLAGE-582120, TAL: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG

¶73

SHRI HANAMANTGOUDA BHIMAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BELLATTI VILLAGE-582120, TAL: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG.

¶74

SHRI LAXMAN SIDDAPPA PASCHAPUR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: RADARATTI-591227, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶75

SHRI SHIVAPPA SIDDAPPA PASCHAPUR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: RADARATTI-591227, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶76

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O. VEERAPPA DEMASHETTI, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KULGOD-591310, TAL: GOKAK, NOW MUDALAGI.

¶79

SHRI SANAPPA RAJAPPA BHOVI, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOUJALAGI-591227, TAL: GOKAK.

¶80

SHRI LAXMAN RAJAPPA BHOVI, SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LR’S

¶81

AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DATED 13.08.2025 ON I.A.NO.1/2024

¶82

11A. SMT. BHIMMAVVA W/O. LAXMAN BHOVI, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOUJALAGI-591227, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶83

11B. SMT. MANJULA W/O. RAJU BHOVI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOUJALAGI-591227, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶84

11C. SHRI ANIL S/O LAXMAN BHOVI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOUJALAGI-591227, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶85

11D. SMT. ANNAPURNA W/O. FAKIRAPPA BHOVI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOUJALAGI-591227, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶86

11E. SUNIL S/O. LAXMAN BHOVI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOUJALAGI-591227, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶87

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶88

8 -

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

11F. SMT. PREMA W/O. LAXMAN BHOVI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOUJALAGI-591227, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶91

11G. SHRI CHETAN S/O. LAXMAN BHOVI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOUJALAGI-591227, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶92

SHRI SIDDAPPA LAXMANAPPA DADDI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NEAR GOVT. PRIMARY SCHOOL, MERAL TOTA, KOUJALAGI-591227, TAL: GOKAK.

¶93

SHRI SHANKAR S/O. VETTAL JAWAN @ MUJAWAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BILAGI-587116, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶94

SMT. SHANTAWWA W/O. LAXMANNA ARAMANI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SUNADOLI-591310, TAL: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶95

SMT. SHEELA W/O. BASAPPA SANAGI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: C/O: MANJUNATH SANADI, HILL GARDEN, GOKAK – 591307, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶96

SMT. RUKMAWWA @ BHAGYASHREE W/O. MURAGESH MUCHCHANDI AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: IRANNA CHAWL, TANAJI GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶97

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. S.B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R4;

¶98

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R10 & R11(A) TO R11(G); SRI. VINAY S. KOUJALAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R9; NOTICE TO R5, R6, R7, R8, R12, R14 & R16-SERVED; NOTICE TO R13, R15 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 13.12.2021)

¶101

THIS RFA IS F0ILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.90/2014 DATED 18.11.2019 BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, GOKAK AND CONSEQUENTLY THE SUIT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN O.S.NO.90/2014 MAY KINDLY BE DISMISSED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶102

IN RFA NO. 100152 OF 2020: BETWEEN:

¶103

LAXMIBAI W/O VEERAPPA DEMASHETTI, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KULGOD, TQ: GOKAK-591307, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶104

…APPELLANT

¶105

(BY SRI. VINAY S. KOUJALAGI, ADVOCATE)

¶106

AND:

¶107

SMT. SHANTAWWA W/O. FAKIRAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIKKAMULANGI, TQ: RAMDURG-591123, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶108

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶109

10 -

¶110

HC-KAR

¶111

VASANT ANNAPPA PUJARI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S.

¶112

SMT. MANGALA W/O. VASANT PUJARI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOUJALAGI, TQ: GOKAK, NOW RESIDING AT BASAPUR TQ: BAILHONGAL-591102, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶113

NAGARAJ S/O. VASANT PUJARI, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT & AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOUJALAGI, TQ: GOKAK, NOW RESIDING AT BASAPUR TQ: BAILHONGAL-591102, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶114

4. NAVEEN

¶115

S/O. VASANT PUJARI, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT & AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOUJALAGI, TQ: GOKAK, NOW RESIDING AT BASAPUR TQ: BAILHONGAL-591102, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶116

LAXMIBAI

¶117

W/O. ANNAPPA PUJARI, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’S. RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO 4

¶118

VENKANAGOUDA BALAGOUDA @ HALEGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BELLATTI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG-582112.

¶119

11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶120

HC-KAR

¶121

HANAMANTGOUDA BHIMAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BELLATTI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG-582112.

¶122

MAHANANDA SHIVANAND YALIGAR @ LOKANNAVAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOUJALAGI, TQ: GOKAK-591307, BELAGAVI DIST.

¶123

LAXMAN SIDDAPPA PASCHAPUR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: RADARATTI, TQ: GOKAK-591307, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶124

SHIVAPPA SIDDAPPA PASCHAPUR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: RADARATTI, TQ: GOKAK-591307, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶125

SANNAPPA RAJAPPA BHOVI, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOUJALAGI, TQ: GOKAK-591307, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶126

LAXMAN RAJAPPA BHOVI, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOUJALAGI, TQ: GOKAK-591307, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶127

SIDDAPPA LAXMANAPPA DADDI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NEAR GOVT. PRIMARY SCHOOL, MERAL TOTA, KOUJALAGI-591307, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶128

SHANKAR S/O. VITTAL JAWAN @ MUJAWAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BILAGI, TQ: BILAGI-587116,

¶129

12 -

¶130

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶131

HC-KAR

¶132

DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶133

SHANTAWWA

¶134

W/O. LAXMAN ARAMANI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SUNADHOLI, TQ: MUDALAGI-591310, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶135

SHEELA

¶136

W/O. BASAPPA SANADI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: GOKAK -591307, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶137

RUKMAVVA @ BHAGYASHREE W/O. MURAGESH MUCHCHANDI, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BELAGAVI, TQ: DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.

¶138

…RESPONDENTS

¶139

(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. S.B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R4; SRI. G.B. NAIK & SMT. P.G. NAIK, ADVOCATES FOR R7, SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R8-R11; NOTICE TO R5, R6, R12 & R14-SERVED; NOTICE TO R13, R15 & R16 DISPENSED WITH; VIDE ORDER DATED 19.09.2022)

¶140

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.11.2019 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, GOKAK IN O.S.NO.90/2014, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶141

13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶142

HC-KAR

¶143

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶144

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND

¶145

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶146

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶147

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR)

¶148

RFA.No.100561/2019 is preferred by defendant Nos.6,

¶149

7, 9 and 10, while RFA.No.100152/2020 and RFA.No.100113/ 2020 are preferred by defendant Nos.8 and 5 respectively in O.S.No.90/2014.

¶150

All these appeals arise out of the judgment and decree

¶151

dated 18.11.2019 passed in O.S.No.90/2014 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gokak¹ .

¶152

The said suit filed by the sole plaintiff-Shantawwa, for partition and separate possession of her alleged share in the suit schedule properties, for declaration, injunction and other reliefs was partly decreed by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants.

¶153

1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’

¶154

14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶155

HC-KAR

¶156

For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as their respective ranks before the Trial Court.

¶157

The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit, contending, inter alia , that she is the daughter of one late Mallawwa, who was, in turn, the daughter of Ramappa Kenchannavar and Hanamawwa. It was contended that the original propositus, Ramappa, died in the year 1941, while his wife, Hanamawwa, died on 10.11.1979. The said Ramappa and Hanamawwa had four children, namely; Mallawwa (the plaintiff’s mother), Laxmibai (defendant No.2), Venkawwa and Yallawwa. The plaintiff-Shantawwa had a sister, Gangawwa, who died unmarried and issueless.

¶158

The defendant No.1 is the son of defendant No.2Laxmibai, while defendant No.3 is the son of late Venkawwa and defendant No.4 is the son of late Yallawwa. The genealogy of the parties as contended in the plaint is as under:

¶159

15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶160

HC-KAR

¶161

Ramappa (died in the year 1941) Hanamawwa (died on 10.11.1979)

¶162

Mallawwa Laxmibai Venkawwa Yallawwa (dead) (D2) (Dead) (dead) Vasant Venkanagouda Hanamantgouda (D-1) (D-3) (D-4) Shantawwa Gangawwa (plaintiff) (dead)

¶163

Mallawwa was married to late Sheshappa, who was the

¶164

father of the plaintiff and the deceased Gangawwa.

¶165

The plaintiff contended that after the demise of Ramappa in 1941, the suit schedule properties became the ancestral joint family properties of Hanamawwa and her four daughters, including Mallawwa, the mother of the plaintiff. It was further contended that, subsequent to the demise of Hanamawwa on 10.11.1979, the suit schedule properties became ancestral joint family properties in the hands of her four daughters, including Mallawwa, and consequently, the plaintiff became entitled to a share in the said properties. It was also contended by the plaintiff that, although her father, Sheshappa,

¶166

16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶167

HC-KAR

¶168

claimed that Hanamawwa had executed a Will in his favour, the same was negatived in a suit in O.S.No.18/1980. The said suit O.S.No.18/1980 was filed by the Sheshappa against the daughter of Hanamawwa, seeking a decree of permanent injunction, which was dismissed and the dismissal was confirmed by the Appellate Court in R.A.No.110/1981 and by this Court in RSA No.800/1986. So also, the suit in O.S.No.305/1989 for declaration, injunction and possession, was dismissed by the Trial Court on 05.03.1990. In the plaint, the plaint schedule properties comprised of the following four immovable properties:

¶169

i) R.S.No.470/1 measuring 10 acres 32 guntas. ii) R.S.No.470/2 measuring 5 acres 16 guntas.

¶170

iii) R.S.No.115 measuring 26 acres 16 guntas.

¶171

iv) R.S.No.470/3 measuring 5 acres 16 guntas.

¶172

The plaintiff contended that, taking advantage of his name appearing in the revenue records, the aforesaid Sheshappa alienated the suit schedule properties in favour of the defendants No.5 to 11-alienees, and the said alienations were not binding upon the plaintiff’s legitimate share in the suit schedule

¶173

17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶174

HC-KAR

¶175

properties. It was also contended that a suit in O.S.No.15/1991 was filed by the plaintiff’s mother, Mallawwa, and her sister, Laxmibai, seeking declaration and partition, which was decreed by the Trial Court and confirmed by this Court in RFA No.616/1996 dated 28.06.1996. Further it was stated that the defendant No.8 filed a suit in O.S.No.234/2004, which ended in a compromise, and another suit was filed by the defendants No.6 and 10 in O.S.No.222/2004, which also culminated in a compromise decree. It was contended that, since the plaintiff had a share in the suit schedule properties by birth, the compromise decrees passed in O.S.Nos.222/2004 and 234/2004 are not binding upon her or her legitimate share in the suit schedule properties. It was further contended that, as the defendants failed to comply with her request and demand made by the plaintiff to effect partition and to put her in separate possession of her share in the suit schedule properties and were also guilty of creating illegal documents, the plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit by seeking the following reliefs:

¶176

A) Plaintiff be awarded 1/8^th share in the suit properties by effecting equitable partition by metes and bonds and separate possession.

¶177

18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶178

HC-KAR

¶179

B) The compromise decree passed in O.S.No.234/2004 is not binding on the plaintiff share.

¶180

C) It be declared that all the illegal entries which have got created by defendants from time to time in respect of suit properties are illegal null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff.

¶181

D) It be declared that the alleged sale deed got created by defendant No.8 in favour of 5 acre 18 guntas out of **Sy.No.470/2 dated 3-12-2012 (amended as per order on I.A.No.X, dated: 24.06.2015 sd/M.L.Mannapur, Adv. For plaintiff) is not binding on the plaintiff.

¶182

E) Injunction may kindly be granted restraining the defendants 1, 6 to 10 from obstructing the plaintiff’s peaceful possession, use and enjoyment of the suit properties in any manner.

¶183

F) Ad-interim temporary injunction as prayed in the I.A may kindly be granted.

¶184

G) Costs of the suit be awarded.

¶185

H) Permission to amend the plaint as and when necessary be reserved to plaintiff.

¶186

In the suit, the defendant No.1 and defendants No.5 to

¶187

11 entered appearance and filed their written statements. The

¶188

defendant Nos.2 to 4 and defendant Nos.12 to 15 remained ex

¶189

19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶190

HC-KAR

¶191

parte . The defendant No.1, having expired during the pendency of the suit, his legal representatives was brought on record and they filed a written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff, and also seeking a share in the suit schedule properties. The alienees, who were arrayed as defendant Nos.5 to 11, filed their written statements contesting the claim of the plaintiff and submitted that the plaintiff did not have any right, title, interest and possession over the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff’s mother and her sisters Laxmibai, Venkawwa and Yallawwa have entered into an amicable settlement with the alienees in respect of the suit schedule properties. Consequently, the compromise decrees passed in O.S.Nos.222/2004 and 234/2004, being set aside at the instance of the plaintiff would not arise. It was also contended that the suit schedule properties were the absolute, exclusive, separate and self acquired properties of the plaintiff’s mother and sisters, in which, neither the plaintiff nor defendant No.1 would be entitled to any share in the suit schedule properties and as such, there was no merit in the various contentions urged in the plaint and the suit was liable to be dismissed.

¶192

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶193

20 -

¶194

HC-KAR

¶195

Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court

¶196

has framed the following:

¶197

ISSUES

¶198

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the genealogical tree given by her in the plaint is true and correct?

¶199

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant No.1 created some illegal/false documents?

¶200

3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.234 of 2004 is not binding on her share?

¶201

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs claimed in the suit? If so, to what extent?

¶202

5. What order or decree?

¶203

ADDL. ISSUES

¶204

1. Whether the defendants No.1(a) to (c) prove that the suit item No.4 property was fallen to the share of grandmother of defendants No.1(b) and (c)?

¶205

2. Whether the defendants No.1(a) to (c) prove that the sale deed dated 14.11.2013 is created by the defendants No.11?

¶206

3. Whether the defendants No.1, 6, 7, 9 and 10 prove that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?

¶207

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶208

21 -

¶209

HC-KAR

¶210

4. Whether the defendants No.1, 6, 7, 9 and 10 prove that the suit for declaration without seeking possession is not maintainable?

¶211

5. Whether the defendants No.1, 6, 7, 9 and 10 prove that the suit is undervalued and court fee paid is insufficient?

¶212

6. Whether the defendants No.1, 6, 7, 9 and 10 prove that the suit is barred by limitation?

¶213

The power of attorney holder of plaintiff examined

¶214

himself as PW1 and documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to P21 were marked. The defendants adduced the oral evidence of DW1 to DW6 and documentary evidence at Exs.D.1 to D42 were marked on their behalf:

¶215

After hearing the parties, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree, partly decreeing the suit as hereunder

¶216

ORDER

¶217

Suit of the plaintiff is decreed in part.

¶218

It is declared that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/8^th share in the suit properties. The defendants

¶219

22 -

¶220

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶221

HC-KAR

¶222

No.1(a) to (c) together are entitled to 2/8^th share, defendants No.3 and 4 are entitled to 2/8^th share each and defendants No.12 to 15 together are entitled to 1/8^th share in the suit properties.

¶223

It is declared that the compromise decree in OS No.234/2004 and the sale deed dated 3.12.2012 are not binding on the plaintiff. It is further declared that the entry of names of the deceased defendant No.1 and defendants No.5 to 11 in the RTC of suit properties as illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.

¶224

The defendants No.6 to 10 are hereby restrained from causing obstruction to the possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit properties by permanent injunction.

¶225

The defendants No.1(a) to (c), 3, 4 and 12 to 15 are at liberty to draw decree by paying required court fee on their share.

¶226

The plaintiff is hereby directed to pay deficit court fee on relief Nos.D and E and draw decree.

¶227

Both the parties shall bear their own costs. Draw preliminary decree accordingly.

¶228

Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the appellants in all the three appeals are before this Court by way of the present appeals.

¶229

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶230

23 -

¶231

HC-KAR

¶232

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents in all the appeals and perused the material on record.

¶233

The following points arise for consideration in the

¶234

present appeals.

¶235

(i) Whether the Trial Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the compromise decree dated 31.08.2006 passed in O.SNo.234/2004 and O.S.No.222/2004 are null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff?

¶236

(ii) Whether the Trial Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to her alleged share in the suit schedule properties?

¶237

(iii) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court warrants interference in the present appeal?

¶238

Since Point Nos.(i) and (ii) are interlinked, they are taken up together for consideration.

¶239

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that, as can be seen from the geological tree of the parties referred to

¶240

24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶241

HC-KAR

¶242

above, the original propositus was one Ramappa, who expired in year 1941, leaving behind his wife Hanumawwaa and fourdaughters (i) Mallawwa, (ii) Laxmibai, (iii) Venkawwa and (iv) Yallawwa. It is an undisputed fact that Hanumawwa died on 10.11.1979, leaving behind Mallawwa (mother of the plaintiff), Lakshmibai (defendant No.2), Venkawwa (mother of defendant No.3) and Yallawwa (mother of defendant No.4) to succeed to her estate as her heirs and legal representatives. It is also not in dispute that Mallawwa's husband was one Sheshappa, who claimed that the late Hanumawwa had executed a will dated 28.10.1979 in his favour in relation to the suit schedule properties as a result of which the said Sheshappa claimed that he had become the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties to the exclusion of the four daughters of Hanumawwa. Accordingly, the said Sheshappa, father of the plaintiff and the husband of Mallawwa, instituted a suit in O.S.18/1980 against his wife Mallawwa and her sisters for injunction. Ex.D10 is a judgment and decree dated 28.02.1981 passed in O.S.No.18/1980 whereby the said suit filed by Sheshappa was dismissed by the Trial Court holding that he had failed to prove due execution and validity of the alleged Will rated 28.10.1979

¶243

25 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶244

HC-KAR

¶245

propounded by him. The appeal in R.A.No.110/1981 filed by Sheshappa was also dismissed by the Appellate Court and confirmed by this Court in RSA.No.800/1986. It follows therefrom that, the claim of Sheshappa that he became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties by virtue of an alleged Will dated 28.10.1979 was rejected by the Trial Court and confirmed right up to this Court, and the said judgment and the decree passed against Sheshappa having attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon him as well as his daughter, the plaintiff herein, the only inference that can be drawn from these facts and circumstances is that Hanumawwa died intestate on 10.11.1979 and pursuant to her demise her four daughters viz., Mallawwa (mother of plaintiff), Laxmibai (defendant No.2), Venkawwa (mother of defendant No.3) and Yallawwa (mother of defendant No.4) succeeded to the suit schedule properties owned and possessed by Hanumawwa in terms of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956² .

¶246

In this context, it is relevant to state that in the light of the undisputed facts that propositus Ramappa died in the year

¶247

2 Hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1956

¶248

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶249

26 -

¶250

HC-KAR

¶251

1941, his widow Hanumawwa would be entitled to succeed to the suit schedule properties as is sole - exclusive heir in terms of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937³ , which is applicable to the parties and the suit schedule properties. Section 3 of the said Act of 1937 reads as under:

¶252

3. Devolution of property.- (1) When a Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law dies intestate leaving any property, and when a Hindu governed by any other school of Hindu law or by customary law dies intestate leaving separate property, his widow, or if there is more than one widow, all his widows together, shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), be entitled in respect of property in respect of which he dies intestate to the same share as a son:

¶253

Provided that the widow of a predeceased son shall inherit in like manner as a son if there is no son surviving of such predeceased son, and shall inherit in like manner as a son's son if there is surviving a son or son's son of such predeceased son:

¶254

Provided further that the same provision shall apply mutatis mutandis to the widow of a predeceased son of a predeceased son.

¶255

3 Herein after referred to as “Act of 1937” for short

¶256

27 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶257

HC-KAR

¶258

(2) When a Hindu governed by any school of Hindu law other than the Dayabhaga school or by customary law dies having at the time of his death an interest in a Hindu joint int family property, his widow shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), have in the property the same interest as he himself had.

¶259

(3) Any interest devolving on a Hindu widow under the provisions of this section shall be the limited interest known as a Hindu woman's estate, provided however that she shall have the same right of claiming partition as a male owner.

¶260

(4) The provisions of this section shall not apply to an estate which by a customary or other rule of succession or by the terms of the grant applicable thereto descends to a single heir or to any property to which the Indian Succession Act, 1925, applies.

¶261

The provisions contained in Section 3 of the said Act of 1937 will clearly indicate that, Hanumawwa succeeded to the suit schedule properties as the sole and exclusive heir of Ramappa in terms of Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Act of 1937. Section 3 of the Act of 1937 contemplates that the right succeeded to/inherited by Hanumawwa would be taken by her as a limited heir, by way of a life estate and upon her lifetime the same would revert back to the estate upon the others heirs of

¶262

28 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶263

HC-KAR

¶264

Ramappa. However, since Hanumawwa was alive when the Act of 1956 came into force, by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Act of 1956, the limited estate/right acquired by Hanumawwa in the suit schedule properties as the sole/exclusive heir of Ramappa who died in the year 1941, under Section 3 of the Act of 1937, would blossom/enlarge into an absolute state by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Act of 1956.

¶265

The aforesaid statutory provisions contained in Section 3 of the Act of 1937, read with Section 14(1) of the Act of 1956, coupled with the undisputed fact that Ramappa expired in year 1941 and Hanumawwa was expired only subsequently on 10.11.1979 after the Act of 1956, came into force with effect from 17.06.1956, leads to the sole and unmistakable conclusion that Hanumawwa had become the absolute, exclusive and sole owner of the suit schedule properties during her lifetime and apart from her, no one else, much less her four daughters were entitled to any right title, interest or possession over the suit schedule properties during the lifetime of Hanumawwa.

¶266

As stated supra, Mallawwa’s husband Sheshappa claimed that he was the legatee under an alleged Will dated

¶267

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶268

29 -

¶269

HC-KAR

¶270

28.10.1979 executed by Hanumawwa, which was rejected by the Trial Court and confirmed right up to this Court in RSA.No.800/1986 It follows therefrom that the suit schedule properties which belonged absolutely to Hanumawwa would devolve upon her four daughters by succession in terms of Section 15 of the Act of 1956, which reads as under:

¶271

“15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus.― (1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16,―

¶272

(a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband;

¶273

(b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband;

¶274

(c) thirdly, upon the mother and father;

¶275

(d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and

¶276

(e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother.

¶277

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

¶278

(1),―

¶279

(a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-

¶280

30 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶281

HC-KAR

¶282

deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father; and

¶283

(b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband.”

¶284

Section 16 of the Act of 1956, regulates the order of succession and the manner of distribution among the heirs of a female Hindu. The said provision contemplates that the order of succession among the heirs referred to in Section 15 of the Act of 1956, shall be and the distribution of the properties of a female Hindu dying intestate shall be done among the heirs and take place in accordance with the rules provided in Section 16 of the Act of 1956, i.e., among the heirs specified in Sub-Section (1) of Section 15, those in one entry shall be preferred to those in any succeeding entry and those included in the same entry shall take simultaneously.

¶285

As stated supra, Hanumawwa who was the sole and absolute owner of the suit schedule properties having died

¶286

31 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶287

HC-KAR

¶288

intestate on 10.11.1979, the suit schedule properties stood devolved equally upon her four daughters viz., Mallawwa, Laxmibai, Venkawwa and Yallawwa in terms of Sections 15 and 16 of the Act of 1956, and all of them became entitled to 1/4^th share each in the suit schedule properties.

¶289

A perusal of the material on record will also indicate that, the two daughters of Hanumawwa i.e., Venkawwa (mother of defendant No.3) and Yallawwa (mother of defendant No.4) executed a document styled as Manyata Patra (consent deed) dated 14.08.1987 (registered on 14.03.1988) in favour of defendant No.10-Laxman son of Rajappa Bhovi in relation to R.S.No.115 measuring 26 acres 16 guntas of the suit schedule properties and the said document has been produced as Ex.P21/Ex.D11 in the suit. Thereafter, Sheshappa executed a registered sale deed dated 15.02.1988 (Ex.P.19) in favour of defendant No.10 in relation to R.S.No.115 of the suit schedule properties. So also, under registered sale deed dated 02.06.1989 (Ex.P.17), Sheshappa sold R.S.No.470/2 measuring 5 acres 16 guntas in favour of defendant No.8-Laxmibai wife of Veerappa Demashetti; Similarly, vide registered sale deed dated

¶290

32 -

¶291

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶292

HC-KAR

¶293

23.03.1991 (Ex.D31), Sheshappa sold R.S.No.470/1 measuring 10 acres 32 guntas in favour of defendant No.6-Laxman son of Siddappa Paschapur.

¶294

The aforesaid facts and circumstances clearly will indicate that pursuant to the Manyata Patra dated 14.08.1987, Mallawwa and Venkawwa had alienated their 1/4^th share each (half share in the suit schedule properties) in favour of the alienees i.e., Defendant Nos.6, 8 and 10 respectively.

¶295

Mallawwa and Laxmibai, the daughters of Hanumawwa instituted a suit in O.S.No.15/1991 against Sheshappa and the purchasers seeking declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule properties. In the said suit, Sheshappa, the husband of Mallawwa, expired during the pendency of the suit and his daughters i.e., Shantawwa, the plaintiff herein and her sister Gangawwa were brought on record as his heirs and legal representatives and were arrayed as defendant No.1(a) and defendant No.1(b) in the suit. Defendants No.2, 3 and 6 in the said suit were the purchasers, while the aforesaid Venkawwa and

¶296

33 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶297

HC-KAR

¶298

Yallawwa, daughters of Hanumawwa were arrayed as defendant Nos.4 and 5 in the said suit.

¶299

After contest, the Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of Mallawwa and Laxmibai by holding that the said two daughters of Hanumawwa along with their sisters, (plaintiff and defendant Nos.4 and 5 in O.S.No.15/1991) were the joint owners of the suit schedule properties and restrained the alienees from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.

¶300

Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the alienees who were arranged as defendant Nos.2, 3 and 6 in the said suit, approached this Court in RFA.No.616/1996, in which, the aforesaid Manyata Patra marked as Ex.D.4 in the said O.S.No.15/1991 was taken into account by this Court and this court came to the conclusion that the same was not binding upon Mallawwa or Laxmibai. However, this Court recorded a finding that the said Manyata Patra dated 14.08.1987 was binding upon Venkawwa and Yallawwa and disposed of the appeal as hereunder:

¶301

34 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶302

HC-KAR

¶303

“IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF January 2004

¶304

PRESENT

¶305

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICECHANDRASHEKARAIAH

¶306

RFA No: 616 OF 1996

¶307

BETWEEN 1. Laxman, s/o Rajappa Bhovi, Age:major, r/o Koujalgi, Tal: Gokak, Dist. Belgaum. 2. Smt. Laxmibai, w/o Veerappa, Demshetti, age: Pmajor, R/o. Kuligod, Tal: Gokak, dist. Belgaum. 3. Laxman Siddappa Paschapur, Age:major, r/o Raderatti, Tal:Gokak, Dist.Belgaum. …..Appellants: (By Sri. Ravi S.Balikai) AND: 1. Smt. Mallavva, w/o Seshappa, Kankanwadi, age:major, R/o: Koujalagi, Tal: Gokak, Dist. Belgaum. 2.Smt. Laxmibai, w/o Annappa Pujar, Age:major, r/oKoujalagi, Tal: Gokak, Dist. Belgaum, now at Katkol, Tal. Ramdurg. 3. Smt.Gangawwa, w/o Vittal Mujawar, Age:major, r/o Sundholi, Tal: Gokak, Dist. Belgaum. 4. Smt. Shantawwa, w/o Fakiragouda Patil, age:major, r/o Chikmulangi, Tal: Ramdurg, Dist. Belgaum. 5. Smt. Yankawwa, since dead By L. Rs:

¶308

35 -

¶309

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶310

HC-KAR

¶311

5A: Venkanagouda, s/o Balagouda, alias Holalagouda Patil, age: major, r/oBellatti, Tal: Shirahatti, Dist. Gadag.

¶312

6. Smt.Yallawwa, since dead by her LR: 6A) Hanamantgouda, s/o Bhimagouda Patil, age:major, r/o Bellatti, Tal: Shirahatti, Dist. Gadag. ....Respondents

¶313

(Sri.Jagadish Patil for R1 and R2; R3 to 4 service held sufficient; R5A and R6A served.)

¶314

RFA is filed under Sec.96 of CPC against the Judgment and decree dated 28-6-1996 passed in OS:15/1991, on the file of the Civil Judge, Gokak.

¶315

This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the Court delivered the following:-

¶316

JUDGMENT

¶317

This appeal is by defendants-2, 3 and 6 challenging the Judgment and decree dated 28-6-1996 in O.S.15/1991 on the file of the Civil Judge, Gokak.

¶318

2) The parties in this appeal are referred to as arrayed in the trial Court.

¶319

3) The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiffs and defendants-4 and 5 are the owners of the suit schedule properties and for a declaration declaring the "Manyatapatra" dated 14-8-1987 executed by defendants-4 and 5 in favour of defendants-2 and 3 is not binding on the plaintiffs and defendants-4 and 5 and for other relief.

¶320

4) The facts in this case are as follows:-

¶321

36 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶322

HC-KAR

¶323

One Ramappa Kuchanavar alias Panadi who is the propositus was owner the suit schedule properties such as 10 acres 32 guntas in survey No.470/1; 10 acres 32 guntas in survey No.470/2; 26 acres 16 guntas in survey No.115 of Koujalgi village in Gokak taluk. He died in the year 1941 leaving behind his wife Hanumavva, plaintiffs and defendants 4 and 5. Hanumavva who was the wife of Ramappa died on 1011-79. According to the plaintiffs on the death of Ramappa, Hanamavva, i.e., the mother of the plaintiffs and defendants 4 and 5 succeeded to the to be estate of Ramappa and therefore they are declared as the owners of the above said properties. Defendant-1, is the husband of plaintiff-1 who is the daughter of Ramappa and Hanumavva, sold these three bits of land in favour of defendants-2, 3 and 6 under different sale deeds which are marked as Exhibits D1, D6 and D9. The case of the 1^st defendant is that he is the absolute owner of the above said properties having acquired title under a will said to have been executed by Hanamavva. Hanamavva died on 10-11-1979. Defendant-5 filed written statement accepting the sale deed executed by Seshappa and admitted the execution of Manyatapatra Ex. D4. Thereafter defendants-4 and 5 did not contest the suit by entering into the witness box. Defendant-1 died during the pendency of the suit.

¶324

5) On the basis of the pleadings the trial Court framed the following issues:-

¶325

37 -

¶326

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶327

HC-KAR

¶328

"1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they along with defendants 4 and 5 formed joint Hindu family with their father Ramappa and others and enjoying the same jointly?

¶329

2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they have acquired ownership of the suit properties stated in para (2) of the plaint? as

¶330

3) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they were in possession of the suit property on the date of the suit?

¶331

4) Whether the sale deed dated 15-2-1988 and 2-61989 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 respectively is not binding on the plaintiffs?

¶332

5) Whether the defendant No.1 proves that he has inherited the suit property on the strength of a will executed by Hanamavva dated 28-10-1979?

¶333

6) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the said will is sham and bogus document?

¶334

7) Whether the defendants-2 and 3 prove that they are bona fide purchasers of property purchased by them for valuable consideration and without notice?

¶335

8) Whether the defendants-2 and 3 prove that they were put in possession of the property purchased by them?

¶336

9) Whether the Court Fee paid is proper and adequate?

¶337

10) Whether the suit as brought is not maintainable without any relief of cancellation of the Sale Deeds executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 and 2?

¶338

10A) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

¶339

38 -

¶340

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶341

HC-KAR

¶342

11) To what relief the plaintiffs are entitled?

¶343

The trial Court on appreciation of evidence recorded the following findings which are as follows:-

¶344

"1) The plaintiffs and defendants-4 and 5 do not form Joint Hindu Family but they succeed to the suit properties as legal heirs of Hanamavva.

¶345

2) The plaintiffs and defendants 4 and 5 jointly become the owners of the suit properties.

¶346

3) The plaintiffs have proved that they have been in possession of the suit properties as on the date of the suit.

¶347

4) The sale deeds dated 15-2-1988 and 2-6-1989 executed by the first defendant in favour of defendants 2 and 3 respectively are not binding on the plaintiffs and defendants 4 and 5.

¶348

5) The first defendant has failed to prove the due execution of will dated 28-10-1979, executed by Hanamavva.

¶349

6) It is proved by the plaintiffs that the will is sham document.

¶350

7) Does not arise for consideration.

¶351

8) The defendants 2 and 3 have failed to prove that they were put in possession of the properties purchased by them.

¶352

9) Court fee paid is proper.

¶353

10) The suit is maintainable.

¶354

10A) The suit is not barred by limitation.

¶355

11) The suit is decreed."

¶356

39 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶357

HC-KAR

¶358

6) Now the question that arises for consideration is:

¶359

"Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit?"

¶360

7) Defendants-2, 3 and 6 are the purchasers of the suit schedule property under Exhibits D1, 6 and 9 claiming title through Seshappa who is said to have acquired title under a will executed by Hanamavva. The said will has not been produced in this case. From the evidence, it is seen that defendant-1 had filed the suit OS.16/80 for injunction as against the plaintiffs. The said suit was dismissed. The Judgment and decree dismissing the suit also was confirmed by this Court in RSA.800/1986. From this it is seen that the 1st defendant who is a vendor of the above said properties in favour of defendants 2, 3 and 6 has not established that he was in possession of the properties as on the date of filing the said suit. Further, the 1st defendant had filed the suit for declaration on the basis of the will said to have been executed by Hanamavva in OS.95/87 which is renumbered as OS: 305/89. The said suit was dismissed for non prosecution. The said Judgment and decree dismissing the suit became final, as it has not been reversed by the appellate authority. In view of this Judgment and decree dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, defendant-1 cannot be held to be owner of the suit schedule property. the 1st defendant If that is so, had no saleable interest so as to transfer the same in favour of defendants 2, 3 and 6. Further in the absence of production of the will said to have been executed by

¶361

40 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶362

HC-KAR

¶363

Hanamavva is concerned it is not possible for this Court to hold that defendant-1 has acquired right, title or interest in respect of the suit Under these schedule properties under the said will. circumstances, the plaintiffs and defednants-4 and 5 who are the children of Ramappa and Hanamavva are to be held as owners of the suit schedule properties. In the said view of the matter, I hold that the finding recorded regarding title to the property is concerned is justified.

¶364

8) Defendants-2, 3 and 6 have produced a Manyatapatra produced as Ex. D4 before the trial Court. Under this Manyatapatra defendants 4 and 5 have virtually accepted the sale of the lands by defendant-

¶365

1. Since the plaintiffs are not parties to the said Manyatapatra, the said Manyatapatra is not binding on the plaintiffs. But at the same time, in the absence of denial of the execution of the Manyatapatra the same cannot be said that it is not binding defendants 4 and 5. on Therefore, in view of this Manyatapatra, it is open for the purchasers i.e., defendants 2, 3 and 6 to file a separate suit for partition and possession to the extent of the share of defendants 4 and 5, if they are so advised.

¶366

Appeal is dismissed.

¶367

The impugned Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is confirmed.

¶368

Parties to bear their own costs.”

¶369

41 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶370

HC-KAR

¶371

In addition to confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, this Court granted liberty in favour of the purchasers to institute a separate suit for partition in separate possession to the extent of the share of Venkawwa and Yallawwa if they were so advised.

¶372

Subsequent to the judgment and decree passed by this Court in RFA.No.616/1996, vide Ex.D13, defendant No.6 and 10 herein instituted a suit in O.S.No.222/2004 against Mallawwa and Laxmibai in relation to R.S.No.470/1 and R.S.No.115 purchased by them seeking partition and separate possession of their share in the suit schedule properties. So also, defendant No.8 herein instituted one more suit in O.S.No.234/2004 against Mallawwa and Laxmibai in relation to R.S.No.470/2, measuring 10 acres 32 guntas purchased by her. While O.S.No.222/2004 culminated in a compromise decree dated 16.02.2005, in terms of Ex.D25, O.S.No.234/2004 also culminated in a compromise in terms of Ex.D17, dated 31.08.2006. As per the aforesaid compromise decree passed in O.SNo.222/2004, Mallawwa and Laxmibai agreed to give up their claim/share in R.S.No.470/1 and in R.S.No.115 in favour of defendant Nos.6 and 10

¶373

42 -

¶374

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶375

HC-KAR

¶376

absolutely. Similarly, as per the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.234/24, Mallawwa and Laxmibai agreed to retain 5 acres 16 guntas and give up their claim over the remaining extent of 5 acres 16 guntas in R.S.No.470/2 in favour of defendant No.8.

¶377

The said compromise dated 16.02.2005 passed in O.S.No.222/2004 was assailed before this Court by Laxmibai in W.P.No.64816/2010, which was dismissed by a learned single judge, vide order dated 21.02.2012 which is as hereunder.

¶378

“IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

¶379

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012

¶380

BEFORE

¶381

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL

¶382

W.P.No.68416/2010 (GM-CPC)

¶383

BETWEEN:

¶384

SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O ANNAPPA PUJAR, AGE: 78 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KOUJALGI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELGAUM.

¶385

..PETITIONER

¶386

(By Sri A G MULAWADMATH, ADV.)

¶387

AND

¶388

1. SHRI LAXMAN RAJAPPA BHOOVI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶389

R/O KOUJALAGI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELGAUM.

¶390

43 -

¶391

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶392

HC-KAR

¶393

2. SHRI LAXMAN SIDDAPPA PASCHAPURE, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O RADDERATTI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELGAUM.

¶394

3. SHRI. VASANT ANNAPPA PUJAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O PUJAR GALLI, TQ. BAILHONGAL,

¶395

DIST. BELGAUM.

¶396

4. MALLAWWA W/O:SHESHAPPA KANKANWADI, AGE:83 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE AND HOUSE R/O KOUSALGI, TQ. GOKAK

¶397

DIST. BELGAUM.

¶398

….RESPONDENTS

¶399

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPROMISE DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.222/2004 DATED: 16/02/2005 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE, SR.DN. GOKAK, AS PER ANNEXURE-J, AND ETC.

¶400

THE PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶401

ORDER

¶402

In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the compromise decree passed in O.S.222/2004 on 16.2.2005, which is produced at Annexure-J.

¶403

The suit O.S.222/2004 was filed by respondents 1 121 and 2 seeking a declaration that they are the absolute owners of the suit properties and for consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing their peaceful possession.

¶404

44 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶405

HC-KAR

¶406

2. Petitioner herein was arrayed as Defendant No.2 in the said suit. Defendants 1 and 3 were the sister and son, respectively, of the petitioner herein. Based on a power of attorney said to have been executed by defendants-1 and 2, defendant No.3 represented all the defendants in the suit and entered Into a compromise with the plaintiffs and got the suit decreed. The present writ petition is filed in the year 2010 challenging the said compromise decree.

¶407

3. The contention urged in the writ petition is that the petitioner herein had not executed any power of attorney in favour of her son the 3rd defendant authorising him to represent her in the suit, let alone, enter into any compromise with the plaintiffs in the suit. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition, the petitioner has sought to explain the delay in approaching this Court. She has stated that she learnt about the compromise decree passed in O.S.222/2004 only in the month of July 2008 when she consulted her advocate in connection with the RTS Appeal Nos.83 and 84/2008. The RTS appeals were filed by the petitioner challenging the entry of the name of the plaintiffs respondents 1 and 2 herein, in the revenue records in respect of the land in question pursuant to the compromise decree passed. Though the petitioner claim to have learnt about the impugned order way back in the year 2008, there is no explanation as to why she had taken two years more time thereafter to approach this Court. The explanation offered stating

¶408

45 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶409

HC-KAR

¶410

that she came to know about the decree passed in the suit only after the disposal of RTS Appeal Nos.83 & 84/2008 itself, cannot be accepted. When the petitioner herself has challenged the revenue entries made in the name of plaintiffs 1 and 2, she cannot be heard to say that she learnt about the compromise decree only after disposal of RTS appeals. Moreover, even after 2008 when she learnt about the compromise decree, there is no acceptable explanation offered for further delay in approaching this Court.

¶411

4. The 3^rd respondent is none other than the son of the petitioner. He has represented the petitioner in the suit based on a power of attorney executed by the petitioner. This Court cannot enter into such a disputed question of fact in exercise of the writ jurisdiction, that too, after a long lapse of more than five years in approaching this Court.

¶412

Hence, the writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. If the petitioner has got any other remedy, it is open to her to avail it in accordance with law.”

¶413

Subsequently on 03.12.2012, defendant No.8 sold 5 acres 16 guntas in R.S.No.470/2 in favour of defendant No.5 vide registered sale deed dated 03.12.2012 produced as Ex.P13/ExD4. As stated earlier, defendant No.1 – Vasant is none other than the son of defendant No.2-Laxmibai, who was the daughter of Hanumawwa as well as Laxmibai and Mallawwa

¶414

46 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶415

HC-KAR

¶416

were jointly allotted R.S.No.470/2 measuring 5 acres 16 guntas in the compromise decree dated 31.08.2006 passed in O.S.No.234/2004. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that though 5 acres 16 guntas in R.S.No.470/2 was allotted jointly to Mallawwa and Laxmibai, defendant No.1-Vasant, son of Laxmibai got the khata to the entire extent changed to his name and sold the entire extent of 5 acres 16 guntas in R.S.No.470/2 by redesignating the same as R.S.No.470/3 in favour of defendant No.11 vide registered sale deed dated 14.11.2013 produced as Ex.P24.

¶417

The aforesaid facts, circumstances and the sequence of events will clearly indicate that during her life time itself, Mallawwa, mother of the plaintiff had relinquished her claim, right, title, interest and possession over the suit schedule properties in favour of the alienees in terms of the compromise decree dated 31.08.2006 passed in O.S.No.234/2004 and the compromise decree dated 16.02.2005 passed in O.S.No.222/2004; as a consequence thereof, during her lifetime itself, Mallawwa ceased to have any manner of right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule properties and

¶418

47 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶419

HC-KAR

¶420

consequently, the question of the plaintiff who is none other than the daughter of Mallawwa challenging the compromise decree by way of a separate suit after the demise of Mallawwa would not arise in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

¶421

The trial Court came to the conclusion that the compromise decree dated 16.02.2005 passed in O.S.No.222/2004 and compromise decree dated 31.08.2006 passed in O.S.No.234/2004 were not binding upon plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff was entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties since the same were ancestral properties in the hands of Mallawwa. In our considered opinion, the said finding is completely erroneous both on facts and law inasmuch as upon the demise of Hanumawwa intestate on 10.11.1979, the suit schedule properties devolved equally upon her four daughters including Mallawwa as class-I heirs in terms of Sections 15 and 16 of the Act of 1956, as a result of which, Mallawwa became entitled absolutely to 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties. There is no gain saying the fact that the properties possessed by a female Hindu acquired by her whether before or after commencement of the Act of 1956, would be held

¶422

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶423

48 -

¶424

HC-KAR

¶425

by her an absolute owner and not as a limited owner in terms of Section 14(1) of the Act of 1956, and the same would be her stridhan property over which neither her husband nor her children would be entitled to lay a claim during her lifetime nor challenge any transaction, alienation, compromise, etc., entered into by her during her lifetime. While dealing with the concept of stridhan and the right of absolute ownership vested in a female Hindu during her lifetime, the Apex Court in the case of Pratibha Rani Vs. Suraj Kumar and another4 at paragraph No.28 held as under:

¶426

“28. To sum up, the position seems to be that a pure and simple entrustment of stridhan without creating any rights in the husband excepting putting the articles in his possession does not entitle him to use the same to the detriment of his wife without her consent. The husband has no justification for not returning the said articles as and when demanded by the wife nor can he burden her with losses of business by using the said property which was never intended by her while entrusting possession of stridhan. On the allegations in the complaint, the husband is no more and no less than a pure and simple custodian acting on behalf of his wife and if he diverts the entrusted property elsewhere or for different purposes he takes a

¶427

4 (1985) 2 Supreme Court Cases 370

¶428

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶429

49 -

¶430

HC-KAR

¶431

clear risk of prosecution under Section 406 of the IPC. On a parity of reasoning, it is manifest that the husband, being only a custodian of the stridhan of his wife, cannot be said to be in joint possession thereof and thus acquire a joint interest in the property.”

¶432

So also while interpreting Section 14(1) of the Act of 1956, the Apex Court in the case of Gangamma Vs.

¶433

G.Nagarathnamma and others⁵ held as under:

¶434

14. Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has a bearing on the issue. As the properties at item Nos. 1 & 2 are recorded in the name of the appellant, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary in this case, the appellant by operation of Section 14(1) of the said Act is the full owner of those properties. In the facts of this case discussed above it has to be accepted that those properties are not joint properties but the appellant is the sole owner of those properties.

¶435

15. The principle laid down in Section 14(1) of the said Act has been read by courts in a very comprehensive manner since the said Act overrides the old law on Stri Dhana in respect of properties possessed by female Hindu. In Eramma Vs. Veerupana and others - AIR 1966 SC 1879, Justice Ramaswami speaking for the Court held that Section 14(1) of the Act contemplates that a female Hindu, who in the

¶436

5 AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2561

¶437

50 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶438

HC-KAR

¶439

absence of the said provision would have been a limited owner of the property, will now become full owner by virtue of the said section. Such female Hindu will have all powers of disposition to make the estate heritable by their own heirs and not revertible to the heirs of the last male holder.

¶440

16. Again in the case of Punithavalli Ammal Vs. Minor Ramalingam and another – AIR 1970 SC 1730, a three- Judge Bench of this Court reiterated the position that the said Act has overriding effect and confers full ownership on Hindu female and made it very clear that rights conferred under Section 14(1) to a Hindu female are not restricted or limited by any rule of Hindu law. In the opinion of the Court in Punithavalli (supra) the said section makes a clear departure from all texts of Hindu laws and rules and those texts and rules cannot be used for circumventing the plain meaning of Section 14(1) of the said Act.

¶441

17. In Badri Pershad Vs. Smt. Kanso Devi – AIR 1970 SC 1963, the learned Judges held that the word 'acquired' in sub-Section (1) of Section 14 of the said Act has to be given the widest possible meaning (See paras 6 & 7).

¶442

18. In Vaddeboyina Tulasamma and others Vs. Vaddeboyina Sesha Reddi (dead) by L.Rs. - AIR 1977 SC 1944, Justice Bhagwati speaking for the Court held that sub-Section (1) of Section 14 is very large in its amplitude and covers every

¶443

51 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶444

HC-KAR

¶445

kind of acquisition of property by a female Hindu. Regardless of whether such property was possessed by a female Hindu on the date of commencement of the Act or was subsequently acquired or possessed, she would be the full owner of the property.

¶446

19. In view of such consistent views taken by this Court on the interpretation of Section 14, we hold that Section 14(1) of the said Act would apply in respect of the properties which stand in the name of the appellant and the appellant would be the full owner of those properties.”

¶447

As stated suprahaving regard to the undisputed fact that Hanumawwa died intestate and the property devolved upon Mallawwa, who was one of her class-I heirs in terms of Sections 15 and 16 of the Act of 1956, the suit schedule property to the extent of 1/4^th share of Mallawwa would be her separate, absolute, exclusive and self-acquired property and the same would not partake the nature of ancestral or joint family properties in the hands of Mallawwa so as to enable the plaintiff, the daughter of Mallawwa to put forth the claim in the same nor challenge any alienation, compromise, transaction, document ,etc., entered into by Mallawwa during her lifetime.

¶448

52 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶449

HC-KAR

¶450

Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Trial Court completely misdirected itself in coming to the erroneous conclusion that the suit schedule properties were the ancestral joint family properties in the hands of Mallawwa and without appreciating the same were her self acquired, absolute and exclusive properties and that since Mallawwa was entitled to enter into compromise in relation to her one fourth share with the appellants, the plaintiff did not have locus-standi nor would not be entitled to challenge the compromise after the demise of Mallawwa and consequently the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside.

¶451

The controversy can be viewed from yet another angle; it is an undisputed fact that Mallawwa was a party to the compromise entered into between herself herself, her sister Laxmibai and the alienees in O.S.No.222/2004 and O.S.No.234/2004. It is well settled that a party to a compromise and all persons claiming through such party are not entitled to file a separate suit because of the specific bar/embargo contained in Order XXIII Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure,

¶452

53 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶453

HC-KAR

¶454

1908⁶ as held by the Apex Court in the case of Pushpa Devi Bhagat Vs. Rajinder Singh and others⁷ , which reads as under:

¶455

“17. The position that emerges from the amended provisions of Order 23 can be summed up thus:

¶456

(i) No appeal is maintainable against a consent decree having regard to the specific bar contained in Section 96(3) CPC.

¶457

(ii) No appeal is maintainable against the order of the court recording the compromise (or refusing to record a compromise) in view of the deletion of clause (m) of Rule 1 Order 43.

¶458

(iii) No independent suit can be filed for setting aside a compromise decree on the ground that the compromise was not lawful in view of the bar contained in Rule 3-A.

¶459

(iv) A consent decree operates as an estoppel and is valid and binding unless it is set aside by the court which passed the consent decree, by an order on an application under the proviso to Rule 3 Order 23.

¶460

Therefore, the only remedy available to a party to a consent decree to avoid such consent decree, is to approach the court which recorded the compromise and made a decree in terms of it, and establish that there was no compromise. In that event, the court which recorded

¶461

6 Hereinafter referred to as “the CPC” for short

¶462

7 (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 566

¶463

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶464

54 -

¶465

HC-KAR

¶466

the compromise will itself consider and decide the question as to whether there was a valid compromise or not. This is so because a consent decree is nothing but contract between parties superimposed with the seal of approval of the court. The validity of a consent decree depends wholly on the validity of the agreement or compromise on which it is made. The second defendant, who challenged the consent compromise decree was fully aware of this position as she filed an application for setting aside the consent decree on 21-8-2001 by alleging that there was no valid compromise in accordance with law. Significantly, none of the other defendants challenged the consent decree. For reasons best known to herself, the second defendant within a few days thereafter (that is on 27-8-2001) filed an appeal and chose not to pursue the application filed before the court which passed the consent decree. Such an appeal by the second defendant was not maintainable, having regard to the express bar contained in Section 96(3) of the Code.”

¶467

41. Similarly the Apex Court in the case of Triloki Nath

¶468

Singh Vs. Anirudh Singh (D) Thr. Lrs.⁸ , which reads as

¶469

under:

¶470

21. Indeed, the appellant was not a party to the stated compromise decree. He was, however, claiming right, title and interest over the land referred to in the stated sale deed dated 6^th January, 1984, which was purchased by him from Sampatiya judgment debtor and party to the suit. It is well- settled that the compromise decree passed by the High Court in the second appeal would relate back to the date of

¶471

8 AIR 2020 SC 2111

¶472

55 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶473

HC-KAR

¶474

institution of the suit between the parties thereto. In the suit now instituted by the appellant, at best, he could seek relief against Sampatiya, but cannot be allowed to question the compromise decree passed by the High Court in the partition suit. In other words, the appellant could file a suit for protection of his right, title or interest devolved on the basis of the stated sale deed dated 6^th January 1984, allegedly executed by one of the party (Sampatiya) to the proceedings in the partition suit, which could be examined independently by the Court on its own merits in accordance with law. The trial Court in any case would not be competent to adjudicate the grievance of the appellant herein in respect of the validity of compromise decree dated 15^th September, 1994 passed by the High Court in the partition suit.

¶475

22. In other words, the appellant can only claim through his predecessor Sampatiya, to the extent of rights and remedies available to Sampatiya in reference to the compromise decree. Merely because the appellant was not party to the compromise decree in the facts of the present case, will be of no avail to the appellant, much less give him a cause of action to question the validity of the compromise decree passed by the High Court by way of a substantive suit before the civil court to declare it as fraudulent, illegal and not binding on him. Assuming, he could agitate about the validity of the compromise entered into by the parties to the partition suit, it is only the High Court, who had accepted the compromise and passed decree on that basis, could examine the same and no other Court under the proviso to Rule 3 of Order 23 CPC. It must, therefore, follow that the suit instituted before the civil court by the appellant was not maintainable in

¶476

56 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶477

HC-KAR

¶478

view of specific bar under Rule 3A of Order 23 CPC as held in the impugned judgment.

¶479

In the instant case, since Shantawwa filed the instant suit seeking to challenge the compromise entered into between her mother and the alienees in O.S.No.234/2004 and O.S.No.222/2004, the present suit is clearly barred by the provisions contained in Order XXIII Rule 3A of the CPC and the failure on the part of the Trial Court to appreciate this, as resulted in an erroneous conclusion and consequently the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on this ground also.

¶480

Insofar as the land bearing Survey No.470/3 purchased by defendant No.11 from defendant No.1-Vasant is concerned, as per the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.234/2004, Survey No.470/2 totally measuring 10 acres 32 guntas was divided equally by allotting 5 acres 16 guntas in favour of purchaser/defendant No.8 and by allotting the remaining extent of 5 acres 16 guntas in favour of Laxmibai and Mallawwa jointly. Defendant No.1-Vasant, who is none other than the son of Laxmibai-defendant No.2, got the katha changed

¶481

57 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶482

HC-KAR

¶483

to his name and sold the entire extent 5 acres 16 guntas in favour of defendant No.11, vide registered sale deed dated 14.11.2013 produced as per Ex.P.24 including the share of Mallawwa also thereby indicating that the said sale by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.11 would be binding only to the extent of the share of defendant No.2-Laxmibai and the same would not be binding upon the share of the plaintiff’s mother Mallawwa which is succeeded to by the plaintiff.

¶484

It is also an undisputed fact that the said property which was part and parcel of R.S.No.470/2 measuring 5 acres 16 guntas and was sold in favour of defendant No.11 by defendant No.1 was subsequently reassigned R.S.No.470/3, which is also one of the properties to the suit. Accordingly, the plaintiff would have to be declared to be entitled to 2 acres 28 guntas in R.S.No.470/3, while defendant No.11 who purchased this property in R.S.No.470/3 would have to be declared to be entitled to the remaining 2 acres 28 guntas in R.S.No.470/3.

¶485

The upshot of above discussion leads to the following conclusions:

¶486

58 -

¶487

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶488

HC-KAR

¶489

1. The compromise decree dated 16.02.2005 passed in O.S.No.222/2004 and compromise decree dated 31.08.2006 passed in O.S.No.234/2004 is binding upon the plaintiff and her claim that the decree is not binding upon her is liable to be rejected by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

¶490

1. Defendant Nos.6, 7, 9 and 10 are held to be the absolute owners in lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment of R.S.No.470/1 measuring 10 acres 32 guntas and R.S.No.115 measuring 26 acres 16 guntas.

¶491

1. So also, defendant No.5 who in turn purchased R.S.No.470/2 measuring 5 acres 16 guntas from defendant No.8 is declared to be the absolute owner in lawful and peaceful possession of the said property bearing R.S.No.470/2 measuring 5 acres 16 guntas.

¶492

1. The plaintiff would be entitled to partition and separate possession of half share in R.S.No.470/3 i.e., 2 acres 28 guntas.

¶493

1. Defendant No.11, who is the purchaser from defendant No.1 in relation to R.S.No.470/3 would be entitled to partition and separate possession of half share in 5 acres 16 guntas in R.S.No.470/3 i.e., to an extent of 2 acres 28 guntas in R.S.No.470/3.

¶494

59 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶495

HC-KAR

¶496

1. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside and substituted by a modified decree in the aforesaid terms.

¶497

Point Nos.(i) to (iii) are answered accordingly.

¶498

In the result, we pass the following :

¶499

ORDER

¶500

All the appeals are hereby allowed.

¶501

The impugned judgment and decree dated 18.11.2019 passed in O.S.No.90/2014 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge is hereby modified.

¶502

The suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed by holding that the plaintiff would be entitled to partition and separate possession of her half share i.e., only to an extent 2 acres 28 guntas only in R.S.No.470/3 of Koujalagi village and the sale deed dated 14.11.2013 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.11 would not be binding on the share of the plaintiff.

¶503

The remaining half share i.e., 2 acres 28 guntas in R.S.No.470/3 would belong to defendant No.11

¶504

60 -

¶505

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13049-DB RFA No. 100561 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100113 of 2020 RFA No. 100152 of 2020

¶506

HC-KAR

¶507

who has purchased R.S.No.470/3 from defendant No.1.

¶508

The suit of the plaintiff in relation to all other suit schedule properties including R.S.No.470/1 measuring 10 acres 32 guntas, R.S.No.470/2 measuring 5 acres 16 guntas and R.S.No.115 measuring 26 acres 16 guntas is hereby dismissed.

¶509

Registry to draw decree accordingly.

¶510

Sd/(S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶511

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶512

PMP para Nos.1 to 10 EM para Nos.11 to end List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Laxman S/O. Siddappa Paschapur, v. Smt. Shantawwa W/O. Fakiragouda Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman S/O. Siddappa Paschapur, v. Smt. Shantawwa W/O. Fakiragouda Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Mahadevappa S/O Nagappa Koti Vs Smt Iravva W/O Maharudrappa Hosamani

Sushilkumar S/O Appasaheb Kodate Vs Basavaraj S/O Shankrappa Tumbaraguddi Since Deceased Y His Lrs Smt Geeta W/O Basavaraj

Rachappa Adopted Father Mallappa Kulloli Vs Sri.Mahalingappa S/O Channappa Kulloli

Smt. Kavita W/O. Pandappa Alias Panduraddi Sataraddi Vs Sanjeevaraddi S/O Vasappa Giraddi

Sanjeevaraddi S/O Vasappa Giraddi Vs Smt. Kavita W/O Pandappa @ Panduraddi

Laxmibai Vs Smt. Shantawwa