Shri.Sangappa S/O Gurappa Huddar Vs Smt.Sangavva W/O Basavanthappa Huddar

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7498 RSA No. 100075 of 2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100075 OF 2020 (DEC/INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI. SANGAPPA S/O. GURAPPA HUDDAR, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BEWOOR VILLAGE, TQ: BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 101.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. S. S. NIRANJAN, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT. SANGAVVA W/O. BASAVANTHAPPA HUDDAR, AGE:74 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: HAVARGI VILLAGE, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 101.

¶14

Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶15

SMT. RATNAVVA W/O. MALLIKARJUN HUBBALLI, AGE:51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: HAVARGI VILLAGE, TQ: HUNAGUND DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 101.

¶16

SMT. SUMANGALA W/O. SHIVANAND HUDDAR, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: VIJAYANAGAR, HUNGAUND, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 101.

¶17

KUMARI PUJA D/O. SHIVANAND HUDDAR, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: VIJAYANAGAR, HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOTE – 587 101.

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7498 RSA No. 100075 of 2020

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

KUMAR. BASAVARAJ S/O. SHIVANAND HUDDAR, AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT.

¶21

KUMARI. PAVITRA D/O. SHIVANAND HUDDAR, AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,

¶22

SINCE RESPONDENT 5 AND 6 ARE MINORE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.3, ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VIDYANAGAR, HUNAGUND, BAGALKOT - 587 101.

¶23

SMT. GANGAMMA W/O. KUDLEPA MUCHKHANDI, AGE:50 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: BELLADA BAGEWADI VILLAGE, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. S.C.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2)

¶26

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, 1908 CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN RA NO.02/2019 FROM THE FILE OF 1^ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BAGALKOT, AND ENTIRE RECORDS IN OS NO.227/2013 FROM THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BAGALKOT. SET AISDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN RA NO.02/2019 ON THE FILE OF 1^ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BAGALKOT, DATED 04.12.2019 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN OS NO.227/2013 DATED 21.12.2018 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BAGALKOT

¶27

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,

¶28

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7498 RSA No. 100075 of 2020

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL)

¶34

With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶35

The present appeal is filed by the defendant No.1 aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2018 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagalkot (Trial Court), by which the Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and 2 declaring them to be the absolute owners of the suit schedule property, which is confirmed by the judgement and decree dated 04.12.2019 passed in R.A.No.2/2019 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagalkot (First Appellate Court). Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1/appellant is before this Court.

¶36

The above suit is filed by the plaintiffs contending that the suit schedule property originally belong to Basavantappa Huddar. Upon his demise, plaintiffs, husband of defendant No.2 and defendant No.6

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7498 RSA No. 100075 of 2020

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

inherited the suit property as the heirs of said Basavantappa. Plaintiff No.1 was looking after the agricultural operation, however, due to old age had left the village and was residing with her daughter plaintiff No.2. Defendant No.1 without having any consent of the family of the plaintiffs, got his name entered into the revenue records in collusion with the revenue authorities taking advantage of the similarity in the surname of the plaintiffs and by creating false and fabricated document known and called as ‘relinquishment deed’. Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants No.2 to 6 have executed any such document in favour of defendant No.1 and they are in possession of the property. Hence, sought for relief of declaration and possession of the suit schedule property.

¶41

Defendant No.1 filed written statement denying the plaint averments and contending that grandfather of defendant No.1 namely Sangappa Huddar and father-inlaw of plaintiff No.1 namely Gyanappa Huddar were the brothers and they were the members of the joint family.

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7498 RSA No. 100075 of 2020

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

The branch of Gurappa and Gyanappa had purchased the suit property in the name of husband of the plaintiff No.1 namely Basavantappa in the year 1975. The said Basavantappa passed away about 15 years ago, thereafter names of his wife and children were entered into revenue records. The suit property was thus purchased by the branch of Gyanappa and Sangappa in the name of Basavantappa S/o Gyanappa Huddar being elder member of the family. That in the year 2006, as per the family settlement, share of Sangappa’s branch was given as per the settlement to defendant No.1. Accordingly, name of the defendant No.1 was entered in revenue records vide M.E.No.249/2005-06. That relinquishment letter was executed by plaintiffs, defendant No.6 and husband of defendant No.2 on 14.03.2006. That ever since the year 2006 till the date of filing of the suit and even thereafter defendant No.1 has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7498 RSA No. 100075 of 2020

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

5. The Trial Court framed the following issues for

¶49

its consideration:

¶50

“1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the plaintiff and defendant number 2 to 6 are the absolute owners of the suit property?

¶51

2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the plaintiff and defendant number 2 to 6 are in possession over the suit property as on date of filing of suit?

¶52

3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant number 1 is interfering to her peaceful possession?

¶53

4. Whether the defendants prove that the plaintiffs and defendants number 2 to 6 have relinquished their rights in respect of the suit property through relinquishment letter dated 14.03.2006?

¶54

5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled of the relief sought for?

¶55

6. What order or decree?”

¶56

Plaintiff No.2 examined as PW.1 and produced 2

¶57

documents marked as Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2. Another witness has been examined as PW.2. Defendant No.1 examined

¶58

himself as DW.1 and produced 9 documents marked as

¶59

Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.9 and examined 2 more witnesses as DW.2 and DW.3. On appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court

¶60

answered the issues No.1 to 3 and 5 in the affirmative and issue No.4 in the negative and consequently decreed the

¶61

7 -

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7498 RSA No. 100075 of 2020

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

suit as sought for. Being aggrieved defendant No.1

¶65

preferred appeal in R.A.No.2/2019. On considering the grounds urged, the First Appellate Court framed the

¶66

following points for its consideration:

¶67

“1. Whether the trial court has erred in considering the appreciation of evidence and documentary evidence?

¶68

2. Whether interference of this court is required in the judgment of trial court?

¶69

3. What order or decree?”

¶70

The First Appellate Court by the impugned

¶71

judgment and decree dismissed the appeal confirming the judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the present appeal.

¶72

8. This Court vide order dated 10.06.2025 framed

¶73

the following substantial question of law:

¶74

i. Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in dismissing the appeal of the appellant and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court without reappreciating the facts, oral and documentary evidence led by the parties?

¶75

9. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset

¶76

drawing attention of this Court to paragraphs No.12 and

¶77

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7498 RSA No. 100075 of 2020

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

13 of the order of the First Appellate Court and vehemently submits that the First Appellate Court being the Court of records is required to appreciate the facts as original court and has thus failed to discharge this statutory obligation. He further submits that the First Appellate Court has neither adverted to any of the pleadings/contentions nor to any of the oral or documentary evidence produced by defendant No.1 or of the plaintiffs as the case may be and has merely dismissed the appeal confirming the judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court giving raise to substantial question of law warranting interference in the hands of this Court.

¶80

Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submit that the Trial court has extensively adverted to the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties and the First Appellate Court has narrated the said factual aspects of the matter in extenso in the impugned judgment. That though the First Appellate Court has not adverted to those aspects in detail, confirmation in the judgment and decree

¶81

9 -

¶82

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7498 RSA No. 100075 of 2020

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

passed by the Trial Court cannot be found fault with.

¶85

Hence, seeks for dismissal of the appeal.

¶86

Heard and perused the records.

¶87

The First Appellate Court being the final Court of facts is required to adjudicate the dispute between the parties adverting to and appreciating both oral and documentary evidence. It has to specifically advert to the issues involved in the matter particularly on facts and its judgment must reflect conscious application of mind with sufficient reasons. It is bound by the rules provided under Order XLI of Code of Civil Procedure, for the purpose of determination of the case fully and finally. It is not expected to merely nod its head with the finding and conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court expressing its approval without independently re-assessing and reappreciating pleadings and material on record.

¶88

In the instant case, perusal of paragraph No.13

¶89

of the judgment of the First Appellate Court indicate that

¶90

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7498 RSA No. 100075 of 2020

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

the entire case has been summed up in just two sentences without there being discussion, analysis or providing any reasons of any nature whatsoever. The judgment is cryptic and without any substance.

¶93

Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that such a cryptic judgment and order without any reasoning and discussions and appreciation of evidence cannot be sustained. The First Appellate Court has erred in not discharging its statutory obligation in reappreciating the factual and legal evidence led in by the parties in the matter. In that view of the matter, substantial question of law raised above, is answered in the negative. The appeal therefore succeeds.

¶94

Impugned judgement and order dated 04.12.2019 passed in R.A.No.2/2019 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagalkot is hereby set aside.

¶95

In the circumstances, the matter is remitted to

¶96

the First Appellate Court for reconsideration of the matter

¶97

11 -

¶98

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7498 RSA No. 100075 of 2020

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

afresh and to pass appropriate judgment and order in accordance with law.

¶101

Since the parties are being represented by their respective counsels, they shall appear before the First Appellate Court on 10.07.2025 without any further notice. The First Appellate Court after affording opportunities to the parties, shall proceed thereafter in accordance with law.

¶102

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶103

SH/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Shri.Sangappa S/O Gurappa Huddar v. Smt.Sangavva W/O Basavanthappa Huddar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Sangappa S/O Gurappa Huddar v. Smt.Sangavva W/O Basavanthappa Huddar

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

Sri K Varahal Reddy Vs Sri Mallikarjun

Anjuman-E-Islam Vs Dawalsab S/O Maliksab Anapakatti

Mr T Rama Rao Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

Udachappa S/O Neelappa Hanumapur Vs Ningappa Guddappa Hanumapur

Smt Kalakamma W/O. Basanagouda Police Patil Vs Sdhri Kalyanagouda S/O Basanagouda Police Patil

Mahesh S/O Mahabaleshwar Ramdurg Vs Kumari Laxmi D/O Manjunath Ramdurg