Sunil S/O Yamanappa Nayak v. Harishinghappa S/O Ishawarappa Lamani

Karnataka HC21 Jul 2025RSA/100826/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Dharwad Bench), M.G.S. Kamal J, 21.07.2025 — RSA No.100826/2017 c/w RSA No.100827/2017 (S.100 CPC, PAR): partition suits re Sy.No.167/P1 (6 acres 13 guntas), Muchakhandi village, Bagalkot; mutation entry M.E. No.2376/Ex.D1 alone conferred no title on defendants 8 and 9; presumption under S.133, Land Revenue Act rebutted; alleged 1987 partition with Badalawwa unproved; defendant No.10 (second son of Badalawwa) had locus standi and half share; additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27(b) CPC via order dated 17.06.2025; appeals dismissed, First Appellate Court decree dated 02.08.2017 confirmed.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellants (defendant Nos.8 and 9); the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 02.08.2017 in R.A. Nos.76/2015 and 86/2015 stands confirmed. ¶¶275

Sunil S/O Yamanappa Nayak Vs Harishinghappa S/O Ishawarappa Lamani — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellants (defendant Nos.8 and 9); the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 02.08.2017 in R.A. Nos.76/2015 and 86/2015 stands confirmed.

¶¶275

Issue for consideration

Substantial question (a), RSA No.100826/2017: whether the appellate court was right in reversing the trial court's judgment and decree when respondent No.1/defendant No.10 stood ex parte before the trial court in O.S. No.68/2014 and had no locus standi to question it. +7 more

¶¶165

Court's answer

Defendant No.10-Harasingappa, admittedly none other than the second son of Badalawwa, in whose favour Sy.No.167/P1 (6 acres 13 guntas) was admittedly granted, was entitled to half of the share in the said property.

¶¶262

Ratio / Principle

The contention that defendant No.10 had no locus standi to file the appeal cannot be countenanced; the first substantial question of law was answered accordingly.

¶¶266

Key takeaways

Defendants 8 and 9, having failed either to plead or prove their relationship with Badalawwa, could not contend that there was a prior partition between Badalawwa and their grandfather; the plea is one without substance, and the second substantial question of law was answered accordingly.ratio¶¶267
In view of this Court having permitted defendants 8 and 9 to lead further evidence, the third substantial question of law (regard to Ex.P-10) paled into insignificance.ratio¶¶268
From the documentary and oral evidence, the very premise of defendants 8 and 9's claim — that Badalawwa was the sister of their grandfather Ramachandrappa — was not proved.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeals under Section 100 CPC by defendant Nos.8 and 9 (Sunil and Ravindra, sons of Yamanappa Naik/Nayak) against the common judgment and decree dated 02.08.2017 of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot in R.A.Nos.76/2015 and 86/2015, whereby the First Appellate Court set aside the trial decrees dated 27.08.2015 in O.S.Nos.81/2012 and 68/2014 and decreed the partition suits concerning, inter alia, Sy.No.167/P1 (6 acres 13 guntas), Muchakhandi village, Bagalkot taluk. Held, dismissing the appeals and confirming the First Appellate Court's decree: (1) defendant No.10 Harasingappa, second son of grantee Badalawwa, had locus standi to appeal and was entitled to half the said land; (2) the appellants' claim rested only on mutation entry M.E. No.2376 (Ex.D1) and an alleged 1987 partition/'varadhi'; their pleaded relationship with Badalawwa as sister of their grandfather Ramachandrappa was not proved — DW5 and DW6 admitted she was not the own sister and that no document of relationship was produced, and the admitted genealogy (Ex.D17) undermined the plea; (3) the presumption attaching to revenue entries under Section 133 of the Land Revenue Act stood rebutted, a bare revenue entry without conveyance creating no title; (4) additional evidence received pursuant to this Court's order dated 17.06.2025 under Order 41 Rule 27(b) CPC did not advance their case; the substantial questions in RSA No.100827/2017 were not separately addressed on the joint submission of counsel. (Judgment paras 28-35)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9035 RSA No. 100826 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 100827 of 2017

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JULY 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

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

¶8

RSA.NO.100826/2017 (PAR) C/W RSA.NO.100827/2017 (PAR)

¶9

IN RSA.NO.100826/2017:

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SUNIL S/O. YAMANAPPA NAYAK, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MUCHAKHANDI L.T.NO.1, TQ & DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶12

RAVINDRA S/O. YAMANAPPA NAYAK, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O: SRI. LAXMI VENKATESHWAR KRUPA, PLOT NO.14, CB NAGAR, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD.

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI. S. S. PATIL & NANDISH H. PATIL, ADVOCATES)

¶15

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

¶16

AND:

¶17

HARISHINGAPPA S/O. ISHAWARAPPA LAMANI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

¶18

SALABAI W/O. HARISHINGAPPA LAMANI, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS.

¶19

1A. SUBBAVVA W/O. MANAPPA RATHOD @ LAMANI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: MUCHAKANDI L.T.NO.1, TQ & DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 111.

¶20

1B. HANAMANTH S/O. HARISHINGAPPA LAMANI, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: MUCHAKANDI L.T.NO.1, TQ & DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 111.

¶21

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9035 RSA No. 100826 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 100827 of 2017

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

1C. PARASHURAM S/O. HARISHINGAPPA LAMANI, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: MUCHAKANDI L.T.NO.1, TQ & DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 111.

¶24

1D. SHIVAKUMAR S/O. HARISHINGAPPA LAMANI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: MUCHAKANDI L.T.NO.1, TQ & DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 111.

¶25

KAMALABAI W/O. BABU RATHOD @ LAMANI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O: MUCHAKHANDI TANDA NO.1, NAVANAGAR, TQ & DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶26

SMT. DANABAI @ LAKKAVVA @ RENUKABAI W/O. CHANDRAPPA LAMANI, AGE: 72 YEARS,

¶27

(RESPONDENT NO.3 IS ALSO DEAD, THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF RESPONDENT NO.3 ARE ALREADY ON RECORD AS R2 & R4 TO R8)

¶28

HIRAPPA S/O. CHANDRAPPA LAMANI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MUCHAKHANDI L.T.NO.1, NAVANAGAR, TQ & DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶29

SONABAI W/O. RAMESH RATHOD, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: MUCHAKHANDI L.T.NO.1, NAVANAGAR, TQ & DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶30

ANASUBAI W/O. LAKKAPPA RATHOD, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: MUCHAKHANDI L.T.NO.1, NAVANAGAR, TQ & DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶31

PARUBAI W/O. PANDAPPA RATHOD, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: MUCHAKHANDI L.T.NO.1, NAVANAGAR, TQ & DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶32

SHANTABAAI W/O. PAMAPA RATHOD @ LAMANI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9035 RSA No. 100826 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 100827 of 2017

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

R/O: SHIGIKERI, TQ & DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶37

MENAKA W/O. THAVARAPPA RATHOD, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: MUCHAKHANDI L.T.NO.1, NAVANAGAR, TQ & DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶38

…RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR PROP - R1 (A TO D); R2, R4 TO R6, R8, R9 ARE SERVED; NOTICE TO R7 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶40

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, 1908 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.08.2017 PASSED IN R.A.NO.86 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BAGALKOT AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.68/2014 DATED 27.08.2015 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAGALKOT TO THE EXTENT OF DECREEING THE SUIT IN RESPECT OF SY.NO.167/P1 MEASURING 6 ACRES 13 GUNTAS SITUATED AT MUCHAKHANDI VILLAGE AND TALUK BAGALKOTE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶41

IN RSA.NO.100827/2017:

¶42

BETWEEN:

¶43

SUNIL S/O. YAMANAPPA NAIK, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MUCHAKHANDI L.T.NO.1, BAGALKOTE TQ & DIST – 587 103.

¶44

RAVINDRA S/O. YAMANAPPA NAIK, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O: SRI. LAXMI VENKATESHWAR KRUPA, PLOT NO.14, CB NAGAR, DHARWAD – 580 007. …APPELLANTS

¶45

(BY SRI. S. S. PATIL & NANDISH H. PATIL, ADVOCATES)

¶46

AND:

¶47

HEERAPPA @ IRAPPA S/O. CHANDRAPPA LAMANI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: RAJIVGHANDI ASHRAYA COLONY H.N.208, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT,

¶48

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9035 RSA No. 100826 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 100827 of 2017

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

TQ & DIST: BAGALKOT – 587 101.

¶51

RUKAMABAI W/O. CHANDRAPPA LAMANI, AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

¶52

KAMALABAI W/O. BABU RATHOD @ LAMANI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.

¶53

SONABAI W/O. RAMESH RATHOD, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.

¶54

ANASUYABAI W/O. LAKKAPPA LAMANI, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.

¶55

R2 TO R5 ARE R/O: MUCHAKHANDI L.T.NO.1, BAGALKOT TQ & DIST: 587 103.

¶56

PARUBAI W/O. PANDAPPA LAMANI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: HUDCO COLONY, NAVANAGAR, BAGAKLOTE, BAGALKOTE TQ & DIST – 587 101.

¶57

SHANTABAI W/O. POMAPPA LAMANI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SHIGIKERI (SHIRAGUPPA R.C), BAGALKOTE TQ & DIST – 587 103.

¶58

MENAKA W/O. THAVAREPPA LAMANI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: MUCHAKHANDI L.T.NO.1, BAGALKOTE TQ & DIST – 587 103.

¶59

BABU S/O. RAMAPPA LAMANI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MUCHAKHANDI L.T.NO.1, BAGALKOTE TQ & DIST – 587 103.

¶60

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. UMESH P. HAKKARKI, ADVOCATE FOR R5; R3 TO R5, R7 TO R9 ARE SERVED;

¶61

NOTICE TO R6 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED: 02.07.2018)

¶62

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, 1908 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.08.2017 PASSED IN R.A.NO.76 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF

¶63

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9035 RSA No. 100826 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 100827 of 2017

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BAGALKOT AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.81/2012 DATED 27.08.2015 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAGALKOT TO THE EXTENT OF DECREEING THE SUIT IN RESPECT OF SY.NO.167/P1 MEASURING 6 ACRES 13 GUNTAS SITUATED AT MUCHAKHANDI VILLAGE AND TALUK BAGALKOTE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶66

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

¶67

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶68

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

¶69

This appeal is by the appellants who are defendant Nos.8 and 9 in OS No.68/2014 aggrieved by the common judgment and decree dated 02.08.2017 passed in RA No.76/2015 and RA No.86/2015 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot (for short, ‘First Appellate Court’), by which the First Appellate Court while allowing the said appeals has set aside the common judgment and decree dated 27.08.2015 passed in OS No.81/2012 and OS No.68/2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bagalkot (for short, ‘Trial Court’) and has decreed the suit.

¶70

It is necessary at the outset to note that two suits in OS No.81/2012 and OS No.68/2014 were filed.

¶71

¶72

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9035 RSA No. 100826 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 100827 of 2017

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

Suit in OS No.81/2012 was filed by one Heerappa also known as Irappa seeking partition and declaration. Similarly, OS No.68/2014 is filed by one Kamalabai also seeking for partition and separate possession.

¶75

Though the aforesaid suits pertain to lands bearing RS No.161/B measuring 4 acres 7 guntas, land in RS No.167/P1 measuring 6 acres 13 guntas and land in RS No.202/1 measuring 4 acres all situated at Muchkhandi village, Taluk Bagalkot, the appellants/defendant Nos.8 and 9 herein are concerned only with regard to their rights in respect of land in Sy.No.167/P1 measuring 3 acres, arising out of the suit in O.S. No.68/2014. In that the Trial Court had declared appellants/defendant Nos.8 and 9 to be the absolute owners in possession of the said land in Sy.No.167/P1 measuring 3 acres.

¶76

However, apparently since both the suits in O.S. No.81/2012 and O.S. No.68/2014, were tried and common judgment was passed, against which two appeals in R.A. No.76 of 2015 and R.A. No.86/2015 were filed and common judgment was passed, defendant Nos.8 and 9

¶77

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9035 RSA No. 100826 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 100827 of 2017

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

though had limited grievances in respect of the said 3 acres of land in Sy.No.167/P1 have preferred these two appeals. Therefore, facts pertaining to suit in OS No.68/2014 alone is adverted to in these appeals.

¶80

The above suit in OS No.68/2014 is filed for partition and separate possession by one Smt. Kamalabai contending inter alia that;

¶81

(a) The original propositus Ishwarappa Lamani passed away leaving behind his wife Badalawwa, who also passed away leaving behind her sons namely, Chandrappa Lamani and Harasingh. Chandrappa Lamani died leaving behind his wife Danabai, a son namely, Heerappa (defendant No.2) and six daughters namely, Sonabai (defendant No.3), Anasubai (defendant No.4), Parubai (defendant No.5), Shantabai (defendant No.6), Kamalabai (plaintiff) and Menaka (defendant No.7). That

¶82

¶83

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9035 RSA No. 100826 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 100827 of 2017

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

there has been no partition of the joint family properties.

¶86

(b) The plaintiff and defendants being the legal representatives of Chandrappa Lamani are entitled for half share while remaining half share belongs to defendant No.10-Harasingh the other son of Badalawwa.

¶87

(c) That the defendant Nos.8 and 9 being nowhere concerned to the family of the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 to 7 and 10 have obtained their names entered in the revenue records in respect of the suit properties. The said entries are illegal and not binding on the plaintiff. Hence, the suits for partition.

¶88

Defendant Nos.2 and 9 filed written statement.

¶89

Defendant Nos.1, 4, 6 and 10 remained exparte.

¶90

Defendant No.2 in the written statement denied the plaint allegations and also contended that;

¶91

¶92

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9035 RSA No. 100826 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 100827 of 2017

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

(a) Genealogy furnished by the plaintiff

¶95

is incomplete and that certain other family properties have not been included in the suit. It is contended that the land in Sy. No.161/1B measuring 4 acres 7 guntas originally belonged to Chandarappa Lamani, who is the father of defendant Nos.1 to 7. As such, the plaintiff obtained her name in respect of the said land to an extent of 1 acre 15 guntas in collusion with revenue authorities.

¶96

(b) That defendant No.2 in OS No.68/2014 Heerappa Chandrappa Lamani had already filed a suit for partition in OS No.1/2012 and also for declaration of ME No.2701 in respect of land No.161/1B is not binding on him. It is also contended by defendant No.2 that the plaintiff who was defendant No.2 in OS No.81/2012, has executed registered deed of gift in favour of her husband in respect of Sy.No.161/1B to an extent of 4 acres 7 guntas

¶97

10 -

¶98

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9035 RSA No. 100826 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 100827 of 2017

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

on 17.11.2011. As such, the said document was

¶101

not binding on the defendants.

¶102

¶103

share in Sy. No.161/1B. Hence, requested the said registered deed of gift executed by the plaintiff in favour of her husband, would be declared as not binding.

¶104

Defendant No.9 filed written statement

¶105

contending inter alia that;

¶106

(a) The suit filed by the plaintiff is also not maintainable. The genealogy furnished by the plaintiff is also denied.

¶107

(b) The land bearing Sy. No.167/P1 measuring 6 acres 13 guntas situated at Muchakhandi Village is not at all the joint family property, but it is the property of the parents of the deceased Smt. Badalawwa W/o. Ishwarappa Lamani.

¶108

¶109

Naik, who is the grandfather of defendant No.9

¶110

11 -

¶111

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9035 RSA No. 100826 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 100827 of 2017

¶112

HC-KAR

¶113

had a sister by name Badalawwa, the wife of Ishwarappa Lamani also known as Rathod. The land in Sy.No.167/P1 measuring 6 acres 13 guntas belonged to Badalawwa and her brother Ramachandrappa, having succeeded through their parents. The said Ramachandrappa Dharamappa Naik died leaving behind his son Yamanappa Ramachandrappa Naik, who is the father of defendant Nos.8 and 9.

¶114

(d) The partition in respect of RS No.167 had taken place between the father of defendant Nos.8 and 9 namely, Yamanappa Ramachandrappa Naik and Smt. Badalawwa Ishwarappa Lamani in the year 1987. In the said partition, an extent of 3 acres of land out of RS No.167 had been allotted to the share of father of the defendant and remaining 3 acres 13 guntas was allotted to the share of Smt. Badalawwa W/o. Ishwarappa Lamani. In furtherance to the said partition, mutation

¶115

12 -

¶116

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9035 RSA No. 100826 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 100827 of 2017

¶117

HC-KAR

¶118

entries vide ME No.2376 was effected on 07.04.1987, which was certified on 13.05.1987.

¶119

(e) As such, it is contented that defendant

¶120

Nos.8 and 9 are the absolute owners in possession of southern portion of 3 acres of land in RS No.167/P1 of Muchkhandi Village. The remaining portion of land is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 7.

¶121

(f) It is however admitted that defendant Nos.8 and 9 have no concern with any other properties and plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 7 have no share, right, title and interest with respect to 3 acres of land in RS No.167/P1 of Muchkhandi village. Hence, sought for dismissal

¶122

of the suit filed by the plaintiff in respect of land in RS No.167/P1 measuring 3 acres.

¶123

The Trial Court framed the following issues in

¶124

OS No.68/2014 for its consideration:

¶125

13 -

¶126

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9035 RSA No. 100826 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 100827 of 2017

¶127

HC-KAR

¶128

ISSUES

¶129

1. Whether plaintiff proves that suit schedule 'B' properties are Hindu undivided ancestral Joint family properties?

¶130

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, she is in joint possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties along with defendants?

¶131

3. Whether the defendant No.2 proves that suit filed by the plaintiff is bad for non-inclusion of other family property i.e., R.S.No.167/1B an extent 04-Acres 07-Gunthas situated Muchakhandi village?

¶132

4. Whether defendant No.2 proves that, M.E.No.2701 in respect of Sy.No.167/1B in the name of present plaintiff and also registered gift deed executed in favour of her husband in respect of same Sy. No. 16/1B dated 17.11.2011 is not binding on him?

¶133

5. Whether defendant No.2 proves that, he is entitled his share not only in the suit schedule 'B' properties but also in Sy.No. 161/1B prayed for?

¶134

6. Whether defendant No.8 and 9 prove that they are the absolute owner of 03-Ace of land in suit Sy. No. 167/P1 towards southern side out of total extent?

¶135

7. Whether defendant No.8 and 9 further prove that, there has been partition held in respect of suit Sy. No. 167 in between father of these defendants by name Yamanappa Ramachandrappa with Smt. Badalawwa Ishwarappa Lamani who is mother of plaintiff and defendant No. 1 to 7 in the year 1987?

¶136

8. What order or decree?

¶137

14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9035 RSA No. 100826 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 100827 of 2017

¶138

HC-KAR

¶139

On appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court in OS No.68/2014 answered issue Nos.1, 2 partly in the affirmative, issue Nos.4 and 5 in the negative, issue Nos.6, 7 in the affirmative and consequently, decreed the suit declaring that, defendant No.8 and 9 in O.S.No.68/2014 are absolute owner and in possession of the land an extent 03-Acres in suit Sy.No.167/P1 out of total extent of 06Acres 13-Gunthas towards southern side.

¶140

Being aggrieved, defendant No.10-

¶141

Harasingappa in O.S. No.68/2014 filed an appeal in R.A. No.86/2015.

¶142

The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the matter passed the following order:

¶143

“The regular appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff in R.A. No.76/2015 is hereby allowed.

¶144

The regular appeal filed by the appellant/defendant No.10 in R.A. No.86/2015 is hereby allowed.

¶145

The judgment and decree passed by the Sr. Civil Judge, Bagalkot in O.S. No.81/2012 and O.S. No.68/2014 are hereby set aside.

¶146

15 -

¶147

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9035 RSA No. 100826 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 100827 of 2017

¶148

HC-KAR

¶149

It is ordered and decreed that M.E. No.2701, M.R. No.H-39/2011-12 and consequent registered gift deed dated 17.11.2011 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.8 is declared as null and void.

¶150

The plaintiff Heerappa and defendant No.1 Rukmabai are entitled for 9/24^th share each. The defendants No.2 to 7 are entitled for 1/24^th share each in O.S. No.81/2012 with respect to land bearing R.S. No.161/1B measuring 4 acres 7 guntas situated at Muchakhandi village in Bagalakot taluk.

¶151

The plaintiff and defendants Nos.3 to 7 are entitled for 1/48^th share each. The defendants No.1 and 2 are entitled for 9/48^th share each. The appellant / defendant No.10 is entitled for half share in O.S. No.68/2014 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.167/P1 measuring 6 acres 13 guntas and R.S. No.202/2/1 measuring 4 acres both situated at Muchkhandi village in Bagalkot taluk.

¶152

No order as to costs.

¶153

The office is directed to draw preliminary decree accordingly.

¶154

Send back the records of trial Court with certified copy of this judgment.

¶155

Keep the original copy of judgment in R.A. No.76/2015 and copy thereof in R.A. No.86/2015.”

¶156

The appellants, who are defendant Nos.8 and 9

¶157

in O.S. No.68/2014 are before this Court being aggrieved

¶158

by the order of the First Appellate Court to the extent granting share in the property bearing Sy.No.167/P1 by

¶159

16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9035 RSA No. 100826 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 100827 of 2017

¶160

HC-KAR

¶161

holding that the trial Court had committed an error in conferring the absolute ownership of right to the extent of

¶162

3 acres on the southern side of the land in Sy.No.167/P1.

¶163

This Court by order dated 05.04.2018 admitted the aforesaid appeals for consideration of the following substantial questions of law:

¶164

“In RSA No.100826/2017:

¶165

(a) Whether the appellate Court is right in reversing the judgment and decree passed b y the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court when the respondent No.1 / defendant No.10 has placed exparte before the trial Court in O.S. No.68/2014 and who has no locus standi to question the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court?

¶166

(b) Whether Appellate Court is right in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court in respect of Sy.No.167/P1 measuring 6 acres 13 guntas especially when there is already partition between the mother of plaintiff and father of defendants 8 and 9 / appellants in the year 1987 and wherein 3 acres of land in respect of Sy.No.167/P1 has been allotted to the father of appellants?

¶167

(c) Whether the Appellate Court is right in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff and allowing the appeal filed by the respondent No.1 without considering the Ex.P-10 document in proper perspective?

¶168

17 -

¶169

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9035 RSA No. 100826 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 100827 of 2017

¶170

HC-KAR

¶171

In RSA No.100827/2017:

¶172

(a) Whether the Appellate Court is right in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court when the appellants are necessary and proper parties who were not made parties in O.S. No.81/2012?

¶173

(b) Whether the Appellate Court is right in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff and allowing the appeal filed by the respondent No.1 without considering the Ex.P-10 and P-12 document in proper perspective?

¶174

(c) Whether the Appellate Court is right in reversing the finding recorded by the trial Court in respect of Sy.No.167/P1 measuring 6 acres 13 guntas especially when the suit finding recorded by the trial Court does not suffer from any perversity or illegality?

¶175

(d) Whether the Appellate Court is right in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff of partition without discharging the burden of proof of the existing of joint family property in respect of Sy.No.167/P1 in terms of provision contained under Indian Evidence Act?

¶176

Learned counsel for the parties submitted in unison that the present appeals be restricted to the substantial questions of law framed in RSA No.100826/2017 inasmuch as the substantial questions of law framed in RSA No.100827/2017 essentially pertains to suit in OS No.81/2012 to which the appellants were not parties. Submission is taken on record.

¶177

18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9035 RSA No. 100826 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 100827 of 2017

¶178

HC-KAR

¶179

Before averting to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary at this juncture to note that the main grounds urged by the appellants/defendant Nos.8 and 9 in the appeal memo is that the First Appellate Court ought not to have reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court conferring and declaring the right, title and interests of defendant Nos.8 and 9 in O.S. No.68/2014 to the extent of 3 acres of land in Sy.No.167/P1 merely on the premise that the appellants/defendant Nos.8 and 9 had not entered the witness box. It was contended that the application in I.A. No.2/2014 was filed seeking production of additional documents. This Court on 17.06.2025 on consideration of the said application in I.A. No.2 of 2017 passed the following order:

¶180

“ORAL ORDER ON I.A. NO.2/2017

¶181

This appeal is by defendant Nos.8 and 9 against the judgment and order dated 02.08.2017, passed in R.A. No.76/2015 on the file of the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot (for short “the First Appellate Court”) by which the First Appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2015, passed in O.S. No.68/2014 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bagalkot (for short “the trial Court”) in terms of

¶182

19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9035 RSA No. 100826 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 100827 of 2017

¶183

HC-KAR

¶184

which defendant Nos.8 and 9 were declared to be the owners in possession of the land to an extent of 3 acres in Sy.No.167/P1 out of total extent of 6 acres 13 guntas towards southern side.

¶185

The Trial Court had framed issue Nos.6 and 7 in the aforesaid O.S. No.68/2014 casting burden on defendant Nos.8 and 9 to prove their claim of absolute ownership in respect of 3 acres of land in suit Sy.No.167/P1 towards southern side and also casting burden on them to prove if there was a partition between their father, namely, Sri. Yamanappa Ramachandrappa Lamani and Smt. Badalawwa Ishwarappa Lamani, mother of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 7 and 10 in the year 1987 as claimed in their written statement.

¶186

However, though defendant Nos.8 and 9 neither entered the witness box nor led any evidence, the trial Court based on Ex.P10 which is the RTC extract for the year 2013-2014 has held that, since their name is mentioned in ownership column No.9, it implies that they are the owners of land to an extent of 3 acres in Sy.No.167/P1. Accordingly, declared them to be the owners in possession of the said extent of land.

¶187

As against this finding and conclusion and the decree passed thereon, defendant No.10-Harishinghappa filed appeal in RA No.86/2015 which was allowed by the First Appellate Court by holding that in the absence of defendant Nos.8 and 9 entering witness box and leading evidence, the trial Court ought not to have declared the title in their favour.

¶188

Aggrieved by the aforesaid finding in RA No.86/2015 defendant Nos.8 and 9 have preferred the present appeal. Along with the present appeal, the appellants have filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of seeking to produce following additional documents namely,

¶189

(i) Death certificate of mother of the appellants, (ii) Discharge summary certificate,

¶190

(iii) Discharge summary sheet and

¶191

20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9035 RSA No. 100826 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 100827 of 2017

¶192

HC-KAR

¶193

(iv) Medical certificate and the relevant documents to show that the appellants’ mother was taking treatment in the hospital due to the ill health,

¶194

(v) Copy of the RTC in respect of Sy.No.167/P1 and also

¶195

(vi) Copy of the document maintained by Grama Panchayath in No.2376.

¶196

In the affidavit accompanying application, it is contended that defendant Nos.8 and 9-appellants herein, could not lead the evidence before the trial Court as they were taking care of their mother who was suffering from serious ill-health and was admitted in different hospitals and they were only concentrating on the health of their mother.

¶197

A perusal of document No.4 indicate certain entries have been made in the village revenue records to the effect that the land in Sy.No.167 belonged to Smt. Badalavva and that Sri. Yamanappa was her relative and based on her varadhi an extent of 3 acres of land has been made over in his name as a joint coowner. Based on this, the defendant Nos.8 and 9- appellants herein are claiming their right, title and interest over the property.

¶198

Necessary also to note that even defendant No.10 who is claiming to be entitled for the aforesaid 3 acres of land in Sy.No.167/P1 has neither filed his written statement nor entered the witness box. Thus, there is no evidence either by defendant Nos.8 and 9-appellants herein or by defendant No.10 in respect of said 3 acres of land. Thus, both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court have not adverted to this aspect of the matter.

¶199

Production of additional evidence may be permitted by the Appellate Court to enable it to pronounce the judgment are for any other substantial cause as provided under Order 41 Rule 27(b) of the CPC. In the circumstances narrated above, this Court is of the considered view that application filed by the defendant Nos.8 and 9 – appellants herein is required to be allowed to enable this Court to pronounce the

¶200

21 -

¶201

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9035 RSA No. 100826 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 100827 of 2017

¶202

HC-KAR

¶203

judgment by adjudicating the matter effectively. Accordingly, the following order:

¶204

(a) The application in I.A. No.2/2017 is allowed.

¶205

(b) The First Appellate Court is directed to receive documents namely (i) the RTC in respect of Sy.No.167/P1 and (ii) the document maintained by Gram Pachayat in No.2376 produced along with the application in I.A. No.2/2017

¶206

(c) Defendant No.10 is at liberty to cross-examine defendant Nos.8 and 9 including confronting / producing the documents during the crossexamination.

¶207

(d) Parties shall appear before the First Appellate Court on 25.06.2025.

¶208

(e) The First Appellate Court after taking the evidence shall record its finding and forward the same to this Court on or before 21.07.2025.

¶209

(f) It is made clear that defendant Nos.8 and 9 shall not take any adjournment and shall make themselves available on the date and time to be fixed by the First Appellate Court. ”

¶210

Accordingly, the First Appellate Court has recorded the evidence of the appellants / defendant Nos.8 and 9 as well as plaintiff and forwarded the same to this

¶211

Court.

¶212

22 -

¶213

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9035 RSA No. 100826 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 100827 of 2017

¶214

HC-KAR

¶215

Learned counsel for the appellants fairly submits that though on the evidence recorded pursuant to the orders of this Court, it has come on record that Badalawwa was not related to Ramachandrappa Lamani as contended by defendant Nos.8 and 9 in the written statement, the fact that the names of defendant Nos.8 and 9 being reflected in the revenue records cannot be denied. He submits that the longstanding reflection of names of defendant Nos.8 and 9 in the revenue records cannot be termed to be one without any basis and the same not having been challenged in the manner known to law, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 7 and 10 cannot take advantage of the same. He submits that, in that view of the matter, the Trial Court was justified in holding that defendant Nos.8 and 9 indeed had title in respect of 3 acres of land, which ought not to have been reversed by the First Appellate Court. Hence, he submits that the substantial question of law framed in the present appeals needs to be answered accordingly.

¶216

23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9035 RSA No. 100826 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 100827 of 2017

¶217

HC-KAR

¶218

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 7 and 10 taking this Court through the records, submits that the Trial Court originally had decreed the suit in respect of 3 acres of land in Sy.No.167/P1, declaring that defendant Nos.8 and 9 to be the owners of the said property merely based on the revenue entry vide M.E. No.2376, as per Ex.D1, though they had not entered the witness box, which, had been rightly set aside by the First Appellate Court. He submitted that, even after this Court allowing the application in I.A. No.2/2017 permitting defendant Nos.8 and 9 to produce documents and to lead evidence, they have not brought on record any documents justifying their claim in respect of 3 acres of land in Sy.No.167/P1. He takes this Court through the deposition of both appellants/defendant Nos.8 and 9 who were examined as DW5 and DW6 and points out that the said witnesses have categorically admitted that Badalawwa was not related to their father and that they had not produced any document to establish any relationship between Badalawwa and their father. He

¶219

24 -

¶220

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9035 RSA No. 100826 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 100827 of 2017

¶221

HC-KAR

¶222

submits that in the absence of there being any relationship between Badalawwa and the father of defendant Nos.8 and 9, the claim of defendant Nos.8 and 9 in respect of 3 acres of land in Sy.No.167/P1, merely based on some erroneous mutation entries cannot be accepted, in the absence of any deed of conveyance made in the manner known to law. Referring to the genealogy furnished by appellant in page No.7 of the appeal memo, learned counsel points out that, if the genealogy as furnished by the appellant is taken into consideration, the relationship of Badalawwa and Ishwarappa may have to be seen as that of husband and wife. In other words, it would amount to Ishwarappa, the elder brother of Dharmappa having married to Badalawwa, daughter of Dharmappa, which is not only impermissible also incomprehensible. Thus, he submits that the very foundational pleading set up by defendant Nos.8 and 9 in the written statement is erroneous and the same not having been proved in the evidence, the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court declining to grant any right in favour of

¶223

25 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9035 RSA No. 100826 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 100827 of 2017

¶224

HC-KAR

¶225

defendant Nos.8 and 9 in respect of 3 acres of land in R.S No.167/1/P is justified and the same does not warrant any interference. As such he seeks to answer the substantial

¶226

question of law framed by the Court in the appeals accordingly.

¶227

Heard. Perused the records.

¶228

Though two appeals have been filed by the appellants/defendant Nos.8 and 9 in O.S. No.68/2014, the

¶229

issue which requires to be adjudicated in this appeal pertains to an extent of 3 acres of land in Sy.No.167/P1 and as such there is no requirement of going through any other aspect of the matter with respect to any other property, subject matter of the lis .

¶230

The appellants herein were impleaded as defendants Nos.8 and 9 by the plaintiff - Kamalabai in her suit in O.S. No.68/2014 merely because their names were entered in the revenue records vide M.E. No.2376 vide Ex.D1, showing an extent of 3 acres of land in Sy.No.167/P1 in their name. The specific case of Kamalabai and defendants Nos.1 to 7 and 10 in the said

¶231

26 -

¶232

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9035 RSA No. 100826 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 100827 of 2017

¶233

HC-KAR

¶234

suit is that defendants Nos.8 and 9 are in no way concerned with the family of the plaintiff and defendants Nos.1 to 7 and 10. However, based on certain brought up documents, the said defendant Nos.8 and 9 had obtained their names mutated in the revenue records in collusion with the revenue authorities.

¶235

It is the specific case of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 7 and 10 that the land in Sy.No.167/P1 was granted in favour of Badalawwa back in the year 1970 and the said Badalawwa had passed away leaving behind her two sons by name Chandarappa and Harasingh. The Chandrappa passed away leaving behind his wife Dhanubahi, defendant No.1 and his children, namely defendant Nos.2 to 7 and the plaintiff, to succeed to half of his share in the land in Sy.No.167/P1 and the remaining half to be succeeded by Harasingh, who was arrayed as defendant No.10 in the said suit.

¶236

Contrary to the said case in O.S.No.68/2014, defendants Nos.8 and 9, who are the appellants in the present appeal had set up a plea that their father

¶237

27 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9035 RSA No. 100826 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 100827 of 2017

¶238

HC-KAR

¶239

Ramachandrappa and Badalawwa were brother and sister,

¶240

and Badalawwa had voluntarily given a varadhi, based on which an extent of 3 acres of land was made over in the name of their grandfather Ramachandrappa and upon his demise the names of defendant Nos.8 and 9 were mutated in the revenue records vide M.E. No.2376 as per Ex.D1.

¶241

Upon the limited remand made by this Court, vide order dated 17.06.2025 permitting the defendants to lead their evidence, they had produced the documents. The appellants/defendant Nos.8 and 9 have examined themselves as DW5 and DW6 respectively and have produced The documents, which were marked as Exs.D1 to D7 and during the cross-examination of the witnesses, the documents at Exs.D12 to D17 have been marked and one of which is the genealogy marked in Ex.D17, which is unequivocally admitted by DW5 and DW6. The said genealogy reads as under:

¶242

28 -

¶243

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9035 RSA No. 100826 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 100827 of 2017

¶244

HC-KAR

¶245

The cross-examination of the said witnesses

¶246

specifically with reference to the contents of Ex.D7 is required to be noted. In that, DW5 has pleaded ignorance as to whom did the land in R.S.167/P1 originally belonged to. He has also pleaded ignorance as to the name of father of Badalawwa and also as to who are the siblings of said

¶247

29 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9035 RSA No. 100826 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 100827 of 2017

¶248

HC-KAR

¶249

Badalawwa. He has admitted that said Badalawwa was not the own sister of his grandfather Ramachandrappa.

¶250

Defendant No.9 who is examined as DW6 and in

¶251

his cross-examination though has admitted that his father Yamanappa was the only son to his grandfather Ramachandrappa and though has denied that the said Ramachandrappa did not have any daughter by name Badalawwa, has admitted that he has not furnished any documents to show that said Badalawwa was indeed the daughter of his grandfather Ramachandrappa. He has also deposed that he has not even made any attempt to obtain the genealogy to reflect the name of Badalawwa to be the member of the family. He has also pleaded ignorance as to the place of domicile of said Badalawwa. Has also pleaded ignorance that the name of father of Badalawwa was Bojappa. He has admitted that he has not produced any document to show that said Badalawwa was the sister of his grandfather Ramachandrappa.

¶252

Thus, what emanates from the aforesaid documentary and oral evidence is that, the very premise

¶253

30 -

¶254

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9035 RSA No. 100826 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 100827 of 2017

¶255

HC-KAR

¶256

on which defendant Nos.8 and 9 claimed their right, title and interest to the extent of 3 acres of land in Sy.No.167/P1 is that the said Badalawwa being the sister of their grandfather Ramachandrappa and the same has not been proved. It is also not proved as to how Badalawwa was related to said Ramachandrappa’s family.

¶257

Thus, in the absence of any pre-existing right in the subject property namely 3 acres of land in Sy.No.167/P1, defendant Nos.8 and 9 cannot claim and substantiate their right, title and interest over the said land merely based on certain entries made in the mutation records vide Ex.D1.

¶258

Though learned counsel for the appellants submits that the longstanding entries in the mutation records reflecting the names of defendant Nos.8 and 9 needs to be taken into consideration, the said submission cannot be accepted for the reason that in terms of Section 133 of the Land Revenue Act, a presumption of revenue entries would subsist until they are rebutted. In the instant case, since plaintiff in O.S. No.68/2014 and defendants

¶259

31 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9035 RSA No. 100826 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 100827 of 2017

¶260

HC-KAR

¶261

Nos.1 to 7 and 10 have established that they are the true descendants of Badalawwa through her first son Chandrappa and defendants Nos.8 and 9 being strangers which fact has not been disputed, and mere entry in the revenue records in respect of an immovable property, without there being any conveyance in the manner known to law, cannot be construed to have created any right in their favour. Therefore the Trial Court, as rightly taken note of by the First Appellate Court grossly erred in holding that defendant Nos.8 and 9 to be the owners to the extent of 3 acres of land in Sy.No.167/P1 merely because of their names were reflected in the revenue records and the same cannot be found fault with.

¶262

The first substantial question of law is with regard to the appeal filed by defendant No.1 and defendant No.10. Defendant No.10 - Harasingappa, who is admittedly none other than the second son of Badalawwa. The property in Sy.No.167/P1 measuring 6 acres 13 guntas admittedly granted in favour of Badalawwa. Defendant No.10 being the only other son, would be

¶263

32 -

¶264

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9035 RSA No. 100826 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 100827 of 2017

¶265

HC-KAR

¶266

entitled for half of the share in said property. The contention that he has no locus standi to file the appeal is therefore cannot be countenanced. The first substantial question of law in the light of the aforesaid facts is answered accordingly.

¶267

The second substantial question of law, in the light of defendant Nos.8 and 9 failing either to plead or prove of the relationship with Badalawwa, as noted above, cannot be heard to say that there was prior partition between Badalawwa and their grandfather. The said plea is one without substance. As such the second substantial question of law is also answered accordingly.

¶268

In the light of this Court permitting defendant Nos.8 and 9 to lead further evidence, the third substantial question of law would pale into insignificance.

¶269

The substantial questions of law framed in RSA No.100827/2017 arise out of the facts and circumstances of the case in OS No.81/2012 to which the appellants/defendant Nos.8 and 9 were not parties. Since land in Sy.No.167/P1 measuring 6 acres 13 guntas is also

¶270

33 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9035 RSA No. 100826 of 2017 C/W RSA No. 100827 of 2017

¶271

HC-KAR

¶272

subject matter of the said suit, and in the light of this Court having adverted to the substantial questions of law framed in RSA No.100826/2017 as above declining to

¶273

accept the case of the defendant Nos.8 and 9 for the reasons recorded hereinabove, and in the light of submission made by the learned counsel for the parties there is no need for specifically addressing the substantial questions of law framed in RSA No.100827/2017.

¶274

Accordingly, appeals are dismissed. The

¶275

judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is confirmed.

¶276

In light of the dismissal of the appeals, pending

¶277

applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same are disposed off.

¶278

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

¶279

SMM- up to para 12 VNP – para 13 to till end CT-ASC/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Issues for consideration

8 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Substantial question (a), RSA No.100826/2017: whether the appellate court was right in reversing the trial court's judgment and decree when respondent No.1/defendant No.10 stood ex parte before the trial court in O.S. No.68/2014 and had no locus standi to question it.¶¶165
The court held
Defendant No.10-Harasingappa, admittedly none other than the second son of Badalawwa, in whose favour Sy.No.167/P1 (6 acres 13 guntas) was admittedly granted, was entitled to half of the share in the said property.ratio¶¶262
2.
Substantial question (b), RSA No.100826/2017: whether the appellate court was right in reversing the trial court's decree regarding Sy.No.167/P1 when there was allegedly already a partition in 1987 between the mother of the plaintiff and the father of defendants 8 and 9, allotting 3 acres to the latter.¶¶166
The court held
Defendants 8 and 9, having failed either to plead or prove their relationship with Badalawwa, could not contend that there was a prior partition between Badalawwa and their grandfather; the plea is one without substance, and the second substantial question of law was answered accordingly.ratio¶¶267
3.
Substantial question (c), RSA No.100826/2017: whether the appellate court was right in decreeing the plaintiff's suit and allowing respondent No.1's appeal without considering Ex.P-10 in proper perspective.¶¶167
The court held
In view of this Court having permitted defendants 8 and 9 to lead further evidence, the third substantial question of law (regard to Ex.P-10) paled into insignificance.ratio¶¶268
4.
Substantial question (a), RSA No.100827/2017: whether the appellate court was right in reversing the trial court's judgment when the appellants, necessary and proper parties, were not made parties in O.S. No.81/2012.¶¶172
The court held
The substantial questions of law framed in RSA No.100827/2017 (arising from O.S. No.81/2012, to which the appellants were not parties) required no specific addressing, given the joint submission of learned counsel and the Court's answers in RSA No.100826/2017 declining the defendants' case.ratio¶¶273
5.
Substantial question (b), RSA No.100827/2017: whether the appellate court was right in decreeing the plaintiff's suit without considering Ex.P-10 and P-12 in proper perspective.¶¶173
6.
Substantial question (c), RSA No.100827/2017: whether the appellate court was right in reversing the trial court's finding on Sy.No.167/P1 when that finding suffered from no perversity or illegality.¶¶174
7.
Substantial question (d), RSA No.100827/2017: whether the appellate court could decree partition without discharging the burden of proving existence of joint family property in Sy.No.167/P1 in terms of the Indian Evidence Act.¶¶175
8.
Scope of adjudication: the appeals concern only the appellants' claimed rights to an extent of 3 acres in Sy.No.167/P1 arising from O.S. No.68/2014.¶¶229

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Common judgment and decree dated 02.08.2017 in R.A. No.76/2015 (by plaintiff Heerappa) and R.A. No.86/2015 (by defendant No.10-Harasingappa), whereby the First Appellate Court allowed both appeals, set aside the trial court's judgment and decree in O.S. Nos.81/2012 and 68/2014 and decreed the suits with declared shares, disturbing the trial court's declaration of the appellants' ownership of 3 acres in Sy.No.167/P1.¶¶145
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot (First Appellate Court) · 02.08.2017
Prior proceeding
Two suits were tried together: O.S. No.81/2012 (by Heerappa @ Irappa, for partition and declaration) and O.S. No.68/2014 (by Kamalabai, for partition and separate possession) concerning lands including RS No.161/B, RS No.167/P1 and RS No.202/1 at Muchkhandi village.¶¶74
Prior proceeding
In O.S. No.68/2014, defendant Nos.2 and 9 filed written statements; defendant Nos.1, 4, 6 and 10 remained ex parte.¶¶89
Prior proceeding
Trial Court (common judgment dated 27.08.2015 in O.S. Nos.81/2012 and 68/2014) decreed the suit declaring defendant Nos.8 and 9 absolute owners in possession of 3 acres in Sy.No.167/P1 towards southern side out of 6 acres 13 guntas.¶¶139
Prior proceeding
This Court admitted the appeals by order dated 05.04.2018 framing substantial questions of law in both RSAs.¶¶163
Prior proceeding
By oral order dated 17.06.2025 on I.A. No.2/2017 (additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27(b) CPC), this Court allowed production of the RTC for Sy.No.167/P1 and the Gram Panchayat document in No.2376, gave defendant No.10 liberty of cross-examination, and directed the First Appellate Court to record evidence, find and forward the same to this Court on or before 21.07.2025.¶¶205
Prior proceeding
Pursuant to the limited remand, the First Appellate Court recorded the evidence of defendant Nos.8 and 9 (examined as DW5 and DW6) and of the plaintiff, and forwarded it to this Court.¶¶210

Sunil S/O Yamanappa Nayak v. Harishinghappa S/O Ishawarappa Lamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil S/O Yamanappa Nayak v. Harishinghappa S/O Ishawarappa Lamani

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 Krisnachand Thaku S/O Indrachand Thakur Vs Smt Deepika Kumari Sing

Smt. Khajabee W/O Rajasab Vs Smt. Vasumathi W/O Arun Apte

Sri. Imtiyaz Ahamad S/O Rehmansab Tattimani Vs Sri. Naseeruddin S/O Jalaluddin Inamdar

Sri. T Shashidhar S/O T. Rameshwar Rao Alias T Ramesh Vs Sri. U Mahdusudhan Reddy S/O Late U Thimma Reddy

Rachayya K Gurayyanavar Vs Shri. Siddharoodha

Shrishail S/O Parutappa Bhavi Since Deceased by Lrs Vs Shrishail Basalingappa Koti