Dismissed¶¶55

Shekhappa @ Rekhu Siddappa Lamani v. Irappa Hanumantappa Waddar

Karnataka HC8 Oct 2025RSA/100947/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Dharwad — RSA No. 100947 of 2014, decided 08.10.2025 by C M Joshi, J. Keywords: second appeal; partition suit; purchasers as defendants; no written statement; remand refused; communication gap plea; vigilant/slumber maxim; new ground in second appeal barred absent pleading; partial partition remedy; Section 100 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 CPC; O.S.No.165/2009; R.A.No.8/2011; Hangal courts; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The law comes to the aid of the vigilant and not of those who slumber; the appellants, despite receiving summons and appearing before the Trial Court, did not resist the suit, and there was no material showing their counsel made any submissions; having not participated in the trial effectively, they cannot urge before this Court that their contentions were not heard. ¶¶50

Shekhappa @ Rekhu Siddappa Lamani Vs Irappa Hanumantappa Waddar — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13634 RSA No. 100947 of 2014

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100947 OF 2014 (PAR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHEKHAPPA @ REKHU SIDDAPPA LAMANI AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAREKYATANAHALLI, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI.

¶10

SHIDDAPPA S/O. TAYAPPA LAMANI, AGE: 82 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAREKYATANAHALLI, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI.

¶11

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S.

¶12

SMT. GUJARAVVA W/O. SHIDDAPPA LAMANI, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAREKYATANAHALLI, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI.

¶13

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR

¶14

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Date: 2025.10.09 10:03:00 +0530

¶15

CHANNABASAPPA S/O. SHIDDAPPA LAMANI AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAREKYATANAHALLI, TQ. HANGAL,

¶16

DIST. HAVERI.)

¶17

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S WIFE.

¶18

NAGAVVA W/O. CHANABASAPPA LAMANI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAREKYATANAHALLI, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI.

¶19

RAMA S/O. SHIDDAPPA LAMANI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAREKYATANAHALLI, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI.

¶20

…APPELLANTS

¶21

(BY SRI. B.S. KUKANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶22

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13634 RSA No. 100947 of 2014

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

AND:

¶26

IRAPPA HANUMANTAPPA WADDAR AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, C/O. SMT.SEEMA LAXMAN WADDAR, DOGURAWADI-66, GARPADIGAON POST, PUNE-1, MAHARASHTRA STATE.

¶27

SMT. DEEPU W/O RAHUL MAKARAWALI, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HULAGINAKOPPA, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI.

¶28

KUM. ROJA IRAPPA WADDAR AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. HULAGINAKOPPA, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI+-581104.

¶29

MADHU IRAPPA WADDAR AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. HULAGINAKOPPA, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI-581104.

¶30

RAKESH IRAPPA WADDAR AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. HULAGINAKOPPA, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI-581104.

¶31

SMT. SHARADA W/O IRAPPA WADDAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD AND COOLIE, R/O. HULAGINAKOPPA, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI-581104.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(R1 TO R6 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶34

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W. ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.08.2014 IN R.A.NO.8/2011 PASSED BY THE SENIOR DIVISION CIVIL JUDGE, HANGAL AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.05.2011 PASSED BY CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HANGAL IN O.S.NO.165/2009, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND CONSEQUENTLY THE SUIT IS TO BE DISMISSED.

¶35

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13634 RSA No. 100947 of 2014

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

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

¶38

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶39

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)

¶40

Heard.

¶41

The appellants are the respondents before the First appellate Court and defendants No.2 and 3 before the Trial Court. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for partition contending that the suit property was owned by one Thimmanna who had two sons namely Yallappa and Hanumanthappa. Thimmanna died in the year 1959. The suit schedule property was granted to Thimmanna by the Government, by order dated 12.04.1958. After death of Thimmanna, his sons Yallappa and Hanumanthappa succeeded to the suit schedule property. Hanumanthappa died in the year 1985. After his death, the name of the defendant No.1 was entered as a legal heir and accordingly, an entry was made in M.E. No.1198. The plaintiff No.5 is the wife of defendant No.1 and plaintiffs No.1 to 4 are the children born to them. It was contended that the defendant No.1 has alienated the property in favour of defendants No.2 and 3, even though the plaintiffs had a share in it and therefore, the

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13634 RSA No. 100947 of 2014

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

said alienation is not binding on the plaintiffs. Alleging that the defendant No.1 was addicted to bad vices, the alienation was not for the family necessity, they sought partition in the suit schedule property.

¶45

After issuance of summons, the defendants though appeared, did not file any written statement. They even did not contest the suit before the Trial Court. The Trial Court after the trial, decreed the suit in part. It rejected the prayer to declare that the sale deeds executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 is not binding, since separate Court fee has not been paid. The First appellate Court in the appeal filed by the plaintiffs, rectified the said error stating that it is a consequential relief and therefore, the Trial Court had erred to that extent.

¶46

Now, questioning the decree passed by the Trial Court as well as the First appellate Court, the defendants No.2 and 3, who are the purchasers of the property from the defendant No.1 have approached this Court in the second appeal. Obviously, the appellants herein did not resist the suit or the first appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants submit

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13634 RSA No. 100947 of 2014

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

that there was a communication gap between the defendants No.2 and 3 and their counsel who represented before the Trial Court as well as the First appellate Court and therefore, they couldn’t file the written statement. Hence, he seeks remand of the matter to hear afresh so that the grievance of the defendants No.2 and 3 be heard.

¶50

It is a settled proposition of law that the law comes to the aid of a person who is vigilant. The law do not assist the person who is in slumbers. The appellants herein despite receiving the summons and appearing before the Trial Court did not resist the suit at all. There is no material on record to show that the counsel who was appearing for the appellants herein, before the trial Court and the First appellate Court had made any submissions in that regard. Therefore, it is evident that the appellants herein having not participated in the trial in an effective way, cannot urge before this Court that their contentions were not heard by the trial Court.

¶51

The second ground urged by the learned counsel for

¶52

the appellant is that the plaintiff should have filed a general suit for partition including all other properties of the family and they

¶53

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:13634 RSA No. 100947 of 2014

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

could not have filed a suit only for the suit schedule property which is alienated. When this ground itself was not raised before the Trial Court as well as the First appellate Court, it cannot be urged in the second appeal without pleading to that effect. If at all the appellants are aggrieved by partial partition, they have their remedies to choose. Hence, the appeal is bereft of any merits and there are no grounds to admit the same. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

¶56

In view of disposal of the appeal, pending

¶57

interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.

¶58

SD/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE

¶59

RKM CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 27

Shekhappa @ Rekhu Siddappa Lamani v. Irappa Hanumantappa Waddar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shekhappa @ Rekhu Siddappa Lamani v. Irappa Hanumantappa Waddar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Trip Jack Private Limited Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Sri Swaroop Kumar R Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka

Ashokreddi S/O Rangappa Mulimani Vs Paddawwa W/O Hanamappa Mulimani

Shekhappa S/O Kallappa Markalli Vs Kallappa S/O Shiddappa Markalli

Sri. Dongarasa S/O. Tukaramsa Bhandage Vs Smt. Manjula W/O. Dongarasa Bhandage