Ganganna Vs M H Gangadhara — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ganganna Vs M H Gangadhara — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the courts below erred in allowing the final decree proceedings, particularly in the allotment of item No.3 of the suit schedule property (Sy.No.78/P measuring 8 acres 38 guntas), which the appellants contend is their self-acquired property. +1 more

Court's answer

The plea that item No.3 (Sy.No.78/P, 8 acres 38 guntas) is the self-acquired property of the appellants cannot be urged in the FDP or in the first appeal; if the appellants had such a grievance, they ought to have challenged the preliminary decree questioning the allotment of item No.3.

Ratio / Principle

The judgment of the preliminary decree has already attained finality.

Key takeaways

Both the courts below committed no error; the allotment is in terms of the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.34/2002, the FDP having been drawn in terms of the Trial Court's order.ratio¶55
There is no merit in the second appeal and no ground made out to invoke Section 100 of CPC.ratio¶55
Having considered the material on record, the Court found no ground to consider the second appeal, thereby disposing of the appellants' contention that the FDP Court was not justified in informing the PDO of the Panchayath to make entries in respect of item Nos.4 to 6; no separate error was found in the orders of the courts below on this point.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Partition - Final decree proceedings - Regular Second Appeal under S.100 CPC - Dismissed. Preliminary decree in O.S.No.34/2002 (judgment and decree dated 01.12.2006) had attained finality; FDP No.8/2012 (Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Challakere) was allowed on the Commissioner reports of the Tahsildar/ADLR, Molakalmur (dt. 21.11.2013) and the PDO, Nerlahalli Village Panchayath (dt. 08.04.2014), and confirmed in R.A.No.21/2020 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga (dt. 28.08.2023). Held: (i) the objection that item No.3 (Sy.No.78/P - 8 acres 38 guntas) is the self-acquired property of the appellants cannot be urged at the FDP or first-appeal stage; the remedy lay in challenging the preliminary decree itself, which had attained finality; (ii) allotment is in terms of the preliminary decree and neither court erred; (iii) the direction intimating the PDO to effect entries in respect of item Nos.4 to 6 was not found faulty. Second appeal dismissed. (H.P. Sandesh, J.; 11.12.2025)

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:52595 RSA No. 2113 of 2023

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2113 OF 2023 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

GANGANNA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

DODDA GANGANNA @ GANGANNA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SMT. HONNURAMMA D/O RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

HONNURSWAMY S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

SHIVANANDA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

MALLIKARJUNASWAMY S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:52595 RSA No. 2113 of 2023

HC-KAR

SMT. HANUMAKKA D/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

ALL ARE R/O MARALAHALLY VILLAGE TQ: MOLAKALMURU DIST: CHITRADURGA PIN CODE: 577535.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

M.H. GANGADHARA

S/O HANUMANTHAPPA @ SHETTAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS LECTURER, GOVT. JUNIOR COLLEGE HOLE ITTIGI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI DIST: GADAG PIN CODE: 582120.

SANNA MARAIAH S/O MARAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

DODDA MARANNA S/O SANNA MARAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

NAGARAJ S/O SANNA MARAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

PALAIAH S/O SANNA MARAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:52595 RSA No. 2113 of 2023

HC-KAR

RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE R/O IDDALU BOMMAIAHNAHATTI WARD NO.1, MOLAKALMURU TOWN DIST: CHITRADURGA PIN CODE: 577 535.

SMT. GANGAMMA W/O LATE THIPPANNA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS C/O MUTTANNA R/O AMBEDKAR NAGARA MOLAKALMURU TOWN DIST: CHITRADURGA PIN CODE: 577 535.

SMT. SANNA GANGAMMA W/O MUKKANNA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/O AMBEDKAR NAGARA MOLAKALMURU TOWN DIST: CHITRADURGA PIN CODE: 577 535.

SMT. SIDDAKKA D/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/O MARALAHALLY VILLAGE TQ: MOLAKALMURU DIST: CHITRADURGA PIN CODE: 577 535.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. PRAMOD R., ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 TO R7 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 30.10.2025)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.08.2023 PASSED IN R.A.NO.21/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:52595 RSA No. 2113 of 2023

HC-KAR

DATED 28.11.2018 PASSED IN FDP NO.8/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHALLAKERE.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL JUDGMENT

This matter is listed for admission. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.1.

The present second appeal is filed against the order passed in FDP No.8/2012 and also order passed in R.A.No.21/2020.

The main contention of learned counsel for the appellants before this Court is that both the Courts have committed an error in allowing the FDP, particularly in respect of item No.3 of the suit schedule property and further it is not the duty of the FDP Court to inform the PDO of the Panchayath to make entries in respect of item Nos.4 to 6 of the suit schedule properties and not justified in giving such a direction.

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:52595 RSA No. 2113 of 2023

HC-KAR

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that the Trial Court based on the judgment and decree allowed the FDP proceedings, that too, based on the Commissioner’s report dated 21.11.2013 filed by Tahsildar/ADLR, Molakalmur and also Commissioner’s report dated 08.04.2014 filed by the PDO of Nerlahalli Village Panchayath is in accordance with the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.34/2002 dated 01.12.2006. Hence, Commissioner’s report is accepted and considering the same, intimation was given to PDO of Nerlahalli Village Panchayath, Molakalmur Taluk and therefore, the appellant cannot find fault with the order passed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.

The First Appellate Court also having reassessed the

material available on record in paragraph No.12 comes to the conclusion that Commissioner’s report and the report of the Tahsildar are accepted and also there is a direction to effect entries in the documents. Even there is an observation to get the execution of the property and final decree was also drawn and no error on the part of the Trial Court in passing such an order.

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:52595 RSA No. 2113 of 2023

HC-KAR

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1 and also considering the material on record, FDP was drawn in terms of the order passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.34/2002. The only contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that allotment in respect of item No.3 of the property i.e., Sy.No.78/P measuring to an extent of 8 acres 38 guntas is not correct and ought not to have granted the same, since the said property is the self-acquired property of the appellants. The said ground cannot be urged in the FDP as well as in the R.A. and if the appellants have any such grievance, ought to have challenged the preliminary decree questioning allotment of item No.3 of the property claiming that the same is the self-acquired property and the judgment of preliminary decree has already attained its finality. Hence, I do not find any ground to consider the second appeal and both the Courts have not committed any error in allotting the property and allotment is made in terms of the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.34/2002. Therefore, no merit in the second appeal to invoke Section 100 of CPC.

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:52595 RSA No. 2113 of 2023

HC-KAR

In view of the discussion made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The regular second appeal is dismissed.

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

ST

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45