S Yenkappa Vs Veerupakshappa Since Dead by His Lrs

SMT. KOTRAMMA W/O. LATE SRI. VEERUKASHAPPA, SINCE DECEASED. (AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 27-11-2015 THE RESPONDENT NO.14 IS THE LR OF DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.1)

¶19

S. DODDAPPA

¶20

S/O. LATE SINGANALU THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 70 YEARS, R/AT: DHARMASAGARA VILLAGE, HOSPET TALUK- 583201.

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261 RSA No. 252 of 2008 C/W RSA No. 253 of 2008

¶23

NILAKANTAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

¶24

SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE NILAKANTAPPA,

¶25

1. AGED ABOUT: 60 YEARS, R/AT: KRISHNA NAGAR, HOSPET TALUK- 583201.

¶26

THIPPESWAMY S/O NILAKANTAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 51 YEARS, R/AT: KRISHNA NAGAR, HOSPET TALUK- 583201.

¶27

DODDABASAPPA S/O CHANNABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 80 YEARS, R/AT: DHARMA SAGAR VILLAGE, HOSPET TALUK- 583201.

¶28

S. ANANDAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

¶29

GOWRAMMA W/O ANANDAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 60 YEARS,

¶30

VENKAPPA S/O ANANDAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 45 YEARS,

¶31

JAYAPPA S/O ANANDAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 42 YEARS,

¶32

THIPPAREDDY S/O ANANDAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 40 YEARS,

¶33

RESPONDENT 6 TO 9

¶34

ARE RESIDING AT DHARMA SAGAR VILLAGE, HOSPET TALUK- 583201.

¶35

S. CHANDRAPPA S/O S. CHANNABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 50 YEARS, R/AT: KRISHNA NAGAR, HOSPET TALUK- 583201.

¶36

S. VEERABASAPPA S/O. CHANNABASAPPA,

¶37

3 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261 RSA No. 252 of 2008 C/W RSA No. 253 of 2008

¶39

AGED ABOUT: 47 YEARS, R/AT: MUDDATANUR, HOSPET TALUK- 583201.

¶40

S. SHANKAR GOWDA S/O. S. YENKAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 34 YEARS, R/AT: DHARMASAGARA VILLAGE, HOSPET TALUK- 583201.

¶41

S. YANKAPPA S/O S. DODDABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 60 YEARS, R/AT: DHARMASAGARA VILLAGE, HOSPET TALUK- 583201.

¶42

S. JAMBANA GOWDA S/O. SINGANALU VEERUPAKSHAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 38 YEARS, R/AT: DHARMASAGARA VILLAGE, HOSPET TALUK- 583201.

¶43

…RESPONDENTS

¶44

(BY SRI MAHANTESH R. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4,

¶45

SRI S.N. BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4, R6, R10 & R11,

¶46

SRI DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R14,

¶47

NOTICE TO RD2, R7, R9 & R13

¶48

ARE SERVED UNREPRESENTED,

¶49

R3, R5(A-F) & R12 APPEAL IS ABATED,

¶50

R1 IS DECEASED,

¶51

NOTICE TO R8 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶52

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC IS PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) HOSPET IN R.A. NO. 29/2006 DATED 9-10-2007 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPLE CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) AND JMFC HOSPET IN O.S. 88/1994 DATED 01-122005 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO ORDERING PARTITION IN RESPECT OF ITEM NO.5 OF THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTIES ALLOW THIS APPEAL WITH COST AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE.

¶53

4 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261 RSA No. 252 of 2008 C/W RSA No. 253 of 2008

¶55

IN RSA NO. 253/2008

¶56

BETWEEN:

¶57

S. YANKAPPA S/O. S. DODDABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 60 YEARS, R/AT: DHARMASAGARA VILLAGE, HOSPET TALUK- 583201.

¶58

…APPELLANT

¶59

(BY SMT. SURABHI KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶60

AND:

¶61

S. VEERUPAKSHAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.

¶62

SMT. KOTRAMMA W/O LATE SRI. VEERUPAKSHAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 60 YEARS, R/AT: DHARMASAGARA VILLAGE, HOSPET- 583201. (AMENDED COPY ORDER DATED 27-11-2015 THE RESPONDENT NO.14 IS THE LR OF DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.1)

¶63

S. DODDAPPA S/O. LATE SINGANALU THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 70 YEARS, R/AT: DHARMASAGARA VILLAGE, HOSPET TALUK- 583201.

¶64

NILAKANTAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

¶65

SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O. LATE NILAKANTAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 60 YEARS, R/AT: KRISHNA NAGAR, HOSPET TALUK- 583201.

¶66

THIPPESWAMY S/O. NILAKANTAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 51 YEARS,

¶67

5 -

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261 RSA No. 252 of 2008 C/W RSA No. 253 of 2008

¶69

R/AT: KRISHNA NAGAR, HOSPET TALUK- 583201.

¶70

5. DODDABASAPPA

¶71

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

¶72

5A. S. THIMAPPA S/O. S. DODDABASAPPA, AGE ABOUT: 45 YEARS,

¶73

5B. S. NAGAPPA S/O. S. DODDABASAPPA, AGE ABOUT: 40 YEARS,

¶74

5C. S. CHIDANANDA S/O. S. DODDABASAPPA, AGE ABOUT: 35 YEARS,

¶75

5D. S. GANGAMMA D/O. S. DODDABASAPPA, AGE ABOUT: 60 YEARS,

¶76

5E. S. PARVATAMMA D/O. S. DODDABASAPPA, AGE ABOUT: 32 YEARS,

¶77

5F. MANGALAMMA D/O. S. DODDABASAPPA, AGE ABOUT: 28 YEARS,

¶78

S. ANANDAPPA

¶79

SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

¶80

GOWRAMMA W/O ANANDAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 60 YEARS,

¶81

VENKAPPA S/O ANANDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶82

JAYAPPA S/O ANANDAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 42 YEARS,

¶83

THIPPAREDDY S/O ANANDAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 40 YEARS,

¶84

RESPONDENT 6 TO 9

¶85

ARE RESIDING AT DHARMA SAGAR VILLAGE, HOSPET TALUK- 583201.

¶86

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261 RSA No. 252 of 2008 C/W RSA No. 253 of 2008

¶87

S. CHANDRAPPA S/O S. CHANNABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 50 YEARS, R/A: KRISHNA NAGAR, HOSPET TALUK- 583201.

¶88

S. VEERABASAPPA S/O. CHANNABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 47 YEARS, R/A: KRISHNA NAGAR, HOSPET TALUK- 583201.

¶89

S. SHANKAR GOWDA S/O S. YENKAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 34 YEARS, R/AT DHARMASAGARA VILLAGE, HOSPET TALUK- 583201.

¶90

SMT. NEELOGAL PARVATHAMMA W/O. VEERABHADRAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 59 YEARS, R/AT: DHARMASAGARA VILLAGE, HOSPET TALUK- 583201.

¶91

S. JAMBANA GOWDA S/O. SINGANALU VEERUPAKSHAPPA, AGED ABOUT: 38 YEARS, R/AT: DHARMASAGARA VILLAGE, HOSPET TALUK- 583201.

¶92

…RESPONDENTS

¶93

(BY SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4, SRI. S.N. BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4-R6, R10 & R11, SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R4, R1 IS DECEASED,

¶94

R2, R5(A-F) IS ABATED, R3 & R12 STANDS DISMISSED, NOTICE TO R7, R9 & R13 ARE SERVED, NOTICE TO R8 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶95

7 -

¶96

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261 RSA No. 252 of 2008 C/W RSA No. 253 of 2008

¶97

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC IS PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) HOSPET IN R.A. NO. 27/2006 DATED 9-10-2007 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPLE CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) AND JMFC HOSPET IN O.S. 88/1994 DATED 01-122005 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO ORDERING PARTITION IN RESPECT OF ITEM NO.5 OF THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTIES ALLOW THIS APPEAL WITH COST AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE.

¶98

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶99

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶100

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH)

¶101

In these appeals, defendant No.10 and defendant No.9 have challenged the common judgment and decree dated 09.10.2007 in R.A.No.29/2006 and R.A.No.27/2006, respectively, on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Hospet (for short ‘the First Appellate Court’) confirming the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2005 in O.S.No.88/1994 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Hospet (for short ‘the Trial Court’) decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.

¶102

RSA No.252/2008 is filed by defendant No.10 with regard to Item No.5 of the suit schedule properties and RSA

¶103

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261 RSA No. 252 of 2008 C/W RSA No. 253 of 2008

¶104

No.253/2008 is filed by the defendant No.9 with regard to Item No.4 of the suit schedule properties.

¶105

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

¶106

referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.

¶107

It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the son of defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 is the brother of defendant No.1. It is further stated in the plaint that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 2. It is also stated that defendant No.2 had taken portion of schedule properties in terms of the partition effected between himself and his brother-defendant No.1 and their mother as per the judgment and decree in O.S.No.53/1971. It is also stated in the plaint that the suit schedule properties are standing in the name of one SSinganalu Thimmappa, who is the father of defendant No.1 and 2, and the said Singanalu Thimmappa died during 1972 leaving behind defendant No.1 and 2 and the plaintiff. Therefore, as defendant No.2 was separated from the joint family of the said Singanalu Thimmappa, during the lifetime of his father-Thimmappa, it is

¶108

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261 RSA No. 252 of 2008 C/W RSA No. 253 of 2008

¶109

the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is having a share in the suit schedule properties.

¶110

4.1. It is also stated in the plaint that the said Singanalu Thimmappa had some other properties, which are standing in the name of his wife-Hanumavva (mother of defendant No.1 and 2, and grandmother of plaintiff). It is also averred in the plaint that since the plaintiff is the only legal heir of defendant No.1 and as defendant No.1 has refused the share in ancestral property, plaintiff filed suit seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties.

¶111

4.2. It is also stated in the plaint that the land bearing Survey No.135F, to an extent of 2 acres out of 3.91 acres was gifted in favour of Smt.Gangamma (sister of defendant No.1 and 2) and thereafter, the said Gangamma has sold 2 acres of land in favour of defendant No.9 and the said sale deed is illegal. Accordingly, it is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is having a share in Survey No.135F of the suit schedule properties. Hence, he filed a suit in O.S.No.88/1994 seeking partition and separate possession to an extent of half share in the suit schedule properties.

¶112

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261 RSA No. 252 of 2008 C/W RSA No. 253 of 2008

¶113

4.3. After service of notices, defendant No. 1, 2, 5, 9 and 10 have filed their written statements and defendant No.3, 4, 6 and 8 have adopted the written statement filed by the defendant No.9 and 10.

¶114

4.4. Defendant No.1 has admitted that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties and also stated that he had acquired the suit schedule properties through partition effected between his father-Thimappa along with defendant No.2. It is the contention of defendant No.1 that as per the judgment and decree in O.S.No.53/1971 filed by the motherHanumavva against defendant No.2, the defendant No.2 has no right to claim in respect of the suit schedule properties. It is also stated in the written statement that the land bearing Survey No.135F was standing in the name of his motherHanumavva, who had executed registered gift deed in favour of her daughter-Gangamma (sister of defendant No.1 and 2) and thereafter, the said Gangamma has sold 2 acres of land to defendant No.9 as per the registered sale deed and accordingly revenue records were mutated in favour of defendant No.9. It is the case of defendant No.1 that the sale deed made by his sister-Gangamma in favour of defendant No.9 is only to an

¶115

11 -

¶116

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261 RSA No. 252 of 2008 C/W RSA No. 253 of 2008

¶117

extent of 2 acres and therefore, defendant No.9 has no right insofar as remaining extent of 1.91 acres in Survey No.135F. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶118

4.5. Defendant No.2 has contended that the plaintiff is his brother’s son and defendant No.1 is his brother and also contended that defendant No.3 to 7 and 9 are the children of Channabasappa, and defendant No.8 is the pre-deceased son of Channabasappa. It is also the case of defendant No.2 that the said Channabasappa, Thimmappa and Bangarappa are the children of the original propositus-Veerabasappa and after the death of said Veerabasappa, Channabasappa and Thimmappa have partitioned the suit schedule properties. It is also stated that the defendant No.2 is the son of S.Thimmappa, who died during 1972 and the said S.Thimmappa had a half share in the land bearing Survey No.17C and 17B and in two houses bearing No.2/52 and 2/53 of Dharmasagara village and accordingly, it is the contention of the defendant No.2 that the plaintiff has no share in the suit schedule properties.

¶119

4.6. It is the contention of defendant No.5 in the written statement that the suit schedule properties are not the

¶120

12 -

¶121

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261 RSA No. 252 of 2008 C/W RSA No. 253 of 2008

¶122

ancestral properties of the plaintiff as the defendant No.2 had taken share in the suit schedule properties and also denied that the revenue records stand in the name of late Hanumavva in respect of land bearing Sy.No.135/5. Defendant No.5 also denied the partition said to have been taken which is the subject matter in O.S.No.53/1997. It is the contention of defendant No.5 that the land bearing Sy.No.17/B measuring 5.80 acres was purchased by the father of defendant No.5 – Channabasappa as per the registered sale deed dated 26.07.1945 and therefore the suit schedule property is the selfacquired property of his father and on his demise defendant No.5 along with defendants No.3 to 9 have succeeded to the same and they are in possession of the suit schedule property and accordingly sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶123

4.7. Defendant No.9 has filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is the case of defendant No.9 that one Veerabasappa had three sons namely Channabasappa, Bangareppa and Shashtri Timmappa and the said Bangareppa, has severed from the joint family. It is also stated that, after the death of Veerabasappa, Channabasappa and Shastri Timmappa got divided the suit schedule properties

¶124

13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261 RSA No. 252 of 2008 C/W RSA No. 253 of 2008

¶125

and are enjoying the properties which are fallen to their shares. It is the contention of defendant No.9 that all the three sons of Veerabasappa are died and therefore, their respective children have inherited the suit properties which are allotted to their shares and accordingly it is the contention of defendant No.9 that as the partition has already been taken place in respect of the suit schedule properties and accordingly suit itself is not maintainable and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶126

4.8. Insofar as land bearing Sy.No.135F is concerned, it is stated in the written statement that the total extent of land in Sy.No.135F was measuring 3.90 acres which was belong to Veerabasappa and on his demise, his sons – Channabasappa and Timmappa have succeeded to an extent of 1.90 acres and 2.00 acres respectively and upon death of Channabasappa, 1.90 acres was inherited by Channabasappa and defendant No.4 and remaining 2 acres of the said Timmappa was given to his daughter by way of gift, who subsequently sold the same to defendant No.9. Accordingly, it is the case of defendant No.9 that as the land has been acquired by virtue of the sale deed by defendant No.9 and therefore the suit itself is not maintainable.

¶127

14 -

¶128

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261 RSA No. 252 of 2008 C/W RSA No. 253 of 2008

¶129

4.9. The Trial Court based on the pleadings on record, formulated issues for its consideration. In order to establish their case, plaintiff has examined two witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked 46 documents and same were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.46. Defendants have examined 14 witnesses as DW.1 to DW.14 and got marked 17 documents as Exs.D.1 to D.17. The Trial Court after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 01.12.2005, decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff is entitled for half share in Sy.No.17C, 16, 135F and 152 as well as the house properties. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, defendant No.9 and 10 have filed appeals in R.A.No.24/2006 and R.A.No.29/2006. R.A.No.41/2006 was preferred by the plaintiff in respect of Item No.17B measuring 5.80 acres situated at Dharmasagar village of Hospet Taluk. The First Appellate Court after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 09.10.2007 dismissed the appeals and as such confirmed the judgment and decree in O.S.No.88/1994. Feeling aggrieved by the same, defendant No.10 has filed RSA No.252/2008 and defendant No.9 has filed RSA No.253/2008.

¶130

15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261 RSA No. 252 of 2008 C/W RSA No. 253 of 2008

¶131

This Court vide order dated 29.09.2016 formulated

¶132

the following substantial question of law:

¶133

“Whether the judgment and decree of both the Courts below are perverse in misreading the evidence and material on record and decreeing the suit so far as the suit schedule item Nos.4 and 5 are concerned?”

¶134

I have heard Smt.V.Vidya Iyer, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in RSA No.252/2008 and Smt.Surabhi Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in RSA No.253/2008 and Sri.Dinesh M Kulkarni for the contesting respondent.

¶135

It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in RSA No.252/2008 by referring to the genealogical tree of the parties that, originally the land in question is belong to Kivuda Timmappa and the said Timmappa has sold the same to Sharanappa and Hanumanagowda as per registered sale deed dated 29.09.2007. The said sale deed is binding on the parties and therefore it is the specific contention of the learned counsel

¶136

appearing for the appellant that the Item No.5 of the suit property has been sold and the said Item No.5 is not belong to

¶137

16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261 RSA No. 252 of 2008 C/W RSA No. 253 of 2008

¶138

the branch of Channabasappa S/o Veerabasappa and therefore the finding recorded by both the Courts below requires to be interfered with in this appeal.

¶139

It is also stated by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the land in question has been gifted to Gangamma (sister of defendants No.1 and 2) by her mother Hanumavva and therefore, as the appellant herein had purchased the same from Gangamma and therefore it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the subject matter of Item No.5 could not have been the item in the schedule property in the suit and accordingly sought for interference of this Court.

¶140

In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the appellant refers to the memo dated 07.01.2025 and also produced certain documents including the registered sale deeds and the encumbrance certificate to substantiate the right of the appellant herein. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant by referring to the resettlement register as produced in the memo and admitted that the appeal

¶141

17 -

¶142

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261 RSA No. 252 of 2008 C/W RSA No. 253 of 2008

¶143

requires to be allowed by interfering with the judgment and decree passed by the Court below.

¶144

Smt.Surabhi Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in RSA No.253/2008 contended by inviting the attention of the Court to para No.9 of the plaint as well as the evidence of PW.1 and also referring to the gift deed dated 29.10.1969 (Ex.P.3) as well as the mutation register produced at Ex.D.11, wherein it is marked that the sale deed dated 27.01.1988 has been made insofar as Item No.4 is concerned and since the entire extent of land in Item No.4 is 3 acres 90 cents and further, as the 2 acres of the land has been gifted by Hanumavva in favour of Gangamma and therefore it is the contention of the appellant that the said aspect of the matter was ignored by both the Courts below and accordingly sought for interference of this Court.

¶145

Per contra, Sri.Dinesh M Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent No.14 refers to the RTC extracts produced at Ex.P.17 and also invited attention of the Court to the resettlement and also Ex.D.3 sale deed dated 19.10.1970 and argued that as both the Courts below have concurrently held

¶146

18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261 RSA No. 252 of 2008 C/W RSA No. 253 of 2008

¶147

against the appellants herein with regard to the division of properties and also he further contended that as the learned counsel for the appellant in RSA No.252/2008 has not filed relevant application in a manner known to law, however, filed a memo along with certain documents and same cannot be accepted and therefore it is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent No.14 to confirm the judgment decree passed by the Courts below.

¶148

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, the genealogical tree of the parties is extracted hereunder for reference:

¶149

Genealogy Bangareppa 2 children Veerbasappa (dead) Pompanna (dead) 3 children one son Chennabasappa Bangareppa Shastry Timmappa kivid Timmappa

¶150

19 -

¶151

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261 RSA No. 252 of 2008 C/W RSA No. 253 of 2008

¶152

(dead) (dead) (dead) (dead) 1^st wife Eramma Wife sharanamma (dead) wife Hanumavva (dead) wife Hanumavva (dead) 2^nd wife Hanumavva (dead) Children Children Children No children 1.Neelkantappa (dead) 1.Basappa(dead) 1.Verupakshappa(dead) 2.Doddabasappa(dead) 2.Yarappa(dead) 2.Doddappa(dead) 3.Yankappa(dead) 3.Thimmappa(dead) 4.Anandappa(dead) 5.Chandrappa(dead) 6. Veerbasappa(dead)

¶153

Neelkantappa Doddabasappa Yankappa Anandappa Chandrappa Veerbasappa Children Children Children Children Children Children Tippeswamy 1.Yankappa Shankargouda 1.Yankappa 1.Shanbhu 1. Mallikarjun(dead) 2.Timmappa 2.Jayappa 2. Kotrappa 2.Reddy 3.Nagappa 3.Timmappa 4.Chidanand(dead) Basappa Yareppa Timmappa Virupaxppa Doddappa Children No Children Children Children Children

¶154

20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261 RSA No. 252 of 2008 C/W RSA No. 253 of 2008

¶155

1.Chandrappa 1. Gavisidd Jambunngouda Basavaraj 2.Lokappa 2 Doddanagouda 3.Somashekhar 4.Hemanna

¶156

Having taken note of the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the original propositus Bangareppa had two children namely Veerabasappa and Pompanna. Veerabasappa had three children namely Channabasappa, Bangareppa and Shastri Timmappa. Pompanna (second son of Bangareppa) had a son named as Kivuda Timmappa. The said Kivuda Timmappa died during 1972 leaving behind his wife Hanumavva and had no issues. The first

¶157

son of the Bangareppa – Veerabasappa had three children Channabasappa, Bangareppa and Shastri Timmappa. The said Bangareppa had separated through lifetime of Veerabasappa and therefore, Channabasappa died leaving behind his wife Hanumavva and defendants No.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, Yankappa predeceased leaving behind his son Shankara gouda (defendant

¶158

21 -

¶159

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261 RSA No. 252 of 2008 C/W RSA No. 253 of 2008

¶160

No.8) and defendant No.9 (son of defendant No.4) and a daughter Sharanamma.

¶161

It is also forthcoming from the genealogical tree that the third son of Veerabasappa– Shashtri Timmappa had a wife – Hanamavva and three children namely Virupakshappa (defendant No.1), Doddappa (defendant No.2) and Gangamma. Plaintiff is the son of defendant No.1. It is the case of the appellants herein that, the Hanamavva W/o Timmappa had gifted the Item No.4 in favour of her daughter Gangamma and in turn the said Gangamma has sold 1 acre 91 cents in favour of defendant No.9.

¶162

It is also forthcoming from the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant in RSA No.252/2008 that Item No.5 of the suit schedule property measuring 5 acres 50 cents was nothing to do with the branch of Channabasappa. In this regard, taking into consideration the factual aspects on record, though the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the acceptance of the documents produced by the appellant in RSA No.252/2008, however, these documents are nothing but the registered documents which

¶163

22 -

¶164

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261 RSA No. 252 of 2008 C/W RSA No. 253 of 2008

¶165

specifically confer title in respect of the parties. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that as the suit is of the year 1994

¶166

and accordingly it is expedient to remand the matter to the First Appellate Court and to re-hear the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties as well as taking into consideration the documents filed by the parties before this Court and to dispose of the same in accordance with law.

¶167

16. In the result, I pass the following:

¶168

ORDER

¶169

i. The appeals are allowed. ii. The judgment and decree dated 09.10.2007 in R.A.No.29/2006 and R.A.No.27/2006 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Hospet are set aside.

¶170

iii. The matter is remanded to the First Appellate Court to re-hear the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶171

iv. It is made clear that the parties are permitted to file necessary documents before the First Appellate Court.

¶172

23 -

¶173

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261 RSA No. 252 of 2008 C/W RSA No. 253 of 2008

¶174

v. It is open for the parties to file necessary documents to enable the Appellate Court to arrive at a just conclusion and also adduce further evidence in the circumstances of the case.

¶175

vi. Needless to say that as the parties are appeared through their learned counsels and accordingly in order to avoid further delay in the matter, the parties are directed to appear before the First Appellate Court on 06.03.2025 at 11.00 a.m. without awaiting for further notice from the First Appellate Court.

¶176

vii. The First Appellate Court is requested to expedite the hearing.

¶177

Sd/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶178

YAN, SH from para 4.6 List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39

S Yenkappa v. Veerupakshappa Since Dead by His Lrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Yenkappa v. Veerupakshappa Since Dead by His Lrs

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

Sri Fatesh Ahmed S/O Abdul Shukur Kakar Alias Haliyalkar Vs Smt. Akhtar Khanum W/O Fateh Ahmed Kakar Alias Haliyalkar

Smt. Pushpa W/O Manjumnath Gulannavar Vs Sri. Manjunath S/O Yelukoteppa Gulannavar

Smt Chanabasavva W/O Shivarudrappa Kari Vs Smt Kasturi Alleged Herself as the

Smt Neelogal Parvathamma Vs Veerupakshappa Since Dead by His Lrs

Smt Sulochana W/O Ramaray Vernekar Vs Smt Ratnabai W/O Narayan Vernekar

Smt Anandi @ Anadi W/O Sadanand Anavekar Vs Smt Sulochana W/O Ra,Aray Vernekar