Partly allowed

S G Ramachandrappa v. D Ramachandrappa

Karnataka HC20 Feb 2026RFA/175/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed appeals partly. It modified a decree granting ownership to plaintiffs only over specific land acquired by the husband, excluding properties in his individual name and land purchased by his wife without registration. Permanent injunction was granted only over lands belonging to the plaintiffs.

What did the court decide?

Judgment/decree in O.S.119/1990 modified declaring plaintiffs owners of Sy.99, 138, 102, 80/2; suit dismissed w.r.t. Sy.98, 30, 140. Suit in O.S.77/2003 decreed w.r.t. Sy.27, 30, 98, 140; dismissed w.

S G Ramachandrappa Vs D Ramachandrappa — Partition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

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

¶8

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 175 OF 2005 (DEC)

¶9

C/W

¶10

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 174 OF 2005 REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2195 OF 2012

¶11

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2196 OF 2012

¶12

IN RFA No. 175/2005

¶13

BETWEEN:

¶14

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

S G RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O LATE S.G.HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PINCODE-577 217.

¶16

(BY SRI. R GOPAL, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

D RAMACHANDRAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

¶19

…APPELLANT

¶20

1(a) BALACHANDRAPPA

¶21

S/O LATE D.RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O SUTTUKOTE VILLAGE, HOLALUR HOBLI, HARAMAGHATTA POST, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT PINCODE - 577 201.

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶23

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

1(b) SHIVASHANKARAPPA S/O LATE D. RAMACHANDRAPPA,

¶26

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE HONNALLI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PINCODE-577 217.

¶27

1(c) RENUKAMMA D/O LATE D. RAMACHANDRAPPA, W/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE HONNALLI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PINCODE-577 217.

¶28

1(d) LALITHAMMA

¶29

D/O LATE D.RAMACHANDRAPPA, W/O RAVISHA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶30

R/O BHYRANAPADA, KIRIGERE GRAMA, THIMMANAKATTE POST, RATTEHALLI TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT, PINCODE-581 119.

¶31

LRS OF R1 ADDED AS PER ORDER DATED 02.01.2024.

¶32

D MANJAPPA

¶33

S/O LATE RANGAPPA MAJOR, R/O SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE HONNALLI TALUK-577 217.

¶34

D BASAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA

¶35

SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶36

3(a) PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE D. BASAPPA,

¶37

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶39

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

3(b) D.B.MANJUNATHA S/O LATE D. BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

¶42

3(c) D.B.RAVINDRA, S/O LATE D.BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.

¶43

3(d) D.B.SRINATHA, S/O LATE D.BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶44

ALL R/O SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE, HONNALLI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PINCODE-577 217.

¶45

LRS OF R3 ADDED AS PER ORDER DATED 02.01.2024

¶46

SMT PADMAMMA W/O LATE S.G.RAMAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶47

4(a) S.G.LOKESHAPPA S/O LATE S.G.RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶48

4(b) S.G.SURESHAPPA S/O LATE S.G.RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶49

4(c) KENCHAPPA , S/O LATE S.G RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶50

R4(a) TO R4(c) ARE R/O SUTTUKOTE VILLAGE HARAMAGHATTA-POST,

¶51

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

HOLALURU-HOBLI, SHIMOGA-TALUK AND DISTRICT. PIN CODE: 577 216.

¶55

4(d) PARVATHAMMA D/O LATE S.G RAMAPPA, W/O LATE BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O SUNKADAKATTE, HONNALI-TALUK, DAVANAGERE-DISTRICT. PIN CODE: 577 217

¶56

4(e) SEETHAMMA, D/O LATE S.G.RAMAPPA, W/O HEMANAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O AND POST: CHIKKAKABBAR, RATTEHALLI-TALUK, HAVERI-DISTRICT. PIN CODE: 581 116

¶57

4(f) SAROJAMMA,

¶58

D/O LATE S.G.RAMAPPA, W/O LATE PRAKASH,, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O SOMINAKOPPA, HARAMAGHATTA-POST, HOLALURU-HOBLI, SHIMOGA-TALUK AND DISTRICT. PIN CODE: 577 216.

¶59

4(g) CHANNAMMA,

¶60

D/O LATE S.G.RAMAPPA, W/O SURESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O HANAGAVADI VILLAGE, HONNALI- TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. PIN: 577 217.

¶61

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

4(h) MANJULA,

¶64

D/O LATE S.G.RAMAPPA, W/O RAJU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O KULAGATTE VILLAGE, HONNALI -TALUK, DAVANAGERE - DISTRICT. PIN CODE: 577 217

¶65

4(i) PREMA,

¶66

D/O LATE S.G.RAMAPPA, W/O SURESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O HIREKABBAR, RATTEHALLI TALUK, HAVERI-DISTRICT, PIN CODE: 581116

¶67

4(j) SAVITHRAMMA

¶68

W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA BIN LATE S.G.RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶69

4(k) KAVITHA,

¶70

D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA BIN LATE S.G.RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶71

4(l) GEETHA,

¶72

D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA BIN LATE S.G RAMAPPA, W/O MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O SUNKADAKATTE, HONNALI-TALUK, DAVANAGERE-DISTRICT. PIN COE: 577 217

¶73

4(m) HARISH, S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA BIN LATE S.G.RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶74

NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶75

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

R4(j) (k) AND (m) ARE R/O SUTTUKOTE VILLAGE HARAMAGHATTA POST, HOLALURU HOBLI, SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT. PIN COE: 577 216.

¶78

LRS OF R4 ADDED AS PER ORDER DATED 19.01.2026

¶79

SMT NARASAMMA W/O LATE RANGAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶80

5(a) B.R.MANJAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.

¶81

5(b) B.R.NARASHIMAPPA, S/O LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

¶82

5(c) JAYAMMA D/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶83

R5(a) to (c) ARE R/O SOMINAKOPPA, HARAMAGHATTA POST HOLALUR HOBLI, SHIMOGA TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT, PINCODE-577 216.

¶84

5(d) NIRMALAMMA

¶85

D/O LATE RANGAPPA W/O D.MANJAPPA, R/O SUNKADAKATTE POST, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,

¶86

NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012

HC-KAR

PINCODE-577217.

LRS OF R5 ADDED AS PER ORDER DATED 23.10.2024

¶91

SMT. KENCHAMMA @ MEENAKSHAMMA W/O LATE S.N.MANJAPPA AGED MAJOR,

¶92

R/O HOSAMANE EXTENSION BHADRAVATHI - 577301

¶93

SMT. MANJAMMA W/O NARASIMHAPPA AGED MAJOR, R/O SUTHUKOTE SHIMOGA TALUK - 577201

¶94

SMT. VRINDAMMA W/O D.RAMACHANDRAPPA

¶95

SMT NEELAMMA W/O LATE S.G.RUDRAPPA

¶96

JAGADEESHA S/O LATE S.G.RUDRAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶97

10(a) SMT LAKSHMI J W/O LATE JAGADEESHA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

¶98

10(b) PRIYANKA D/O LATE JAGADEESHA AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS

¶99

SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN ABOVE R10(a) LAKSHMI J

¶100

NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012

HC-KAR

10(c) SUJENDRA

S/O LATE JAGADEESHA AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS

¶105

SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN ABOVE R10(a) LAKSHMI J

¶106

R10(a) TO R10(c) ARE R/O SUTHUKOTE VILLAGE, HARAMAGHATTA POST, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶107

LRS OF R10 ADDED AS PER ORDER DATED 23.10.2024

¶108

MANJUNATH

¶109

S/O LATE S.G.RUDRAPPA

¶110

VENKATESHA

¶111

S/O LATE S.G.RUDRAPPA

¶112

RESPONDENTS 8, 9, 11 AND 12 ARE AGED MAJOR, R/O SUTHOKOTE VILLAGE SHIMOGA TALUK & DISTRICT. PIN - 577201

¶113

13. S G SURESH

¶114

S/O LATE S.G.HANUMANTHAPPA

¶115

14. SMT SANNATHAYAMMA SECOND W/O LATE S.G.HANUMANTHAPPA

¶116

RESPONDENT NOS. 13 AND 14 ARE MAJORS, R/O SUTHOKOTE HONNALI TALUK - 577217

¶117

NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶118

¶119

HC-KAR

¶120

S G SHANTHAMMA

¶121

W/O VENKATESHAPPA AGED MAJOR, R/O HIREKABBAR

¶122

HIREKERUR TALUK - 581113.

¶123

S G ANASUYA D/O LATE S.G.HANUMANTHAPPA AGED MAJOR, R/O SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK - 577217

¶124

SMT S.G. JAYAMMA W/O VASANTHAPPA AGED MAJOR, R/O HARALAHALLI HARIHAR TALUK - 577601

¶125

MANJAPPA S G S/O LATE KAMBAPPA R/O SUTHUKOTE

¶126

SHIMOGA TALUK - 577201.

¶127

…RESPONDENTS

¶128

(BY SRI.ASHWIN S. HALADY, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R6 AND R7; R1(A TO C), 3(A TO D), 4(A TO G & I TO M), R5(A TO D), R8, R10(A) SERVED,

¶129

R10(B & C) ARE MINORS REP. BY R10(A),

¶130

R13, R15, R16, R17 & R18 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; V/O DTD 06.07.2022, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1(D) IS HELD SUFFICIENT;

¶131

V/O DTD 02.12.2024, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R4(H) IS HELD SUFFICIENT;

¶132

SRI S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R9 TO R12;

¶133

V/O DTD. 17.03.2021, R14 DEAD, R13, R15 TO 17 ARE LRS OF DECEASED R14)

¶134

THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.11.2004 PASSED IN O.S.No.119/90 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) & CJM, SHIMOGA,

¶135

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 HC-KAR RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶136

DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶137

IN RFA NO. 174/2005

¶138

BETWEEN:

¶139

S G RUDRAPPA S/O S.G.HANUMANTHAPPA DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶140

NEELAMMA

¶141

1(a) W/O LATE S.G.RUDRAPPA MAJOR, R/O SUTHUKOTE, SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT

¶142

1(b) JAGADEESHA S/O LATE S.G.RUDRAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶143

SMT LAKSHMI J

¶144

1(b)(i) W/O LATE JAGADEESHA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.

¶145

1(b)(ii) PRIYANKA D/O LATE JAGADEESHA AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS

¶146

1(b)(iii) SUJENDRA S/O LATE JAGADEESHA AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS

¶147

A1(b)(ii) AND A1(b)(iii) ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN A1(b)(i)-LAKSHMI J ALL ARE R/O SUTHUKOTE VILLAGE, HARAMAGHATTA POST, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶148

AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 06.12.2025

¶149

11 -

¶150

NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶151

HC-KAR

¶152

1(c) MANJUNATHA

¶153

S/O LATE S.G.RUDRAPPA MAJOR, R/O SUTHUKOTE, SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT

¶154

1(d) VENKATESH S/O LATE S G RUDRAPPA MAJOR, R/O SUTHUKOTE, SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT

¶155

...APPELLANTS

¶156

(BY SRI. S V PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶157

AND:

¶158

D RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA

¶159

D MANJAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA

¶160

D BASAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA

¶161

4. DEVEERAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS

¶162

PADMAMMA

¶163

4(a) W/O LATE S.G.RANGAPPA

¶164

4(b) NARSAMMA W/O LATE RANGAPPA R/O SOMINA KOPPA HOLALUR HOBLI SHIMOGA TALUK - 577201

¶165

4(c) KENCHAMMA @ MEENAKSHAMMA W/O LATE S.R.MANJAPPA HOSAMANE EXTENSION BHADRAVATHI

¶166

NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶167

12 -

¶168

HC-KAR

¶169

SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577201

¶170

4(d) MANJAMMA W/O NARASIMHAPPA

¶171

RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3, 4(a) TO 4(d) ARE MAJORS, AGRICULTURISTS R/O SUTHUKOTE, SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577201

¶172

S G HANUMANTHAPPA DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶173

VRINDAMMA

¶174

5(a) W/O D.RAMACHANDRAPPA MAJOR,

¶175

5(b) S G RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O LATE S.G.HANUMANTHAPPA MAJOR,

¶176

5(c) S G SURESH S/O LATE S.G.HANUMANTHAPPA MAJOR,

¶177

5(d) SANNATHAYAMMA

¶178

W/O LATE S.G.HANUMANTHAPPA MAJOR,

¶179

5(e) S G SHANTHAMMA W/O VENKATESHAPPA MAJOR, R/O HIREKABBAR HIREKERUR TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT - 581110

¶180

5(f) S G ANASUYA D/O LATE S.G.HANUMANTHAPPA

¶181

5(g) JAYAMMA W/O VASANTHAPPA MAJOR, R/O HALALAHALLI VILLAGE HARIHARA TALUK

¶182

13 -

¶183

NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶184

HC-KAR

¶185

DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577004

¶186

RESPONDENTS 5(a) TO 5(d) AND 5(e) AND 5(f) ARE AGRICULTURISTS AND R/O SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577217.

¶187

MANJAPPA S G S/O LATE KAMBAPPA R/O SUTHUKOTE SHIMOGA TALUK & DISTRICT - 577201

¶188

...RESPONDENTS

¶189

(BY SRI. ASHWIN S HALADY, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2,R3 & R4 (A TO D); SRI R.GOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R5(B); R5 (A, C TO G) AND R6 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶190

THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC 96 CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.11.2004 PASSED IN O.S.NO.119/1990 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND C.J.M., SHIMOGA, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶191

IN RFA NO. 2195/2012

¶192

BETWEEN:

¶193

S G RUDRAPPPA

¶194

S/O LATE S G HANUMANTHAPPA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS

¶195

1 SMT NEELAMMA W/O LATE S G RUDRAPPA MAJOR AGRICULTURIST RESIDENT OF SUTTUKOTE VILLAGE SHIMOGA TALUK

¶196

2 JAGADEESHA S/O LATE S.G.RUDRAPPA

¶197

14 -

¶198

NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶199

HC-KAR

¶200

SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶201

2(b)(i) SMT LAKSHMI J W/O LATE JAGADEESHA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.

¶202

2(b)(ii) PRIYANKA D/O LATE JAGADEESHA AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS

¶203

2(b)(iii) SUJENDRA S/O LATE JAGADEESHA AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS

¶204

A2(b)(ii) AND A2(b)(iii) ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN A2(b)(i)-LAKSHMI J ALL ARE R/O SUTHUKOTE VILLAGE, HARAMAGHATTA POST, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶205

AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 06.12.2025

¶206

MANJUNATHA S/O LATE S G RUDRAPPA MAJOR AGRICULTURIST RESIDENTS OF SUTTUKOTE VILLAGE SHIMOGA TALUK

¶207

VENKATESHA S/O LATE S G RUDRAPPA MAJOR AGRICULTURIST RESIDENTS OF SUTTUKOTE VILLAGE SHIMOGA TALUK

¶208

...APPELLANTS

¶209

(BY SRI. S V PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶210

AND:

¶211

D RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA

¶212

NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶213

15 -

¶214

HC-KAR

¶215

MAJOR AGRICULTURIST RESIDENT OF SUTTUKOTE VILLAGE SHIMOGA TALUK

¶216

D MANJAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA MAJOR AGRICULTURIST RESIDENTS OF SUTTUKOTE VILLAGE SHIMOGA TALUK

¶217

D BASAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA MAJOR AGRICULTURIST RESIDENT OF SUTTUKOTE VILLAGE SHIMOGA TALUK

¶218

S G HANUMANTHAPPA DECEASED BY HIS LRS

¶219

SMT SANNATHAYAMMA

¶220

4(a) W/O LATE S G HANUMANTHAPPA MAJOR

¶221

RESIDENT OF SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK

¶222

4(b) S G RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O LATE S G HANUMANTHAPPA MAJOR

¶223

RESIDENT OF SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK

¶224

4(c) S G SURESH S/O LATE S G HANUMANTHAPPA MAJOR RESIDENT OF SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK

¶225

4(d) SMT S G SHANTHAMMA W/O VENKATESHAPPA MAJOR R/O HIREKABBUR VILLAGE

¶226

NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶227

16 -

¶228

HC-KAR

¶229

HIREKERUR TALUK

¶230

4(e) SMT S G ANASUYA D/O LATE S G HANUMANTHAPPA MAJOR R/O SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK

¶231

S G RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O LATE S G HANUMANTHAPPA RESIDENT OF SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK

¶232

S H SURESH S/O LATE S G HANUMANTHAPPA RESIDENT OF SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK

¶233

...RESPONDENTS

¶234

(BY SRI.ASHWIN S HALADY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; R4 (A TO E), R5 AND R6 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶235

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.11.2004 PASSED IN O.S.77/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.) AND CJM, SHIMOGA, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.WITH THE ABOVE INFORMATION THIS FILE IS SENT TO PENDING BRANCH FOR TAKING FURTHER ACTION.

¶236

IN RFA NO. 2196/2012

¶237

BETWEEN:

¶238

S G RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O LATE S G HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O SUNKADAKATTE, HONNALLI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT

¶239

...APPELLANT

¶240

(BY SRI. R GOPAL, ADVOCATE)

¶241

AND:

¶242

D RAMACHANDRAPPA

¶243

NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶244

17 -

¶245

HC-KAR

¶246

S/O LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O SUTTUKOTE VILLAGE, HARAMAGHATTA POST, SHIMOGA TALUK

¶247

SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶248

1(a) BALACHANDRAPPA S/O LATE D.RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O SUTTUKOTE VILLAGE, HOLALUR HOBLI, HARAMAGHATTA POST, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT

¶249

PINCODE - 577 201.

¶250

1(b) SHIVASHANKARAPPA S/O LATE D.RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PINCODE-577 217.

¶251

1(c) RENUKAMMA D/O LATE D.RAMACHANDRAPPA, W/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PINCODE-577 217.

¶252

1(d) LALITHAMMA D/O LATE D.RAMACHANDRAPPA, W/O RAVISHA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O BHYRANAPADA, KIRIGERE GRAMA, THIMMANAKATTE POST, RATTEHALLI TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT, PINCODE-581 119.

¶253

NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶254

18 -

¶255

HC-KAR

¶256

D MANJAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE, HONNALLI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT

¶257

D BASAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

¶258

3(a) PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE D. BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.

¶259

3(b) D.B.MANJUNATHA S/O LATE D. BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

¶260

3(c) D.B.RAVINDRA, S/O LATE D.BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.

¶261

3(d) D.B.SRINATHA, S/O LATE D.BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶262

R3(a) TO R3(d) ARE R/O SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE, HONNALLI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PINCODE-577 217.

¶263

SMT SANNATHAYAMMA SECOND W/O LATE S G HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O SUNKADAKATTE VILLAGE, HONNALLI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶264

SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

¶265

NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶266

19 -

¶267

HC-KAR

¶268

APPELLANT AND R9 AND R10 ARE TREATED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF R4

¶269

¶270

NEELAMMA W/O LATE S G RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O SUTTUKOTE VILLAGE, SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT

¶271

JAGADEESHA S/O LATE S.G.RUDRAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶272

6(a) SMT LAKSHMI J

¶273

W/O LATE JAGADEESHA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.

¶274

6(b) PRIYANKA D/O LATE JAGADEESHA AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS

¶275

6(c) SUJENDRA S/O LATE JAGADEESHA AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS

¶276

R6(b) AND R6(c) ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN R6(a)-LAKSHMI J

¶277

ALL ARE R/O SUTHUKOTE VILLAGE, HARAMAGHATTA POST, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶278

AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 06.12.2025

¶279

¶280

MANJUNATHA S/O LATE RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O SUTTUKOTE VILLAGE,

¶281

20 -

¶282

HC-KAR

¶283

NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶284

SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶285

VENKATESHA S/O LATE RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/O SUTTUKOTE VILLAGE, SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT

¶286

S G SURESH S/O LATE S G HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O SUTHOKOTE, HONNALLI TALUK

¶287

S G SHANTHAMMA W/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O HIREKABBAR VILLAGE, HIREKERUR TALUK

¶288

...RESPONDENTS

¶289

(BY SRI. ASHWIN S HALADY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1(A TO C), R3 ( A TO D) & R10 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;

¶290

V/O DATED 06.07.2022 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1(D) IS HELD SUFFICIENT; V/O DATED 17.03.2021 R4 DEAD & R9 AND R10 ARE LRS OF DECEASED R4;

¶291

SRI S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R5, R6(A), R7 AND R8 R6(B) & R6(C) ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R6(A)

¶292

¶293

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

¶294

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶295

NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶296

21 -

¶297

HC-KAR

¶298

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶299

Suit in O.S.No.119/1990 is filed by D.Ramachandrappa, D.Manjappa, D.Basappa and Smt.Deveeramma claiming to be the sons and wife of one late Rangappa against one S.G.Hanumanthappa and his sons, S.G.Ramachandrappa, S.G.Suresh, S.G.Rudrappa and Manjappa, S/o Kambappa seeking following reliefs;

¶300

"a. Declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit properties and that their title is confirmed from prior to 1967 and also from the date of Palupatti dated 25.06.1967 and that the defendants have no manner of right, title and interest in the properties.

¶301

b. Grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 4 their men, representatives, etc., from in any manner interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs.

¶302

c. Grant of injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 4 from proceeding with O.S.No.1496/1989 on the file of the Addl. Munsiff, Shimogga, and for stay of the said suit and also,

¶303

d. Grant of court costs, and such other reliefs."

¶304

2. The subject matter of the above suit are the following

¶305

properties:-

¶306

"Agricultural lands situated in Suttukote village, Shimoga Taluk - all dry lands - bearing:

¶307

a) Sy.No.98 : measuring 4-00 acres.

¶308

b) Sy.No.99 : measuring 4-00 acres.

¶309

c) Sy.No.30 : measuring 3 acres 33 guntas (excluding Bhoodan land).

¶310

d) Sy.No.138 : measuring 2 acres 16 guntas.

¶311

22 -

¶312

NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶313

HC-KAR

¶314

e) Sy.No.140 : measuring 3 acres 20 guntas. f) Sy.No.80/2 : measuring 7 acres 17 guntas. g) Sy.No.102 : measuring 3 acres 02 guntas."

¶315

It is contended that one Kambappa and his wife Nanjamma had five sons and a daughter namely, Manjappadefendant No.5, Halappa-died, S.G.Hanumanthappa-defendant No.1, Deveeramma-plaintiff No.4, S.G.Basappa-not a party and S.G.Ramappa-not a party.

¶316

The aforesaid S.G.Hanumanthappa the defendant No.1 - had two wives namely, Lakkamma and Sannathayamma. From his first wife - Lakkamma, S.G.Rudrappa-defendant No.4 was born and from his second wife - Sannathayamma, S.G.Ramachandrappa-defendant No.2 and S.G.Sureshdefendant No.3 were born.

¶317

That all the sons and daughters of Kambappa were living together in Sunkadakatte village. Manjappa-defendant No.5 was managing the affairs of the family as a kartha.

¶318

Halamma sister of Rangappa was married to Manjappadefendant No.5. Vrindamma eldest daughter of defendant No.1 is married to D.Ramachandrappathe plaintiff No.1.

¶319

23 - NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 HC-KAR RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶320

Padmamma the daughter of Deveeramma-plaintiff No.4 was married to S.G.Ramappa the youngest son of Kambappa. S.G.Ramappa's daughter is the wife of D.Basappa the plaintiff No.3. All the family members including defendant No.5 - Manjappa were residing together.

¶321

Manjappa- the defendant No.5 was the manager of the family. Since there were fear of he squandering away the properties, he had executed a deed of relinquishment in respect of properties situated in Sunkadakatte in favour of S.G. Basappa on 01.02.1949. There was certain debts, which required to be discharged by S.G.Basappa who went out of the family. Since the family did not have sufficient income, it was at that time, Rangappa, the husband of Deveeramma -plaintiff No.4 and father of plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 took over the management of the family.

¶322

During the year 1955-56, Rangappa acquired land measuring 4 acres in Sy.No.30/2 and another extent of 4 acres in Sy.No.30/1 at Suttukote village in the name of defendant No.1 under darkhast. Thereafter, defendant No.1 had acquired the land measuring 3 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.25 during the

¶323

24 -

¶324

NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 HC-KAR RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶325

year 1962-63. Rangappa was the main earning member of the family, while his wife - Deveeramma-plaintiff No.4 was looking after the household affairs. As such, all the legal heirs of Kambappa had high regard for Rangappa and Deveeramma.

¶326

Plaintiff No.1 acquired 5 acres of land in Sy.Nos.25 and 26 under darkhast. An extent of 2 acres 26 guntas and 4 acres 39 guntas in Sy.No.80/2 in Suttukote village was purchased in the name of Deveeramma by the family under the deed of sale dated 27.03.1961. However, for the purpose of convenience, the said property was transferred to the name of defendant No.1 under Vargarajinama, which has no legal status. Even in the year 1961, after the purchase, Deveeramma through defendant No.1 had made an application for survey of the land. Another extent of land measuring 3 acres 31 guntas was also made in the name of Manjappa under darkhast during the year 1955-56. This land was made in the name of defendant No.1 under Rajikhabuli. Another extent of 2 acres 16 guntas of land was also obtained under darkhast in favour of plaintiff No.1 in Sy.No.25. Thus, Rangappa was the main person, who was looking after the cultivation work and

¶327

25 -

¶328

NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 HC-KAR RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶329

since Deveeramma being the only sister looking after the household, even prior to 1967, the parties namely, Manjappa, Hanumanthappa, Ramappa and Rangappa, who were cultivating the respective properties, entered into Palupatti on 25.06.1967 in the presence of Panchayatdars dividing the properties as being enjoyed by them separately shown in the Palupatti. In terms of the said palupatti, Rangappaa and Deveeramma was allotted the following items of the properties:-

¶330

a. 9 acres 33 guntas in Sy.No.30. b. 6 acres in Sy.No.25.

¶331

c. 7 acres 17 guntas in Sy.No.80/2 d. 3 acres 2 guntas in Sy.No.26 e. half portion in 7 Ankanams House. All of Suttukote village, Shimoga Taluk.

¶332

Though the partition had taken place in the year 1967, revenue records were not entered into, as the parties shared cordial relationship. Since certain differences arose, the plaintiffs applied and sought for regularization of khata and pahani in their name on 05.10.1989. To counter the same, the defendants filed a suit in O.S.No.1496/1989 seeking permanent injunction constraining the plaintiffs to file the present suit.

¶333

26 - NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 HC-KAR RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶334

Defendant Nos.1 to 4 have filed written statement

¶335

denying that Rangappa in the year 1955-56 had acquired lands in Sy.Nos.30/1 and 30/2 under darkasth in the name of defendant No.1. That on the other hand the said properties were the self acquired properties of the defendant No.1. It is contended that defendants are absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the properties described in their suit in O.S No.1496/1989 which are acquired by defendant No.1 on his own capacity under darkasth also by way of sales, Vargarajinama as well as Rajikabali. That all the revenue documents are standing in the name of defendant No.1 and the defendants are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said properties growing Coconut, Groundnut, Jawar, Sunflower, Ragi, Pulses etc., That the plaintiff was the distant relative of the defendants with an intention of making wrongful gain had made unsuccessful attempts to interfere with possession and enjoyment of the properties of the defendants which were resisted including filing of the suit in O.S.No.1469/1989. The claim of the plaintiffs regarding entering into a palupatti dated 25.06.1967 is specifically denied. That plaintiffs with an intention of defrauding the defendants of their valuable rights

¶336

27 - NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 HC-KAR RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶337

of the properties on the strength of illegal and void palupatti

¶338

having no value in the eye of law have been causing trouble to the defendants. That after the marriage, Deveeramma seems to be the member of family of Kambappa only as blood relative cannot claimed to be the family member of the defendants. Contending as above, sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶339

Defendant No.5 filed separate written statement

¶340

supporting the claim of the plaintiff.

¶341

The Trial Court based on the pleadings framed the following issues in O.S.No.119/1990;

¶342

"1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that their title to the suit properties is confirmed prior to 1967 and also from the date of palupatti dated 25.6.1967 and they are owners in possession of suit properties and defendants have no manner of right title or interest over the suit properties?

¶343

2) Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged interference of defendants in respect of suit properties?

¶344

3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaratory relief as prayed for?

¶345

4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for order of permanent injunction as against the defendants as sought for?

¶346

5) To what relief the parties are entitled?

¶347

6) What decree or order?"

¶348

NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 HC-KAR RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶349

28 -

¶350

Suit in O.S.No.77/2003 (Old No.1496/1989)

¶351

A suit in O.S.No.1496/1989 is filed by S.G.Hanumanthappa and his sons, S.G.Ramachandrappa, S.G.Suresh, S.G.Rudrappa (defendants in O.S.No.119/1990) against D.Ramachandrappa, D.Manjappa and D.Basappa (plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 in O.S.No.119/1990) seeking following reliefs;

¶352

"a. for permanent injunction restraining the defendant 1 to 3 and their henchmen supporters, agents, laborers, agents, collies, assigned by representatives etc., from interfering in any manner with the peaceful possession and enjoyment as well as cultivation of the suit schedule properties by the plaintiffs.

¶353

b. for court costs, expenses and also to pass such other reliefs as this court deems fit to grant in favour for the plaintiff under the circumstances of the case and against the defendants 1 to 3 by allowing this suit in the ends of justice."

¶354

Subject matter of the above suit are the following

¶355

properties;

¶356

Lands situated at Suthukote village, Holalur Hobli, Shimoga Taluk, Shimogga District.

¶357

Sr.No.27, 1-21 hectares in extent, bounded by East: Lands of D.Ramachandrappa, West: Lands of Mallappa, North: Lands of Chatnahalli Manjappa, South: Lands of Plaintiffs in Sr.No.98 & lands of Rangappa in Sr.No.99 & lands of plaintiffs in Sr.No.30.

¶358

Sr.No.30, 1.53 Hectares in extent, bounded on the East: Lands of Koviara, West: Lands of Rangappa, in Sr.No.99, North: Lands of plaintiffs in Sr.No.27, South: Lands of Padmamma in Sr.No.33.

¶359

29 -

¶360

NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 HC-KAR RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶361

Sr.No.90/2, 3 Hectares, bounded on the East: Lands of Balaji Rangappa in Sr.No.80/3, West: Lands of Gaddadara Narasappa in Sr.No.80/1, North: Matti and Gomala, South: Cart Track.

¶362

Sr.No.98, 1-62 Hectares in extent, bounded on the East: lands of Rangappa in Sr.No.99, West: lands of Dodderi P Basappa, North: lands of plaintiffs in Sr.No.27, South: Lands of Padmamma in Sr.No.33.

¶363

Sr.No.140, 1-42 Hectares in extent, bounded on the East: Danagala Oni, West: Lands of D.Ramachandrappa, North: Lands of S.G.Manjappa, South: lands of S.G.Ramappa."

¶364

In the said suit it is contended that the property referred

¶365

to therein have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs that defendants having no manner of right, title and interest attempted to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, constraining them to file the suit for permanent injunction.

¶366

Written statement has been filed in the said suit by the defendants therein reiterating the averments made in the plaint in O.S.No.119/1990.

¶367

That the suit in O.S.No.1496/1989 was transferred from the Court of I Additional Munsiff, Shimogga to Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM, Shimogga. After transfer of suit in

¶368

30 - NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 HC-KAR RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶369

O.S.No.1496/1989, the same was renumbered as OS

¶370

No.77/2003.

¶371

Trial Court framed the following issues in O.S.No.77/2003;

¶372

"1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they have been in lawful actual possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?

¶373

2) Whether the plaintiffs further prove the alleged interference by the defendants?

¶374

3) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for relief sought for?

¶375

4) What order or decree?"

¶376

Common evidence was recorded. Four witnesses have

¶377

been examined on behalf of the plaintiffs as PW.1 to PW4 and 96 documents have been marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P96, while two witnesses have examined on behalf of defendants as DW.1 and DW.2 and 18 documents were marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D18.

¶378

That by order dated 24.11.2004 both the suits were clubbed together by the trial Court and joint memo was filed by the parties adopting the evidence adduced in O.S.No.119/1990 and in O.S.No.77/2003.

¶379

NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 HC-KAR RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶380

31 -

¶381

22. The Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence answered

¶382

the issues framed in O.S.No.119/1990 as under;

¶383

"Issue No.1: In the affirmative Issue No.2 In the affirmative Issue No.3: In the affirmative. Issue No.4: Partly in the affirmative Issue No.5: Accordingly Issue No.6: As per final order"

¶384

Issues framed in OS No.77/2003 have been answered as under;

¶385

"Issue No.1: In the negative Issue No.2 In the negative Issue No.3: In the negative Issue No.4: As per final order"

¶386

Consequently, decreed the suit in O.S No.119/1990 in its entirety declaring the plaintiffs to be the absolute owners of suit schedule properties and defendant Nos. 2 to 4 restrained from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and consequently dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.77/2003.

¶387

Being aggrieved by the same, S.G. Rudrappa- defendant No.4 represented by his legal representatives is before this Court in RFA No.174/2005, while S.G.Ramachandrappa-

¶388

32 - NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 HC-KAR RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶389

defendant No.2 in O.S.No.119/1990 has filed RFA No.175/2005.

¶390

Similarly, S.G. Rudrappa who was the plaintiff No.1(b) in OS No.77/2003 is before this Court in RFA No.2195/2012 and S.G.Ramachandrappa the plaintiff No.2 in OS No.77/2003 is before this Court in RFA No.2196/2012.

¶391

Sri. S.V.Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/Sri. S.G.Rudrappa and Sri. R.Gopal, learned counsel appearing for Sri.S.G.Ramachandrappa raising common grounds submit;

¶392

(a) that the trial Court has completely misconceived the facts of

¶393

the case and the provisions of law applicable thereto. They submit that the very premise on which the suit is filed, is claiming independent right over the suit properties alleging that the same are acquired by and through the efforts of late Rangappa the husband of plaintiff No.4 and father of the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3.

¶394

(b) Rangappa was not a family member of Kambappa. He was though married to Deveeramma D/o Kambappa cannot be

¶395

33 - NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 HC-KAR RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶396

considered to be the family member. As such, reliance placed on by the plaintiffs on the palupatti and the same having been accepted by the Trial Court is erroneous and unsustainable.

¶397

(c) They further submit that even if there were to be any such partition, the same cannot be taken as having been executed in the manner known to law. Palupatti as such would not create any right, title, interest in favour of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties.

¶398

(d) Referring to the document at Ex.P1 he submits that the very document furnished by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.119/1990 namely, Grant Certificate dated 11.03.1955 issued in the name of defendant No.1 in respect of land in Sy.No.98 measuring 4 acres (earlier known as Sy.No.30) establishes the case of the defendant No.1 of he being the owner of the said property.

¶399

(e) Referring to document at Ex.P3 it is submitted that the said document is a grant order in respect of land bearing Sy.No.30, measuring 3 acres 31 guntas- Item No.(c) of the suit schedule property made on 05.04.1955 in the name of Manjappa, S/o Hanumanthappa. That the said land was

¶400

34 - NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 HC-KAR RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶401

subsequently made over to the name of defendant No.1 in terms of Rajikabuli which is reflected in the mutation register extract at Ex.P4.

¶402

(f) That appellants' claim only in respect of Sy.No.98, measuring 4 acres -item No.(a), Sy.No.30, measuring 3 acres 33 guntas-item No.(c), Sy.No.140, measuring 3 acres 20 guntas-item No.(e), Sy.No.80/2, measuring 7 acres 17 guntas - item No.(f). That appellants have no concern or claim with respect of land bearing Sy.No.99 measuring 4 acres-item No.(b), Sy.No.138 measuring 2 acres 16 guntas-item No.(d), Sy.No.102 measuring 3 acres 2 guntas -item No.(g).

¶403

(g) Referring to document at Ex.D6 RTC extract it is contended that land in Sy.No.140 measuring 3 acres 20 guntas (shown in hectare as 1.42) was acquired by S.G. Hanumanthappa- defendant No.1 through darkasth and his name has been consistently reflected in the revenue records.

¶404

(h) Referring to document at Ex.D1 a letter dated 09.01.1968 it is contended that land in Sy.No.80/2, measuring 7 acres 17 guntas was purchased in terms of deed of sale dated

¶405

35 - NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 HC-KAR RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶406

27.03.1961 in the name of Deveeramma the plaintiff No.4 which she had made over in the name of defendant No.1 by virtue of vargarajipatra which is reflected in mutation entry as per Ex.D8.

¶407

(i) Thus, referring to these documents it is contended that these four items of the suit properties absolutely belonging to the defendant No.1 and only defendant Nos.1 to 4 were entitled to any manner of share, right, title, interest over the same. The plaintiffs not being the members of the family of the defendants cannot claim to have got the same in terms of partition palupatti. The trial Court without appreciating these aspects of the matter has erroneously decreed the suit for declaration merely because the parties staying together. Such a course of action was not available. Hence, seeks for allowing of the appeals to the extent of aforesaid four items of the suit properties.

¶408

(j) As regards the judgment and decree passed O.S No.77/2003, it is contended apart from the four items of the properties in O.S No.119/1990, namely, item Nos. (a), (c), (e) and (f) the defendants (plaintiffs in the said suit in OS

¶409

36 - NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 HC-KAR RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶410

No.77/2003) also possess and owns Sy.Nos.25 and 27 over which the plaintiffs in OS No.119/1990 have not made any claim. As such, the trial Court could not have dismissed the suit. The least the Trial Court could have granted was the relief of injunction in respect of the said 2 items of the property. Therefore, they submit that on both the counts the appeals are required to be allowed.

¶411

28. Per contra , Sri.Ashwin S.Halady, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs in O.S No.119/1990 and defendants in OS No.77/2003, submit; (a) that since there is no dispute of Deveeramma being sister of defendant No.1 and Rangappa being her husband the relationship of the parties have to be taken into consideration along with the incidental circumstances under which they lived together. He submits that the same has been elaborately set out in the plaint referring to the events that had transpired back in the year 1950's. He submits it was Rangappa the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 who was assisting and supporting the family and it was he who had facilitating in acquiring suit properties. It was in consideration

¶412

37 - NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 HC-KAR RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶413

of this support rendered by Rangappa, the parties had entered into Palupatti at an undisputed point in time recognizing their rights and dividing the same. Though, they had not entered into registered deed, everything went on good faith and belief until the dispute arose two decades subsequent to entering into Palupatti.

¶414

(b) He submits that the defendants are not claiming any right over item Nos.(b), (d) and (g) of the properties indicate that there was a clear understanding between the parties as to how division has taken place. He submits that therefore the trial Court has not committed any error in accepting the Palupatti dated 25.06.1967 though the same had not been registered.

¶415

(c) He submits that the parties in furtherance to the said palupatti had acted upon as they were enjoying the properties which were subject matter of the appeals separately and individually.

¶416

(d) Adverting to the claim of the defendants in respect of Sy.No.80/2, measuring 7 acres 17 guntas he submits that admittedly the said property was purchased under deed of sale

¶417

38 - NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 HC-KAR RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶418

in the name of Deveeramma and though the plaintiffs in the plaint have stated that the said property was made over in the name of defendant No.1 in terms of Vargarajipatra, they have also specifically expressed that it was an arrangement of convenience and the said document was not binding. Therefore, he submits that the defendants cannot claim right over the said Sy.No.80/2 measuring 7 acres 17 guntas of land.

¶419

(e) He also fairly submits that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.119/1990 have no claim or interest of any nature over the land in Sy.No.27 measuring 3 acres 9 guntas which is item No.1 in O.S No.77/2003 while item Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 of the said suit are the one which is the subject matter of suit in O.S.No.77/2003 as well.

¶420

(f) He submits that since the plaintiffs and defendants had mutually entered into the said palupatti had acted upon, they are estopped from making any claim other than what was agreed upon on the technical issue of the document not being registered. Hence, he submits that the appellants have not made out any grounds for interference and seeks for dismissal of the appeals.

¶421

39 -

¶422

NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶423

HC-KAR

¶424

Heard. Perused the records.

¶425

Points that arise for consideration are;

¶426

"(i) Whether the plaintiffs in O.S.No.119/1990 are the owners in possession of suit properties as claimed based on the Palupatti dated 25.6.1967 and thus entitled for declaratory and consequential reliefs of permanent injunction.?

¶427

(ii) Whether the plaintiffs in O.S.No.77/2003 are in actual lawful possession of the said suit properties being entitled for relief of permanent injunction?"

¶428

Relationship between the parties are not in dispute. It is

¶429

also not in dispute that land in Sy.No.98, measuring 4 acresitem No.(a) was indeed granted in the name of defendant No.1.

¶430

It is also not in dispute that the land in Sy.No.99, measuring 4 acres-item No.(b) was granted in the name of Rangappa.

¶431

As regards Sy.No.30, measuring 3 acres 33 guntas -item No.(c) of the suit schedule properties, the same appears to have granted in favour of one Manjappa-defendant No.5 in terms of grant certificated dated 05.04.1959 at Ex.P3.

¶432

40 - NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 HC-KAR RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶433

There appears to be misreading of the fact with reference

¶434

to the name of said Manjappa-defendant No.5. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants, Manjappadefendant No.5, referred to in document at Ex.P3 is the son of S.G.Hanumanthappa/defendant No.1 and not son of Rangappa or Kambappa. Therefore, he submits that the said property has no concern to the family of the plaintiffs for them to claim any right over the same. The said submission appears to be acceptable as perusal of Ex.P3 indicate the same had been granted by the Manjappa son of S.G Hanumanthappa and the said S.G Hanumanthappa apparently has made out the said property in terms of vargarajipatra. If at all there is anyone who have to dispute the same is only the said Manjappa and since there is no such dispute, it has to be accepted and concluded that the said property belonged to S.G Hanumanthappa-defendant No.1.

¶435

As regards the land bearing Sy.No.138, measuring 2 acres 16 guntas-item No.(d), learned counsel for the appellants submits that they have no concern with regard to the said property.

¶436

41 - NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 HC-KAR RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶437

As regards to property bearing Sy.No.140, measuring 3 acres 20 guntas-item No.(e) the same was also subject matter of the grant made in favour of the S.G.Hanumanthappadefendant No.1.

¶438

There is also no dispute of the fact that land in Sy.No.80/2, measuring 7 acres 17 guntas-item No.(f) was purchased in the name of Deveeramma-plaintiff No.4. Though admittedly the said property was made over in the name of S.G.Hanumanthappadefendant No.1 in terms of vargarajipatra the validity of the same has been disputed by the plaintiffs.

¶439

As regards property bearing Sy.No.102, measuring 3 acres 2 guntas-item No.(g) there is no dispute of the fact that the said property was granted in the name of Rangappa father of plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and husband of plaintiff No.4.

¶440

Thus, the undisputed facts with regard to the properties narrated above, indicate that Rangappa, husband of plaintiff No.4 and father of plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 had acquired item Nos.(b), (d), and (g) of the suit properties. While defendant

¶441

42 - NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 HC-KAR RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶442

No.1 had acquired item Nos. (a), (c) and (e) of the suit schedule properties.

¶443

The question which requires consideration is in the light of claim made by the plaintiffs based on Palupatti dated 25.06.1967 in respect of lands in item Nos. (a), (c), (e) and (f).

¶444

That the palupatti which is heavily relied upon by the plaintiffs to contend that the parties had entered into partition of the family properties purportedly on the premise that all the family properties were acquired with the aid and assistance of Rangappa. This leads to a further question as to the status of Rangappa vis-à-vis the family of Kambappa. Rangappa admittedly the son-in-law of Kambappa, he cannot be considered as family member of Kambappa either on fact or on law or the customs as admittedly which is not the case as pleaded by the parties.

¶445

If the properties were acquired jointly with the efforts of family members of Kambappa and Rangappa, the same cannot be made subject matter of the family partition, inasmuch as,

¶446

43 - NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 HC-KAR RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶447

Rangappa admittedly not family member of Kambappa. Merely because Rangappa was staying with the family members of Kambappa he would not become member or the coparcener. On the other hand, Rangappa may have to be considered as a co-owner as such the palupatti dated 25.06.1967, therefore would not support the case of the plaintiffs.

¶448

As rightly contended, since plaintiffs in O.S.No.119/1990 being wife and sons respectively of Rangappa claiming right, title, interest in respect of item Nos. (a), (c), (e) and (f) of the suit schedule properties, based on the Palupatti dated 25.06.1967 at Exs.P6 and Ex.P84 over which they do not have any pre-existing rights, cannot be granted relief.

¶449

The trial Court has apparently proceeded to accept the case of the plaintiffs on the premise, since all the parties of the suit were residing together the palupatti was acceptable. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants the trial Court has missed out the legal requirement of parties qualifying to be the member of Palupatti/partition.

¶450

44 -

¶451

NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 HC-KAR RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶452

Plaintiffs are claiming their independent rights through and under Rangappa in terms of the said Palupatti. Even if the said document was executed it would not create any right, title, interest over the properties in item Nos. (a), (c) and (e) which were not granted in the name of Rangappa. Therefore, Rangappa cannot have any pre-existing right over the properties in Sy.No.98 measuring 4 acres-item no.(a), in Sy.No.30, measuring 3 acres 33 guntas-item no.(c), in Sy.No.140 measuring 3 acres 20 guntas-item no.(e) which admittedly exclusively belonged to S.G.Hanumanthappadefendant No.1. The palupatti to the said extent cannot be accepted.

¶453

Appropriate to refer to paragraph 20 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SHASIDARA AND OTHERS VS. ASHWINI UMA MATHAD AND ANOTHER reported in (2015) 11 SCC 269 which is as under;

¶454

"20. We may consider it apposite to state, being a wellsettled principle of law that in a suit filed by a co-sharer, coparcener, co-owner or joint owner, as the case may be, for partition and separate possession of his/her share qua others, it is necessary for the court to examine, in the first instance, the nature and character of the properties in suit such as who was the original owner of the suit properties, how and by which source he/she acquired such properties, whether it was his/her self-acquired property or ancestral

¶455

NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶456

45 -

¶457

HC-KAR

¶458

property, or joint property or coparcenary property in his/her hand and, if so, who are/were the coparceners or joint owners with him/her as the case may be. Secondly , how the devolution of his/her interest in the property took place consequent upon his/her death on surviving members of the family and in what proportion, whether he/she died intestate or left behind any testamentary succession in favour of any family member or outsider to inherit his/her share in properties and if so, its effect. Thirdly , whether the properties in suit are capable of being partitioned effectively and if so, in what manner? Lastly , whether all properties are included in the suit and all co-sharers, coparceners, coowners or joint owners, as the case may be, are made parties to the suit? These issues, being material for proper disposal of the partition suit, have to be answered by the court on the basis of family tree, inter se relations of family members, evidence adduced and the principles of law applicable to the case."

¶459

In the instant case, though the suit is one for declaration

¶460

of ownership based on Palupatti at Ex.P6 and Ex.P84, unless it was established that Rangappa was co-sharer or joint owner or the coparcener, plaintiffs cannot be granted relief as sought for. Grant of any share or creation of any right, title interest in respect of the said items of the properties in favour of Rangappa, have to be made in the manner known to law, that is, in terms of the Section 17(b) of the Registration Act, 1908. That not having been done, plaintiffs cannot claim right over the properties which belonged to the S.G.Hanumanthappadefendant No.1.

¶461

46 -

¶462

NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 HC-KAR RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶463

That same principle would apply in respect of land in Sy.No.80/2, measuring 7 acres 17 guntas-item No.(f), which admittedly purchased in the name of Deveeramma/plaintiff No.4 in terms of registered deed of sale dated 27.03.1961. Though the document is not produced there is no dispute to the said effect. A revenue entry purportedly made in the name of S.G.Hanumanthappa- defendant No.1 on the premise of alleged vargarajipatra, in the considered view of this Court the same would not create any right, title, interest in favour of the S.G.Hanumanthappa-defendant No.1 as the said property was the absolute property of Deveeramma/plaintiff No.4. As such, the claim of the defendants of the said property also cannot be countenanced.

¶464

Since there is no claim or dispute with regard to the lands in Sy.Nos.27, 30, 98 and 140 being item Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 of the suit in O.S.No.77/2003, the said properties have to be held as the same belonging to the plaintiffs.

¶465

Plaintiffs' suit in O.S.No.119/1990 to the extent of item Nos.(a), (c), (e) would not succeed. Since defendants in the

¶466

47 - NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 HC-KAR RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶467

said suit who are the appellants in RFA No.174/2005, RFA No.175/2005 have not claimed any right in respect of item Nos. (b), (d) and (g) and since this Court has held item No.(f) has not been conveyed in favour of S.G.Hanumanthappadefendant No.1 in the manner known to law, suit of the plaintiffs to the said extent of said items of the suit properties has to be decreed.

¶468

For the aforesaid discussion/analysis the following;

¶469

ORDER

¶470

(i) Appeals in RFA Nos.174/2005 and 175/2005 are partly

¶471

allowed .

¶472

(ii) Judgment and decree dated 26.11.2004 passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.119/1990 is modified declaring the

¶473

plaintiffs to be the owners to the extent of lands in;

¶474

(a) Sy.No.99 measuring 4 acres- item No.(b); Sy.No.138 measuring 2 acres 16 guntas-item No.(d); Sy.No.102 measuring 3 acres 2 guntas- item No.(g); Sy.No.80/2 measuring 7 acres 17 guntas- item No.(f).

¶475

(b) Consequently, said suit in respect of lands in; Sy.No.98 measuring 4 acres-item No.(a); Sy.No.30 measuring 3 acres 33 guntas-item No.(c); Sy.No.140 measuring 3 acres 20 guntas, item No.(e), stands dismissed.

¶476

48 -

¶477

NC: 2026:KHC:10844 RFA No. 175 of 2005 C/W RFA No. 174 of 2005 RFA No. 2195 of 2012 RFA No.2196 of 2012

¶478

HC-KAR

¶479

iii. Appeals in RFA Nos.2195/2012 and 2196/2012 are

¶480

partly allowed .

¶481

Suit in O.S.No.77/2003 is decreed granting permanent injunction as sought for in respect of Sy.Nos.27, 30, 98 and 140 being item Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 of the suit schedule properties.

¶482

Consequently, suit in respect of land in Sy.No.90/2, item No.3 of the suit schedule property is dismissed.

¶483

iv. Draw decree accordingly.

¶484

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

¶485

PMR/RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

S G Ramachandrappa v. D Ramachandrappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S G Ramachandrappa v. D Ramachandrappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt K B Chikkathayamma Vs Smt a C Lakshmi

State of Karnataka Vs Mrs. Mamatha

C M Mupasil @ Saddam Vs Union Bank of India

Syed Akmal Pasha Vs Smt. Shakeera Begum Since Deceased by Her Lr'S Sri. Ameer Hussain

Shri S Chandrakar Vs Shri R Margabhandhu

Sri.C. Venkateshalu Vs Karnataka State Financial Corporation