Karnataka High Court
Hanamanthappa Mallappa Lakkikoppa vs Gurushantappa A/F Yallappa on 16 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13981
RSA No. 100350 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100350 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. HANAMANTHAPPA MALLAPPA LAKKIKOPPA,
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,,
R/O. CHANDAPUR, TQ. SHIGGAON,
DIST. HAVERI-581110.
2. BASAPPA MALLAPPA LAKKIKOPPA
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHANDAPUR, TQ. SHIGGAON,
DIST. HAVERI-581110.
3. SHIVALINGAPPA MALLAPPA LAKKIKOPPA
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
Digitally
R/O. CHANDAPUR, TQ. SHIGGAON,
signed by
YASHAVANT
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
DIST. HAVERI-581110.
NARAYANKAR Date:
2025.10.17
11:05:36
+0530
4. PREMAVVA D/O. MALLAPPA LAKKIKOPPA
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHANDAPUR, TQ. SHIGGAON,
DIST. HAVERI-581110.
5. SMT. DEVAKKA W/O. FAKKIRAPPA LAKKIKOPPA
AGE: 51 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHANDAPUR, TQ. SHIGGAON,
DIST. HAVERI-581110.
6. UMESH FAKKIRAPPA LAKKIKOPPA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13981
RSA No. 100350 of 2014
HC-KAR
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHANDAPUR, TQ. SHIGGAON,
DIST. HAVERI-581110.
7. KRISHNAPPA FAKKIRAPPA LAKKIKOPPA
AGE: 31 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHANDAPUR, TQ. SHIGGAON,
DIST. HAVERI-581110.
8. KUMAR S/O. FAKKIRAPPA LAKKIKOPPA
AGE: 26 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHANDAPUR, TQ. SHIGGAON,
DIST. HAVERI-581110.
9. RAGHAVENDRA S/O. FAKKIRAPPA LAKKIKOPPA
AGE: 21 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHANDAPUR, TQ. SHIGGAON,
DIST. HAVERI-581110.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.N. BANAKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
GURUSHANTAPPA A/F YALLAPPA LAKKIKOPPA
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHANDAPUR, TQ. SHIGGAON,
DIST. HAVERI-581110.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS FROM CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIGGAON IN
F.D.P.NO.4/2002 DATED 15.12.2012 SO ALSO, CALL FOR RECORDS
FROM ADDITIOAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HAVERI, IN
R.A.NO.15/2013 DATED 11.04.2014 THEREBY DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN
THE COURTS OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT SHIGGAON IN FDP
NO.4/2002 DATED 15.12.2012 MAY KINDLY BE DISMISSED BY
ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13981
RSA No. 100350 of 2014
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.
2. The appellants, being aggrieved by the dismissal of R.A.No.15/2013 dated 11.04.2014 by Additional Senior Civil Judge, Haveri, have approached this court in this appeal.
3. The factual matrix of the case that is relevant is that the respondent had filed a suit in O.S.No.18/1994 for partition. The said suit came to be decreed allotting half share to the respondent. Said decree was challenged in R.A.No.92/2006 before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Haveri and in the said appeal the decree of the Trial Court was confirmed. Thereafter, final decree proceedings were instituted in FDP No.4/2002 and a Court Commissioner was appointed to suggest the partition. Accordingly, the Court Commissioner submitted the report and after hearing both the sides, the Trial Court accepted report of the Court Commissioner and ordered for drawing up of the final decree. The said order dated 15.12.2012 was challenged by the -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13981 RSA No. 100350 of 2014 HC-KAR appellants herein before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Haveri in R.A.No.15/2013. By the impugned judgment, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order to draw the final decree.
4. The appellants contended before the First Appellate Court that the partition proposed by the Court Commissioner is incorrect as it had not taken into consideration the valuation of three trees, which are situated in the suit schedule property and the said property has been allotted to the share of the respondent. It was contended that the valuation of the trees being to the tune of ₹50,000/- to ₹60,000/- was purposely allotted to the respondent and therefore, the partition is unequal. The said contention of the appellants was considered by the First Appellate Court in paragraph 17 of its judgment and ultimately it came to the conclusion that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment. Being aggrieved, the appellants are before this Court in this Second Appeal.
5. It is pertinent to note that fundamentally the contentions raised by the appellants are in the realm of facts. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13981 RSA No. 100350 of 2014 HC-KAR appreciated the evidence placed on record and have come to the conclusion that the partition suggested by the Court Commissioner is proper and correct. The observations of the First Appellate Court in Paragraph 17 of its judgment reads as below:
"17. That after careful perusal of the entire report, it appears to the Court that, Court Commissioner report is in accordance with law and said partition is appears to be equitable partition. However, also the objections raised by the respondent is that, Court Commissioner failed to taken into consideration with regard to the valuable 3 trees standing in the suit properties which are worth ₹50-60 thousands and purposely failed to allot to the share of petitioner. In the light of the above said objections, this Court carefully perused the material available on record and after careful perusal of the Court Commissioner's report, it appears to the Court that, three trees are existing in the suit properties and said trees are not worth of ₹50-60/- thousands and to substantiate the said fact, no documents produced by the appellants herein. Further it is very pertaining to note that, it appears from the pleadings of the appellants as well as respondent since 1995 entire suit properties appears to be enjoyed by the appellants herein though the respondent is having half share in the suit properties. In the light of the said fact and looking to the enjoyment of the appellants over the suit properties it is not justifiable to strictly consider the worth of the said -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13981 RSA No. 100350 of 2014 HC-KAR trees which are said to be fallen into the share of the respondent."
6. It is relevant to note that the appellants had not placed any material on record before the Trial Court to show the valuation of the three trees, which they are disputing. Thus, there being no such evidence, which is available on record, no fault can be found by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court in regard to the valuation of the three trees, which is the bone of contention of the appellants before this Court. There being absolutely no material on record regarding the valuation of the trees, the conclusions reached by the First Appellate Court cannot be interfered with, muchless there is no substantial question of law, which arises in the present appeal. In that view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed.
7. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.
SD/-
(C M JOSHI) JUDGE YAN, CT:PA, LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 30