Karnataka High Court
Sri Gadigeppa S/O Rudrappa Kelur Alias ... vs Smt Chandravva W/O Mukappa Gaddad And ... on 16 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13999
RSA No. 100522 of 2023
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. 100522 OF 2023 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
SRI. GADIGEPPA
S/O. RUDRAPPA KELUR @ SHIREGONDAR,
R/O. HIREHALLI, TQ. BYADAGI,
DIST. HAVERI- 581106.
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.,
SINCE DIED ON 14-02-2023.
1. SMT. SHANTVVA
W/O. GADIGEPPA KELUR @ SHIREGONDAR,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. HIREHALLI, TQ. BYADAGI,
DIST. HAVERI- 581106.
2. SRI. CHANDRAPPA
S/O. GADIGEPPA KELUR @ SHIREGONDAR,
Digitally AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
signed by
YASHAVANT
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR R/O. HIREHALLI, TQ. BYADAGI,
NARAYANKAR Date:
2025.10.18
10:54:55
DIST. HAVERI- 581106.
+0530
3. SMT. SUMANGALA W/O. BASAVARAJ ADAVI,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. MALLIGAR, TQ. HANGAL,
DIST. HAVERI-581104.
4. SRI. JAGADISH S/O. GADIGEPPA KELUR @
SHIREGONDAR,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC, AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HIREHALLI, TQ. BYADAGI,
DIST. HAVERI-581106.
5. SMT. SHOBHA @ GEETA
W/O. VEERESH KODIHALLI,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13999
RSA No. 100522 of 2023
HC-KAR
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KELAVARAKOPPA, TQ. HANGAL,
DIST. HAVERI-581120.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.N. BANAKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1) SMT. CHANDRAVVA W/O. MUKAPPA GADDAD,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BEERANAKOPPA, TQ. BYADAGI,
DIST. HAVERI-581120.
2) SMT. KAMALAVVA W/O. MUKAPPA DIDAGUR,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. SOMASAGAR, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI-581120.
3) SRI. GANESHAPPA S/O. GANAGAYYA SUDAMBI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. BEERANAKOPPA, TQ. BYADAGI,
DIST. HAVERI-581120.
4) SMT. MANJAVVA W/O. KANTESH YALIWAL,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. HIREANAJI, TQ. BYADAGI,
DIST. HAVERI-581120.
5) SMT. PARAVVA W/O. SURYAKANTAYYA SUDAMBI,
AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BEERANAKOPPA, TQ. BYADAGI,
DIST. HAVERI-581120.
6) SMT. NAGAVVA W/O VEERABHADRAPPA KELUR
@ SHIREGONDAR,
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. HIREHALLI, TQ. BYADAGI,
DIST. HAVERI-581106.
7) SRI. SIDDAPPA
S/O. VEERABHADRAPPA KELUR @ SHIREGONDAR,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. HIREHALLI, TQ. BYADAGI,
DIST. HAVERI-581106.
8) SMT. MALAKKA W/O. PADAVESH KYASANUR,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13999
RSA No. 100522 of 2023
HC-KAR
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KOOSANUR, TQ. HANGAL,
DIST. HAVERI-581120.
9) SMT. MANJULA W/O. MAHESH HADIMANI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. WASAN, TQ. HANGAL,
DIST. HAVERI-581120.
10) SRI. RUDRAPPA S/O KALLAPPA PYATI,
SINCE DECEASED ON 08.03.2023,
HIS LRS., ARE ALREADY ON RECORD I.E. R11 AND R12.
11) SMT. SHAKUNTALA D/O. RUDRAPPA PYATI,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. H NO.2265, MCC "A" BLOCK,
7TH MAIN DAVANGERE
DIST. DAVANAGERE.
12) PRAKASH S/O. RUDRAPPA PYATI,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. SUDAMBI, TQ. BYADAGI,
DIST. HAVERI-581120.
13) SMT. KALAVVA W/O. CHANDRASHEKHAR HURALI,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. HIREANAJI, TQ. BYADAGI,
DIST. HAVERI-581120.
NOW R/O. DANESHWARI NAGAR,
BEHIND "SHIVAJYOTI HOSPITAL"
HAVERI, TQ. & DIST. HAVERI-581110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
R1-R4 AND R6-R9 AND R11-R13 ARE NOTICE SERVED;
R11 AND R12 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED R10)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.01.2023 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.8/2016 ON THE FILE O THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, AT BYADAGI, THE APPEAL
PARTLY ALLOWING AND SETTING ASIDE AND MODIFYING THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD 04.12.2015, PASSED IN O.S.
NO.04/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, BYADGI, DECREEING
THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13999
RSA No. 100522 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS REGULAR SECOND 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 appearing for the appellants and the respondents.
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree in R.A.No.8/2006 dated 21.01.2023 by Learned Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Byadagi, who partly allowed the appeal by modifying the judgment of the Trial Court in O.S.No.4/2008 dated 04.12.2015, the appellants are before this Court in appeal. The appellants are the legal heirs of the original defendant No.5 before the Trial Court.
3. The factual matrix that is relevant for the purpose of this appeal is that the plaintiffs contended that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and defendants. The propositus Rudrappa had six children and plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are two daughters of Rudrappa. The defendants are the siblings and children of deceased Veerabhadrappa, who was the brother of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs contended that all the suit schedule properties are the -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13999 RSA No. 100522 of 2023 HC-KAR joint family properties and therefore, they are entitled for 1/6th share in the suit schedule property.
4. The defendants appeared before the Trial Court and contended that the plaintiffs were given their respective shares at the time of the marriage and the plaintiffs are residing separately and therefore, they are estopped from seeking any partition. They further contended that the plaintiffs have given consent to enter the name of the defendant No.7 in the revenue records of the suit schedule property and therefore, the plaintiffs are estopped from seeking any partition.
5. On the basis of the above contentions, the Trial Court framed the following issues.
"1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule 'A' properties are the joint family properties of the family of the plaintiffs and the defendants?
2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule 'A' properties are in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and the defendants?
3) Whether the defendants prove that the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by the law of limitation as contended in para. 13 and 15 of their written statement?
4) Whether the defendants prove that the plaintiffs have not property valued the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction as contended in para. 12 of their written statement?-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13999 RSA No. 100522 of 2023 HC-KAR
5) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for partition and separate possession of their 1/6th share each in the suit schedule 'A' properties?
6) What order or decree?"
6. One of the plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and Ex.P.1 to 17 were marked. Defendant No.5 was examined as DW.1 and defendant No.6(A) was examined as DW.2. Another witness was examined as DW.3 and Ex.D.1 to 23 were marked.
7. After hearing both the sides, the Trial Court decreed the suit directing partition of the suit schedule property and allotting 1/6th share to the plaintiffs.
8. During pendency of the suit, plaintiff No.1 filed a memo before the Trial Court stating that she does not want to prosecute the suit and she does not want any share in the suit schedule property and her rights are given up in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 5.
9. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, defendant No.5 approached the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.8/2016. The First Appellate Court after hearing the arguments framed the following points for consideration:
"1) Whether plaintiffs and defendants are joint family members, suit properties are ancestral and joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants?-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13999 RSA No. 100522 of 2023 HC-KAR
2) Whether call for interference by this Court with respect of Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court is warranted?
3) What order?"
10. Answering point No.1 in the affirmative and point No.2 partly in the affirmative, the judgment of the Trial Court was modified stating that the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/6th share each.
11. Being aggrieved by the same, the legal heirs of defendant No.5 are before this Court in appeal.
12. The first contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that when plaintiff No.1 had filed a memo before the Trial Court that she does not want to prosecute the case and she is giving up all her rights in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 5, the First Appellate Court could not have passed a decree granting 1/6th share to plaintiff No.1. Therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
13. His second contention is that one of the suit schedule properties item No.2 was granted to defendant Nos.1 and 5 by the Land Tribunal and therefore, that would enure to the benefit of defendant Nos.1 and 5 only.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13999 RSA No. 100522 of 2023 HC-KAR
14. The first contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that plaintiff No.1 had given up her share in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 5 can very well be taken care of while drawing the final decree. When there is a categorical statement made by plaintiff No.1 before the Trial Court in the form of a memo and which has been considered by the Trial Court in paragraph No.14 of the judgment, the same is to be taken into consideration by the Court which is drawing the final decree. The appellant would be at liberty to bring the same to the notice of the Trial Court before the final decree is drawn.
15. The second point urged by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that Item No.2 of the suit schedule property was granted to defendant Nos.1 and 5 exclusively is concerned. The First Appellate Court in paragraph No.15 of the judgment has dealt the same in detail. The First Appellate Court has held that the married daughters are also entitled for share in the land covered by the Land Reforms Act by placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of Girija W/o Shivanagouda and Others vs. Ramanagowda S/o Basangouda Patil and Others1. Therefore, the said finding of the First Appellate Court 1 2022 (4) KCCR 3076 (DB) -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13999 RSA No. 100522 of 2023 HC-KAR is in accordance with law and therefore, there is no reason to interfere in the same.
16. In the result, no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal and therefore, the appeal is devoid of any merits. Therefore the appeal is dismissed.
17. It is clarified that the appellants can bring to the notice of the Trial Court in final decree proceedings that plaintiff No.1 had filed a memo before the Trial Court giving up her rights to defendant Nos.1 to 5.
SD/-
(C M JOSHI) JUDGE SSP CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 36