Karnataka High Court
Smt Sunanda W/O Tippanna Basatti vs Smt Shantavva W/O Panchappa Shiddigeri on 25 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14250
RSA No. 101255 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 101255 OF 2022 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SUNANDA W/O. TIPPANNA BASETTI,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HOMBAL, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG,
PIN CODE-582204.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SHANTAVVA W/O. PANCHAPPA SHIDDIGERI,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ASHRAYA COLONY, HUILGOL ROAD, BETAGERI,
TQ. AND DIST. GADAG, PIN CODE- 582101.
2. SHRI CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA
S/O. PRABHAPPA HUNASIKATTI,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HOMBAL, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG, PIN CODE-582204.
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR 3. SHRI CHANNAVEERAPPA PRABHAPPA HUNASIKATTI
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT R/O. HOMBAL, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG,
NARAYANKAR
Date: 2025.10.28 PIN CODE-582204.
11:25:46 +0530
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE GADAG, DATED
12.01.2021 IN R.A.NO.56/2020 BY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, GADAG IN O.S.NO.124/2013 DATED
22.01.2020 BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL ALONG WITH COSTS, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14250
RSA No. 101255 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT
WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the concurrent findings of the Trial Court in O.S.No.124/2013 and the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.56/2020.
2. The factual matrix, that is relevant is that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are the sisters and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the purchasers of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff contended that the suit schedule property is the ancestral joint family property of her father Rajappa and he had obtained the same in a partition. It was contended that after death of Rajappa on 16.11.2004, the name of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 should have been entered in the revenue records in respect of suit schedule property. It was contended that defendant Nos.2 and 3 were cultivating the suit schedule property, even during the lifetime of their father Rajappa. The plaintiff later came to know that defendant Nos.2 and 3 had manipulated a sale deed, alleged to have been executed by Rajappa. It is contended that -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14250 RSA No. 101255 of 2022 HC-KAR since the suit schedule properties are their ancestral properties, the father of the plaintiff Rajappa could not have alienated the share of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Therefore, the plaintiff sought partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property and also declaration that the sale deed executed by her father is not binding on her.
2. The suit was resisted by defendant Nos.2 and 3 contending that the father of the plaintiff Rajappa had executed a registered sale in their favour and a sum of ₹2,00,000/- was received by him as consideration, and it was for family necessity and therefore, the sale is valid. It is also contended that the suit schedule property was a self acquired property of the Rajappa and as such the suit be dismissed.
3. Defendant No.1 contended that she is also entitled for a share along with the plaintiff and made a counter claim. Defendant No.1 supported the plaintiff and sought her share in their property by making a counter claim.
4. The Trial Court framed the following issues:
"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the suit properties are joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants?-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14250 RSA No. 101255 of 2022 HC-KAR
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, she is entitled for ½ share?
3. Whether Court fee paid is sufficient?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought in the suit?
5. What Order or Decree?"
5. The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 to 7 were marked. Defendant Nos.2 was examined as D.W.1 and defendant No.1 was examined as D.W.2 and and Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.15 were marked in evidence.
6. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record, held that issue Nos.1, 2 and 4 in the negative and issue No.3 in the affirmative and proceeded to dismiss the suit.
7. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff approached the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.56/2020 and the First Appellate Court also confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have erred in holding that the suit schedule property was sold to defendant Nos.2 and 3 for family necessity and the appreciation of the evidence by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court is -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:14250 RSA No. 101255 of 2022 HC-KAR perverse and as such, there is a need for indulgence by this Court. It is submitted that the perversity of the appreciation of the evidence is the only question that arises in this appeal.
9. A careful perusal of the impugned judgments shows that the Trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence on record. The P.W.1 had admitted that the Rajappa had debts at Sangali Bank, Gadag. It was admitted that she came to know about the alleged sale deed only after filing of the suit. It is pertinent to note that an effort was made by the plaintiff to enter the name of the son of the plaintiff in the revenue records, which was a subject matter of a revenue proceeding resulting in restoration of the name of defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the revenue records. Thus, it is evident that the Trial Court has considered the evidence on record and the excerpts of the testimony of the P.W.1 are extracted in the impugned judgment. It is evident that the father of the plaintiff Rajappa had debts and for payment of such debts, the property was sold. During lifetime of the said Rajappa, the sale was never questioned and therefore, the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the suit schedule property was alienated for family necessity and as such the suit deserves to be dismissed. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14250 RSA No. 101255 of 2022 HC-KAR
10. No fault can be found in the judgment of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court in appreciating the evidence and no such instances are shown which depict or demonstrate that there is any perversity by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.
11. In that view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal and therefore, at the stage of admission itself, the appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
(C M JOSHI) JUDGE SSP CT:PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28