Karnataka High Court
Hanamant S/O Basavaraj Kunchikorawar vs Shashikala D/O Hanamant Kunchikorwazr on 10 March, 2026
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2264-DB
RFA No. 200036 of 2015
C/W RFA No. 200091 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.200036 OF 2015 (PAR/POS)
C/W
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.200091 OF 2019 (PAR/POS)
IN RFA NO.200036/2015:
BETWEEN:
1. HANAMANT S/O BASAVARAJ KUNCHIKORAWAR,
@ BOMBAY @ MUNGALI,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
2. BASAVARAJ S/O DURGAPPA KUNCHIKORAWAR,
@ BOMBAY @ MUNGALI,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
Digitally signed
by LUCYGRACE
3. SMT. ROOPA W/O HANAMANT KUNCHIKORAWAR
Location: HIGH @ BOMBAY @ MUNGALI,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK &
AGRICULTURE
4. ROHIT S/O HANAMANT KUNCHIKORAWAR,
@ BOMBAY @ MUNGALI,
AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS, OCC: NIL
ALL ARE R/O: ALLAMPUR PETH, WARD NO.7, ILKAL
TQ. HUNAGUND, DIST. BAGALKOT-587125.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. D. P. AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2264-DB
RFA No. 200036 of 2015
C/W RFA No. 200091 of 2019
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SHASHIKALA D/O HANAMANT KUNCHIKORAWAR,
@ BOMBAY @ MUNGALI,
AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, OCC: NIL
2. DEEPAK S/O HANAMANT KUNCHIKORAWAR,
@ BOMBAY @ MUNGALI,
AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS, OCC: NIL.
3. KAMALABAI @ KAMALAXI
W/O HANAMANT KUNCHIKORAWAR,
@ BOMBAY @ MUNGALI,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
ALL ARE R/O: JADAR GALLI, KUNCHIKORAWAR ONI,
RAILWAY STATION ROAD, BIJAPUR-586101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIRANAGOUDA M. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
R1 & R2 ARE MINORS)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96
READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
08.01.2015 PASSED BY THE IST ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
VIJAYAPUR, IN O.S.NO.45/2010, FURTHER DISMISS THE SAID SUIT
AS PRAYED FOR WITH COSTS.
IN RFA NO.200091/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. HANAMANT S/O BASAVARAJ KUNCHIKORAWAR
@ BOMBAY@ MUNGALI,
AGE ABOUT: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
2. BASAVARAJ S/O DURGAPPA KUNCHIKORAWAR
@ BOMBAY@ MUNGALI,
AGE ABOUT: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
3. SMT. ROOPA W/O HANAMANTH @ KUNCHIKORAWAR
@ BOMBAY@ MUNGALI,
AGED ABOUT: 35 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK & AGRICULTURE
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2264-DB
RFA No. 200036 of 2015
C/W RFA No. 200091 of 2019
HC-KAR
4. ROHIT S/O HANAMANT KUNCHIKORAWAR
@ BOMBAY@ MUNGALI,
AGED ABOUT : 13 YEARS, OCC: NIL
ALL ARE R/O ALLAPUR PETH, WARD NO.7 ILKAL
TQ:HUNAGUND DIST: BAGALKOT-587125.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. D. P. AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHASHIKALA D/O HANAMANT KUNCHIKORAWAR
@ BOMBAY@ MUNGALI,
AGED ABOUT: 14 YEARS, OCC: NIL
2. DEEPAK S/O HANAMANT KUNCHIKORAWAR
@ BOMBAY@ MUNGALI,
AGED ABOUT: 13 YEARS, OCC: NIL
3. KAMALABAI @ KAMALAXI
W/O HANAMANT KUNCHIKORAWAR
@ BOMBAY@ MUNGALI,
AGED ABOUT: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
ALL ARE R/O JADAR GALLI, KUNCHIKORAWAR ONI,
RAILWAY STATION ROAD, BIJAPUR-586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIRANAGOUDA M. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
R1 & R2 ARE MINORS)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96
READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW
THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER AND FINAL
DECREE DATED 26.07.2018 PASSED BY THE IST ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL AND CJM VIJAYAPUR IN FDP NO.5/2015, AND FURTHER
DISMISS THE SAID SUIT AS PRAYED FOR WITH COSTS.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2264-DB
RFA No. 200036 of 2015
C/W RFA No. 200091 of 2019
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
and
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
1. The appellant in RFA.No.200036/2015 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:-
"Allow this appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 08.01.2015 passed by the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayapur, in O.S.No.45/2010, further dismiss the said suit as prayed for with costs, in the interest of justice and equity."
2. The very same appellant in RFA.No.200091/2019 is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:-
"Allow this appeal by setting aside the order and final decree dated 26.07.2018 passed by the Ist Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM Court, at Vijayapur in FDP.No.5/2015 and further dismiss the said suit as prayed for with costs, in the interest of justice and equity."
3. RFA No.200036/2015 was filed challenging the preliminary decree, whereas RFA No.200091/2019 was filed challenging the final decree.
4. The suit in O.S. No.45/2010 was instituted seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs contended that the propositus of the family was one Basavaraj, whose -5- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2264-DB RFA No. 200036 of 2015 C/W RFA No. 200091 of 2019 HC-KAR son Hanumant had married plaintiff No.3. Out of the said wedlock, plaintiffs No.1 and 2 were born. On the basis of the said relationship and asserting that the suit properties constituted joint family properties, the plaintiffs instituted the suit seeking partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the joint family properties.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether plaintiffs prove that, suit properties are joint family properties of them and defendants.?
2. Whether plaintiffs prove further prove that they are entitled for 1/4th share each out of half (1/2) share of defendant No.1.?
3. Whether the defendants prove that suit is bad for northern joinder of necessary parties i.e., Smt. Durgawwa w/o Basavaraj Kunchikorawar i.e,.
defendant No.2 and Smt. Gangavva w/o Rajesh Kunchikorawar.?
4. Whether the defendants further prove that plaintiff No.3 is divorced wife of defendant No.1, hence she has no any right to claim share in the suit properties of the defendants.?
5. Whether defendants further prove that this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit.?
6. What decree / order.?
6. The Trial Court answered the above issues as under:-
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative
Issue No.2 : Partly in the affirmative
Issue No.3 : In the negative
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2264-DB
RFA No. 200036 of 2015
C/W RFA No. 200091 of 2019
HC-KAR
Issue No.4 : in the negative
Issue No.5 : In the negative
Issue No.6 : As per final order, for the
following;
7. Vide judgment dated 08.01.2013, the suit came to be decreed in the following terms:-
"Suit filed by the plaintiffs is partly decreed.
A decree of partition and separate possession of 1/24th share each is granted in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants, entitling the plaintiffs to get their share divided by metes and bounds.
It is declared that, share of defendant Nos.1 and 2 will be 1/4th share each in all the suit properties. Consequently, defendant Nos.3 and 4 have their 1/24th share and defendant No.3 and 4 have their 1/24th share. Daughter and wife of defendant No.2 are at liberty to join during final decree proceedings.
Draw a preliminary decree accordingly.
If the defendants pay Court fee, draw a preliminary decree in their favour also.
Considering the relationship between the parties, there is no order as to costs."
8. It is challenging the said judgment, the appellants are before this Court.
9. The submission of Sri D. P. Ambekar, learned counsel for the appellants, is that -7- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2264-DB RFA No. 200036 of 2015 C/W RFA No. 200091 of 2019 HC-KAR 9.1. the appellants do not have any grievance with regard to the finding of the Trial Court concerning the relationship between the parties or their entitlement to a share in the suit properties. The limited contention raised by the appellants is that, while calculating the shares of the parties, the share of plaintiff No.3 ought not to have been taken into consideration, since plaintiff No.3 had been divorced from Hanumant prior to the institution of the suit. Consequently, she did not retain the status of a wife so as to claim any share in the property of her husband.
9.2. According to the learned counsel, the controversy in the present appeals is therefore confined solely to the correctness of the calculation of shares, and it is only this aspect that requires re-appreciation by this Court.
9.3. It is further submitted that, even according to the case of the plaintiffs, a decree of divorce was granted in M.C. No.22/2009 on 27.03.2010, which decree was challenged in MFA No.23370/2013. The present suit in O.S. No.45/2010 came to be filed subsequently on 25.11.2013, i.e., after the decree of divorce had already been granted. In view of the said -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:2264-DB RFA No. 200036 of 2015 C/W RFA No. 200091 of 2019 HC-KAR decree, plaintiff No.3 could not have claimed the status of the wife of Hanumant, and consequently she would not be entitled to claim any share in the properties.
9.4. On this premise, it is contended that only plaintiffs No.1 and 2 could claim a share in the properties of Hanumant and, through him, in the properties of Basavaraj. Learned counsel submits that the property originally belonging to Basavaraj would first devolve upon Basavaraj and his son Hanumant, each taking ½ share. Basavaraj had a living wife, Durgavva, one son Hanumant, and one daughter, Gangavva. Upon such devolution, Hanumant would be entitled to a ¼ share in the property.
9.5. It is this ¼ share of Hanumant which would thereafter fall for partition among plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and defendants No.3 and 4, along with the branch representation, resulting in five sharers, each being entitled to 1/20th share in the overall property. Learned counsel therefore contends that the Trial Court erred in awarding 1/24th share by erroneously including plaintiff No.3 as a sharer, thereby treating the number of sharers as six.
-9-NC: 2026:KHC-K:2264-DB RFA No. 200036 of 2015 C/W RFA No. 200091 of 2019 HC-KAR 9.6. MFA No.23370/2013 was ultimately disposed of on the basis of a compromise, whereby the decree of divorce granted in M.C. No.22/2009 dated 27.03.2010 was confirmed. A copy of the judgment recording the compromise has been produced and placed on record before this Court.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly confirmed the said compromise entered into in MFA No.23370/2013, whereby the decree of divorce passed in M.C. No.22/2009 on 27.03.2010 stood confirmed, and also affirmed the contents of the compromise as recorded in the said proceedings.
11. In the above circumstances, the only issue that arises for consideration and re-appreciation by this Court is whether plaintiff No.3 had any subsisting interest as a sharer in the property of Hanumant as on the date of institution of the suit. It is not in dispute that a decree of divorce had been granted on 27.03.2010 in M.C. No.22/2009, which decree was subsequently the subject matter of MFA No.23370/2013. The said appeal has since been disposed of on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2264-DB RFA No. 200036 of 2015 C/W RFA No. 200091 of 2019 HC-KAR
12. The terms of compromise entered into in MFA.No.23370/2013 are extracted here under:-
"1. The present appellant had filed a suit for the relief of partition and separate possession through minors bearing OS No.45/2010 on the file of Hon'ble 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM Vijaypur and the said suit was attained finality and the suit was decreed in part. And also the Execution Petition is pending in EP No.56/2009 on the file of 1st Addition Civil Judge Sr. Dn Vijaypur and it is made clear that the rights of the plaintiff No. 2 and 3 in OS No.45/2010 will not come into the way of for entitlement to execute their decree for the relief of partition and separate possession. And the present settlement is only in respect of the permanent alimony of the appellant only not the rights of the minor children and their rights of property is subjected to the suit bearing OS No.45/2010. And the same has been agreed by the appellant and respondents herein.
2.On the discussion between the elders of the family the respondents had agreed and undertake before this Hon'ble court to pay a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five lakhs only) to the appellant (wife) as a permanent alimony and out of 25 lakhs the respondents herein had already paid a sum of Rs. 17,00,000/-(Rupees Seventeen Lakhs only) in favour of the appellant and the remaining balance of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight lakhs only) has been paid today by way of demand draft. And in respect of fixing the permanent alimony has been agreed by the appellant and respondents herein and the appellant had given up right of maintenance in future as against the respondents herein. And the same has been agreed by both the parties.
3. That appellant No. 1 had also filed a Criminal Miscellaneous application 93/2011 on the file of the Learned JMFC Vadagaon on Maval Pune Maharashtra and for the relief of maintenance. And the Hon'ble court had granted Rs. 22,000/- per month to the appellant Rs.2,500 to the minor children. And in view of the present settlement in the present appeal the appellant had agreed to withdraw the said petition filed before Pune Court unconditionally. And accordingly, the appellant had filed a Memo before this Hon'ble court on 11.12.2023 bringing to
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2264-DB RFA No. 200036 of 2015 C/W RFA No. 200091 of 2019 HC-KAR the notice of this Hon'ble court that she has withdrawn all the three matters (Criminal MA No.61/20212, Crl. App 643/2015 and Mrsl.MA 684/2022) and no other proceedings is left before any of the court in Maharashtra State. And the copy of the order sheets is also produced along with a memo. Hence the same has been agreed by the respondents herein.
4. It is made clear in pursuance of the order passed by this Hon'ble court dated 08.09.2021 the rights of the parties in OS No.45/2010 is in addition to the decree and the appellant wife and the minor children would be entitled and the liberty to execute the decree for the relief of partition and separate possession and the present compromise petition will not come to the way of deciding the rights of the parties in OS No.45/2010 and the minor children would be entitled to execute the decree and the appellant and the minor children would be entitled decree for possession before the competent court. And the same has been agreed by the respondents herein.
5. Further the appellant hereby agreed to give the divorce as against the respondent and dissolve the decree of divorce in view of the compromise petition in the interest of justice.
Wherefore the appellant and the respondent have jointly filed this Compromise petition and all the parties in the top noted petition have willfully agreed and understood the contents of the compromise petition And further the contents of the compromise petition is explained in Kannada language and also in Marathi Language and also brought to the notice of the elders of the family. And accordingly both the parties have understood and willfully agreed and same has been explained by the respective counsels to the respective parties and the same has been agreed by the both the parties. And signed for the compromise petition"
13. A perusal of Clause (4) of the compromise clearly indicates that, while settling their disputes in the matrimonial proceedings, the parties have expressly agreed that the rights determined under the
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2264-DB RFA No. 200036 of 2015 C/W RFA No. 200091 of 2019 HC-KAR judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.45/2010 shall not be disturbed. In other words, the compromise itself recognises that the entitlement of the parties flowing from the decree in O.S. No.45/2010 would continue to operate independently.
14. In light of the said compromise, when the parties themselves have agreed that the rights declared in O.S. No.45/2010 shall remain unaffected, the question of re-appreciating the issue raised in the present appeals would not arise. The terms of the compromise are binding on all the parties, and one of the express terms thereof is that the rights flowing from the judgment and decree in O.S. No.45/2010 shall remain intact and enforceable.
In view of the above discussion, no grounds are made out to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the appeals fail and are dismissed.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE Sd/-
(DR. CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE KJJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 17 Ct:si