Karnataka High Court
Sri. Mahalingappa vs Sri. Laxman on 24 February, 2021
Author: Ravi.V.Hosmani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
R.S.A. No.100010 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
Sri. Mahalingappa,
S/o Basappa Hyagadi,
Aged about 32 years,
Occ: Agriculture, r/at Saidapur,
Tq Mudhol - 587313.
Dist: Bagalkote. ...Appellant
(By Sri. Mrutyunjaya Tata Bangi, Advocate)
AND
1. Sri. Laxman,
W/o Mahalingappa Ammanagi,
Aged about 45 years,
Occ: Agriculture,
R/at Sanganatti,
Tq Rabakavi-Banhatti,
Dist: Bagalkote - 587311.
2. Sri. Basappa,
S/o Nagappa Hyagadi,
Aged about 65 years,
Occ: Agriculture,
2
3. Smt. Mallawwa,
W/o Basappa Hyagadi,
Aged about 60 years,
Occ: Agriculture,
4. Sri. Rachappa,
S/o Basappa Hyagadi,
Aged about 38 years,
Occ: Agriculture,
5. Smt. Mangala,
W/o Mahalingappa Dangi,
Aged about 34 years,
Occ: Agriculture,
6. Sri. Dundappa,
S/o Nagappa Hyagadi,
Aged about 69 years,
Occ: Agriculture,
Respondents 2 to 6 r/at Saidapur,
Tq Mudhol, Dist: Bagalkote-587313. ...Respondents
This RSA is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2019
passed in R.A. No.7/2019 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil
Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mudhol, allowing the
appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated
19.12.2018, passed in O.S. No.258/2013 on the file of the
Additional Civil Judge, Mudhol, partly decreeing the suit filed for
declaration and consequential relief of injunction.
This RSA coming on for Admission this day, the Court
delivered the following:
3
JUDGMENT
Challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2019
passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Mudhol, in R.A.
No.7 of 2019, the plaintiff has filed this appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, O.S. No.258 of 2013
was filed by the appellant herein seeking for the following reliefs:
a) Court be pleased to declare that plaintiff is
member of joint hindu family consisting of himself
and defendant Nos.1 to 4 and he is the joint
owner and in joint possession of suit properties.
b) Defendant Nos.1 to 4, their agents relatives etc.,
be restrained by perpetual injunction from
causing any sort of obstructions to the plaintiff in
his joint possession and enjoyment of suit
properties.
c) Cost of this suit be awarded to the plaintiff
d) All just and equitable reliefs be granted to the
plaintiff."
In the plaint it was stated that defendants No.1 and 2 are the
parents of the plaintiff, defendants No.3 and 4 are his siblings,
defendant No.5 is elder brother of his father, while defendant
No.6 is the purchaser of one of the suit schedule properties.
3. Though it was averred in the plaint that the sale of
suit schedule properties by defendants No.1 and 3 in favour of
defendant No.6 was not binding on the share of the plaintiff, the
relief of partition and separate possession of the joint family
property between the parties was not sought for in the plaint.
4. In an appeal filed by defendant No.6, first Appellate
Court, on re-appreciation, allowed the appeal and dismissed the
suit filed by plaintiff with an observation that plaintiff is at liberty
to seek partition by filing a suit for partition and separate
possession in respect of suit schedule properties. The reason
assigned by first Appellate Court for setting aside the judgment
and decree passed by Trial Court was that though the plaintiff is
seeking to make out a grievance against alienation of suit
schedule properties by defendants No.1 and 3, no relief of
partition was sought and even no relief insofar as alienation was
sought.
5. In view of the fact that first Appellate Court has
reserved liberty to plaintiff to seek for appropriate relief, I do not
find any error committed by the first Appellate Court. No
substantial question of law arises for consideration in this
appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Kms
