Karnataka High Court
Manjula W/O Pandurangappa ... vs Vijayalaxmi W/O Chandrakant ... on 18 January, 2022
Bench: Sachin Shankar Magadum
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
RSA.NO.5663/2013 (PAR)
BETWEEN
MANJULA W/O PANDURANGAPPA MANGANAHALLI
SINCE DECEASED REP.BY HER LRS.
1. PANDURANG S/O RAMACHANDRA MANGANAHALLI,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
2. SATISH S/O PANDURANG MANGANAHALLI
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
3. SOUMYA S/O PANDURANG MANGANAHALLI
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
ALL ARE R/O: MALPANAGUDI, TQ: HOSPET, DIST: BELLARY,
PRESENT R/O: MUNDARGI, TQ: MUNDARGI, DIST: GADAG
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.H.N.GULARADDI & SRI.B.V.HEGGADAL, ADVS.)
AND
1. VIJAYALAXMI W/O CHANDRAKANT SUREBAN
AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KERUR, TQ: BADAMI,
DIST: BAGALKOT
2. RATNAKKA @ NAGARATNA W/O VASUDEV SUREBAN
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: HALLUR, TQ and DIST: BAGALKOT
2
3. MARUTI S/O KRISHNAPPA ILLUR
AGE: 48 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HAITAPUR,
TQ: MUNDARGI,
DIST: GADAG
4. SATYANARAYANA S/O KRISHNAPPA ILLUR
AGE: 49 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MUNDARGI,
TQ: MUNDARGI,
DIST: GADAG
5. SREEDHAR S/O KRISHNAPPA ILLUR
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MUNDARGI,
TQ: MUNDARGI,
DIST: GADAG
6. NAGARAJ S/O KRISHNAPPA ILLUR
AGE: 39 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: MUNDARGI,
TQ: MUNDARGI,
DIST: GADAG
7. SHANTAHA W/O THIRUKANNA VIJAPUR
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: NARGUND,
TQ: NARGUND,
DIST: GADAG
8. PADMAVATI W/O VENKANNA ILLUR
AGE: 76 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: GINIGERI,
TQ and DIST: KOPPAL
3
9. YAMANAPPA @ BABU S/O VENKANNA ILLUR
AGE: 46 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: GINIGERI,
TQ and DIST: KOPPAL
10 . MANJUNATH S/O VENKANNA ILLUR
AGE: 44 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: GINIGERI,
TQ and DIST: KOPPAL
11 . MANJULA W/O ANAND
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O:C/O.KUMARESHWAR COMPANY,
HAIRS FACTORY, BHAGYANAGAR, TQ and DIST: KOPPAL
12 . LEELAVATHI W/O SRIKANT JAVALAGERI
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KALKERI,
TQ: MUNDARGI,
DIST: GADAG
13 . LALITHA W/O ESHAPPA PANAGHANTI
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: GULEDGUDDA, TQ: BADAMI,
DIST: BAGALKOT
14 . SHARADABAI W/O ESHWARAPPA ILLUR
AGE: 76 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: GINIGERI,
TQ and DIST: KOPPAL
15 . NARAYANA S/O ESHWARAPPA ILLUR
AGE: 44 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: GINIGERI,
TQ and DIST: KOPPAL
4
16 . MARUTI S/O ESHWARAPPA ILLUR
AGE: 44 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: GINIGERI,
TQ and DIST: KOPPAL
17 . MANJUNATH S/O ESHWARAPPA ILLUR
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: GINIGERI,
TQ and DIST: KOPPAL
18 . AKKAMMA W/O RAGHAVENDRA
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: GINIGERI,
TQ and DIST: KOPPAL
19 . RAVI S/O ESHWARAPPA ILLUR
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: GINIGERI,
TQ and DIST: KOPPAL
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SURESH P.HUDEDAGADDI, ADV. FOR R1,
SRI.G.N.NARASAMMANAVAR, ADV. FOR R3,
SRI.J.S.SHEETY, ADV. FOR R5 & R6,
SRI.S.G.KADADAKATTI, ADV. FOR R7,
SRI.DEEPAK C.MAGANUR, ADV. FOR R8 TO 12, 14 TO 17 & 19,
R2, R4, R13, R18 SERVED)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD:29.05.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.3/2012
ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT AT
KOPPAL, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
DTD:26.11.2011 AND THE DECREE PASSED IN O.S. NO.44/2007 ON
THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KOPPAL, DISMISSING THE
SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
5
JUDGMENT
The captioned regular second appeal is filed by legal
representatives of defendant No.13 questioning the
judgment and decree of the trial court in dismissing the
suit filed by respondent No.1.
2. The short point that would arise for
consideration in the present appeal is, whether the regular
second appeal filed by defendant No.13 is maintainable or
not.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit
to this court that defendant No.13 did contest the
proceedings by filing written statement and counter claim
was also made by defendant No.13. However, on perusal of
the material on record, this court would find that defendant
No.13 has not lead any independent evidence. The suit for
partition and separate possession filed by respondent
No.1/plaintiff was dismissed by judgment and decree dated
26.11.2011. The grievance of the appellants herein is that,
counter claim filed by defendant No.13 is also rejected. She
ought to have preferred an appeal questioning judgment
and decree passed in O.S.No.44/2007. She did not prefer
any appeal questioning dismissal of the suit which also
includes her counter claim. Therefore, the regular second
appeal is not at all maintainable. However, the dismissal of
the regular second appeal would not take away the rights
of the appellants herein, in the event, the plaintiff succeeds
in the regular second appeal, which is pending in RSA
No.100183/2014.
4. No substantial question of law arises for
consideration in the present appeal. Accordingly, the
appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MBS/-
