Karnataka High Court
Shri.Ajit Baburao Patil vs Smt. Akkatai W/O Yashwant Patil on 21 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4256-DB
RFA No. 100204 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100204 OF 2017 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. AJIT BABURAO PATIL
AGE: 67 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: TAVANDI,
TAL: CHIKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.RAMESH I.ZIRALI AND
SRI.SHIVARAJ S.BALLOLI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SMT. AKKATAI W/O. YASHWANT PATIL
AGE: 72 YEARS,
MOHANKUMAR
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
B SHELAR
R/O: TAVANDI,
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B
SHELAR
TAL: CHIKODI-591201,
Date: 2024.02.22
16:01:12 +0530 DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SMT. SHALAN
W/O. SHAMARAO @ RAMARAO PATIL,
AGE: 66 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: TAVANDI,
TAL: CHIKODI-591201,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. SMT. SUSHILA
W/O. SHAMARAO @ RAMARAO PATIL,
AGE: 64 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4256-DB
RFA No. 100204 of 2017
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: TAVANDI,
TAL: CHIKODI-591201,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
4. SMT. SULOCHANA
W/O. ANAND PATIL,
AGE: 48 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: TAVANDI,
TAL: CHIKODI-591201,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
5. SMT. SUREKHA
W/O. APPASAHEB PATIL,
AGE: 46 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: TAVANDI,
TAL: CHIKODI-591201,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
6. SMT. SUNITA
W/O. BALASAHEB SHELAR,
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: TAVANDI,
TAL: CHIKODI-591201,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
7. SMT. SUMAN
W/O. VITHAL PATIL,
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: TAVANDI,
TAL: CHIKODI-591201,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
8. SMT. SARITA
W/O. SUBHASH MANE,
AGE: 39 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: TAVANDI,
TAL: CHIKODI-591201,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4256-DB
RFA No. 100204 of 2017
9. SHRI. AMRJEET AJITKUMAR PATIL
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SADALGA,
TAL: CHIKODI-591201,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
10. KAMAL @ SHANTABAI ANNAPPA PATIL
AGE: 67 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KURALI, TAL: CHIKODI-591201,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
11. SHRI. SHIVAJI VITHOBA PATIL
AGE: 57 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HONYALLI,
TAL: AJARA-416505,
DIST: KOLHAPUR,
MAHARASHTRA.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 IS ABATED VIDE ORDER DATED 06/12/2023;
NOTICE TO R3 AND R9 ARE SERVED;
APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED AGAINST
R2, R4 TO R8, R10 AND R11 VIDE ORDER DATED 18/02/2021)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.03.2017 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.60/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, CHIKODI, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION
AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
THIS RFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ASHOK S.
KINAGI, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4256-DB
RFA No. 100204 of 2017
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the defendant No.1 challenging
the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2017 passed in O.S.
No.60/2005 by the Principle Senior Civil Judge, Chikodi.
2. During the pendency of this appeal, respondent
No.1 died. In spite of granting sufficient opportunity,
appellants have not brought the legal representatives of
respondent No.1 on record. Hence, appeal against
respondent No.1 stands dismissed vide order dated
06.12.2023 and this court dismissed the appeal against
respondent Nos.2, 4 to 8, 10 and 11 vide order dated
18.02.2021. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Hemareddi (dead) through legal representatives v.
Ramachandra Yallappa Hosamani and others reported
in (2019) 6 Supreme Court Cases 756 has held as
under:
"14. Admittedly, steps were not taken for
substitution in regard to the second appellant. The
appeal, therefore, abated qua him as is declared
by Order XXII Rule 3(2). Though this is all that
the Order XXII Rule 2 declares, the principle has
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4256-DB
evolved that in certain kinds of litigation, the
consequences of abatement qua a party are not
limited to the deceased party alone but it affects
all the other parties and the litigation itself. In
other words, a suit or an appeal as the case may
be, would suffer an untimely demise by the
proceeding abating as a whole."
3. The appeal against respondent No.1 is abated.
If the appeal is abated against one person, the entire
appeal abates, in view of the law laid down in the case of
Hemareddi (dead) through legal representatives,
referred supra. The said judgment is aptly applicable to
the present case in hand.
4. In view of the same, the entire appeal is
dismissed as abated.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
MBS
CT:VH
