Karnataka High Court
Siddanagouda S/O. Bhimanagouda Patil vs Hanamagouda S/O. Shivanagouda Patil on 4 March, 2024
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4823
RSA No. 5220 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 5220 OF 2012 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. SIDDANAGOUDA
S/O. BHIMANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2. SMT. MAHADEVI
W/O. SHANKARGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
3. SMT. HANAMAWWA
W/O. RUDRAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
4. LAXMIPUTRA S/O. RUDRAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
5. KUMAR BHIMU S/O. RUDRAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
ALL R/O. MANKANI VILLAGE,
Digitally
signed by TQ AND DIST: BAGALKOT.
SUJATA ...APPELLANTS
SUBHASH (BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
PAMMAR
Location: AND:
HIGH COURT
OF 1. SHRI. HANAMAGOUDA
KARNATAKA
S/O. SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE
R/O. IVANAGI VILLAGE,
TQ: BAGEWADI-587103.
2. SHRI. BASANAGOUDA
S/O. SANGANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HARINDRAL VILLAGE,
TQ: MUDEBHIHAL-587103.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4823
RSA No. 5220 of 2012
3. SANGANAGOUDA
S/O. RUDRAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HARINDRAL VILLAGE,
TQ: MUDEBHIHAL-587103.
4. SMT. BASAMMA
W/O. RAYANAGOUDA KODLI @ BIRADAR
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. GUNDAKARCHAGI,
TQ: MUDEBHIHAL-587103.
5. SMT. GURUBAI
W/O. SIDDANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. MANIKANI VILLAGE,
TQ: AND DIST: BAGALKOT-587103.
6. SMT. BASAMMA
W/O. SANGANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. JEERALABHAVI VILLAGE,
TQ: BAGEWADI-587103.
7. SHRI. SANGANNAGOUDA
S/O. JAGADEVAPPAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. JEERALABHAVI VILLAGE,
TQ: BAGEWADI-587103.
8. SHRI. SIDDANAGOUDA
S/O. JAGADEVAPPAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. JEERALABHAVI VILLAGE,
TQ: BAGEWADI-587103.
9. SHRI. MALLANAGOUDA
S/O. BHIMANAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O.MANIKANI VILLAGE,
TQ: BAGALKOT-587103.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 TO R3 AND R5 TO R9 - NOTICE SERVED, UNREPRSENTED;
R4 - APPEAL DISMISSED AS ABATED.)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4823
RSA No. 5220 of 2012
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SETION 100
OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN R.A.NO.15/2011 DATED 13.12.2011
ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAGALKOT, BY
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.02.2011 IN
O.S.NO.173/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, BAGALKOT, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This regular second appeal is filed by the plaintiffs
challenging the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2011,
passed in R.A.No.15/2011, by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge,
Bagalkote, and the judgment and decree dated
19.02.2011, in O.S.No.173/2009, by the Addl. Civil Judge
and JMFC, Bagalkote.
2. The suit is filed for partition of the suit schedule
property and for declaration to declare that the sale deed
executed by defendants No.2 to 5 in favour of defendant
No.1 is not binding on the plaintiffs. The defendants
remained ex-parte in spite of service of notice to them.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4823
3. The trial Court dismissed the suit and that is
confirmed by the first appellate Court. Therefore, the
plaintiffs are in appeal before this Court.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that there was an
earlier partition between the plaintiff and defendants, this
particular suit property is not included in the earlier
partition and kept it as a joint family property. Therefore,
the plaintiff filed the suit for partition for this particular
suit property.
5. When this being the case of the plaintiff that
the suit property is kept as joint family property without
including in the earlier partition, then it is the burden on
the plaintiff to prove this fact. But the plaintiff has not
produced any documentary evidence. Ex.P.1 and P.2 are
the property extracts which do not prove the contention
raised by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has given oral earlier
evidence in this regard. When there was earlier partition
and was acted upon, if the suit property is not included in
earlier partition and kept it as a joint family property, for
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4823
this there is no evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. In this
regard, the Trial Court has framed a preliminary issue
No.1, but the plaintiff failed to prove the same. The First
Appellate Court has also rightly considered this aspect and
confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial
Court. Therefore, in this regard, this Court does not find
any illegality and perversity in the observations made by
both the Courts below and thus, the judgment and decree
passed by both the Courts below are liable to be
confirmed. There is no substantial question of law
involved. Hence, the appeal lacks merit. Accordingly, is
liable to be dismissed. Hence, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is dismissed.
ii) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MRK: para 1 to 3
SSP: para 4 to end
CT:ANB
