Karnataka High Court
Tammanna S/O Adiveppa Mannikeri vs Laxman S/O Adiveppa Mannikeri on 14 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16692
RFA No. 100146 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100146 OF 2014 (DEC/INJ-)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. TAMMANNA
S/O. ADIVEPPA MANNIKERI,
AGE: 56 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SATTIGERI VILLAGE,
TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELGAUM
PIN - 591192.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G. B. NAIK AND SMT. P. G. NAIK, ADVOCATES)
AND:
GIRIJA A
BYAHATTI 1. SHRI. LAXMAN
S/O. ADIVEPPA MANNIKERI,
21.03.2024 AS HIS LEGAL HEIRS ARE
ALREADY ON RECORDS AS RESP. NOS. 3 TO 5.
Location:
2. SHRI. RAMANNA
HIGH S/O. ADIVEPPA MANNIKERI,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS:
2a. SMT. BANDAVVA HANUMANT PUJARI,
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: COOLI,
R/O. BELAGALI VILLAGE - 587113,
TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16692
RFA No. 100146 of 2014
2b. SRI. VITHAL
S/O. RAMAPPA MANIKERI,
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BELAGALI VILLAGE - 587113,
TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
2c. SHRI. SIDDAPPA
S/O. RAMAPPA MANIKERI,
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BELAGAVI VILLAGE -587113,
TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
2d. SHRI. ADIVEPPA
S/O. RAMAPPA MANNIKERI,
AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BELAGALI VILLAGE - 587113
TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
2e. SHRI. PARAMANNA
S/O. RAMAPPA MANNIKERI,
AGE: 32 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BELAGALI VILLAGE - 587113
TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
2f. SMT. SIDDAVVA SHRINATH AKISAGAR,
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK,
R/O. BELAGALI VILLAGE - 587113
TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
3. SHRI. ADIVEPPA
S/O.LAXMAN MANNIKERI,
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SATTIGERI VILLAGE,
TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELGAUM
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16692
RFA No. 100146 of 2014
PIN -591192.
4. SHRI. MARUTI
S/O. LAXMAN MANNIKERI,
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SATTIGERI VILLAGE,
TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELGAUM
PIN - 591192.
5. SHRI. UDDAPPA
S/O. LAXMAN MANNIKERI,
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SATTIGERI VILLAGE,
TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELGAUM.
PIN-591192
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 (A), R3, R4 AND R5 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED;
R2(A) TO (F) - SERVICE OF NOTICE IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS RFA FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1
AND 2 OF CPC 1908., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
30.06.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.5/2012 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, SAUNDATTI, MAY KINDLY BE SET-ASIDE AND SUIT OF THE
PLAINTIFF MAY KINDLY BE DECREED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16692
RFA No. 100146 of 2014
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is arising from the dismissal of decree in
a suit for declaration and injunction. The suit property is
described as under;
Description of the suit property:
That the suit property is the agricultural landed
property bearing Block/R.S.No.952/1 measuring 02 Acres
08 Guntas assessed at Rs.0.29 situated at Sattigeri
village, taluka: Saundatti, The said property is situated
within the following boundaries.
Towards East : The property of Uddappa Laxmappa
Mannikeri,
Towards West : The property of Laxmappa Hegade and
Gairana
Towards North : Landed property of Rehamansab
Silledar
Towards South : Government Hillock
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16692
2. The admitted genealogy is as under;
(Adiveppa)
Laxmappa Ramanna Tammanna Hanamant
Uddappa Maruti Adivepp
3. One Adiveppa Mannikeri was the propositus. It
is stated that he died around 60 years prior to the
institution of the suit. This fact is not seriously disputed. It
appears that the Adiveppa died around 1962. He had four
sons namely Laxmappa, Ramanna, Tammanna and
Hanamant.
4. After the death of Adiveppa, four brothers
inherited property bearing Sy.No.952 measuring 8-Acre
32-Guntas in Sattigeri village, Tq: Savadatti. It is stated
that there was a partition among four brothers wherein,
the property bearing Sy.No.952 measuring 8-Acres 32-
Guntas was divided into two parts each measuring 4-Acres
16-Guntas. First part of 4-Acres 16-Guntas were allotted
to the share of Tammanna and Hanamant. Second part
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16692
measuring same extent was allotted to the share of
Laxmappa and Ramanna. This is evidenced in
M.E.No.4665, which is certified in the year 1980. After the
said division, the survey number is renumbered as
Sy.Nos.952/A and 952/B is the statement in the plaint.
5. The plaintiff further pleads that there was one
more settlement after the aforementioned of division of
1980 and in the said settlement, Tammanna and
Hanamant divided their properties amicably and 2-Acres
8-Gutnas were allotted to the share of plaintiff-Tammanna
and western portion in the aforementioned survey number
measuring 2-Acre 8-Guntas were allotted to the share of
Hanumant.
6. The plaintiff claims that Hanamant sold 2-Acres
8-Guntas on 11.12.1995 to defendant No.1-Laxmappa and
based on the registered sale deed, M.E.No.7698 is
certified.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16692
7. Thereafter, according to the plaintiff, without
any notice to the plaintiff, without there being any
registered document extinguishing the right of the
plaintiff, the property measuring 2-Acre 8-Guntas standing
in the name of Tammanna, was entered in the name of
Laxmappa/defendant No.1. It is stated that there is no
such mutation evidencing the change of record. It is
further stated that Laxmappa is claiming that there was a
partition between himself and his children and in the said
partition, each of his three children is allotted 2-Acre 8-
Guntas and he was allotted 2-Acre 8-Guntas.
8. The grievance of the plaintiff is that though
Laxmappa and his children effected a partition as
evidenced in M.E.No.250 dated 22.06.2011, plaintiff has
not transferred any of his property to defendant No.1.
9. The suit is filed that without there being any
transfer of the property by the plaintiff in favour of
defendant No.1, the name of defendant No.1 is entered in
the property record. The M.E.No.250/TR No.253 would
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16692
reveal that the property bearing Sy.No.252 measuring 8
acres 16 guntas was divided among Laxman and his three
children. This entry is certified in the year 2011. Because
of this entry, name of the plaintiff is deleted in the
property records. Hence, the suit is filed seeking the relief
of declaration and injunction.
10. The defendants contested the suit. The
defendants admitted the genealogy. The defendants also
admitted that in the year 1980 there was division of the
property bearing Sy.No.952 measuring 8 acres 32 guntas
among three children wherein, Laxman and Ramappa were
allotted 4 acres 8 guntas and Tammanna and Hanamant
were allotted remaining 4 acres and 8 guntas. The
execution of sale deed dated 11.12.1995 to the extent of 2
acres 8 guntas by Hanamant in favour of Laxman is also
admitted. It is relevant to note that the plaint would reveal
that western portion of Sy.No.952 measuring 2 acres 8
guntas is sold to Laxman. This fact is not disputed.
However, the defendants contend that they have acquired
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16692
title over the property by virtue of M.E.No.250/TR No.253
marked at Ex.P-3.
11. The trial Court framed an issue relating to title
of the plaintiff over 2 acres 8 guntas in Sy.No.952. The
trial Court has held that the plaintiff has not established
his title over the property.
12. The trial Court has placed reliance on Ex.P-10
which is RTC and in the said RTC, to hold that the name of
the plaintiff is rounded off in the year 1998 and 1999. The
trial Court has also noticed that prior to 1998 and 1999,
the name of plaintiff was appearing in the property records
along with the defendant No.1.
13. It is also relevant to note that defendant No.1
has raised a contention that the plaintiff has relinquished
his right over the properties by receiving Rs.80,000/-.
Unfortunately no issue is framed relating to this
contention. Without considering the contention whether
the defendant No.1 is able to establish the transfer of right
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16692
in favour of defendant No.1 by the plaintiff the trial Court
has held that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of
declaration based on the entries in record of right.
14. It is relevant to note that the partition of 1980
is not in dispute. In the said partition, 2 acres 8 guntas are
jointly allotted to the share of Tammanna is not in dispute.
If that is the case, in case, the separated brother namely
defendant No.1 is to contend that he has acquired the title
of his separated brother, then, there has to be a registered
document transferring the title and possession of
Tammanna in favour of defendant No.1. Without there
being any such document, the trial Court could not have
held that the plaintiff has not established his title over the
property.
15. Since, the defendants has raised a defence
relating to relinquishment, this Court is of the view that
the trial Court ought to have framed an issue relating to
the defence raised by the defendants relating to
relinquishment of share by the plaintiff. This Court in the
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16692
normal circumstance would have framed the issue and
would have directed the trial Court to record a finding on
the said issue and send the finding before this Court.
However, the respondents have remained absent before
this Court despite service of notice. Hence, this Court has
proceeded to frame the issue and deems it appropriate to
set-aside the impugned judgment and decree.
16. Additional issue is framed as under:
Whether the defendants establish that the
plaintiff has relinquished right over the
suit property in favour of defendant No.1?
17. For the reasons recorded, the impugned
judgment and decree are set aside and the matter is
remitted to the trial Court for fresh consideration in
accordance with law.
18. At this juncture, learned counsel for the
appellant would also submit that there appears to be some
discrepancy in the boundaries of the suit property and the
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16692
plaintiff shall be permitted to move an application for
correcting the boundaries if required. The submission is
accepted, the plaintiff is at liberty to move an application
for correction of boundaries if required. If application is
filed same shall be allowed and the defendants are
permitted to file additional written statement. The Trial
Court may frame additional issue if required from
additional pleadings if any filed.
19. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The judgment and decree of the trial
Court dated 30.06.2014 in
O.S.No.5/2012 on the file of Senior
Civil Judge, Saundatti are set aside.
iii. The matter is remitted to trial Court
for fresh consideration to decide the
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16692
case in the light of the observations
made above.
iv. The plaintiff shall appear before trial
Court on 09.12.2024.
v. The trial Court shall issue notice to the
defendants as they remained absent
before this Court.
vi. Nothing is expressed on the merits of
the matter.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
AM, RKM
CT:ANB
