Karnataka High Court
Muttappa Irappa Annigeri vs Iravva W/O Rudragouda Goudar on 1 April, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5798
RSA No. 101049 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 101049 OF 2023 (DEC/PAR-)
BETWEEN:
MUTTAPPA IRAPPA ANNIGERI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O NAGASAMUDRA VILLAGE,
TQ: DIST: GADAG-582102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. IRAVVA W/O. RUDRAGOUDA GOUDAR,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. LAKKASHKOPPA, POST: JAMMANAKATTI,
TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587155.
2. YALLAPPA S/O. IRAPPA ANNIGERI,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O NAGASAMUDRA VILLAGE
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR TQ: DIST: GADAG-582102.
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B
SHELAR 3. RENAVVA W/O. ISHAPPA NAVALAGUND,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
DHARWAD BENCH
R/O NAGASAMUDRA VILLAGE
TQ: DIST: GADAG-582102.
4. BASAVARAJ S/O. YALLAPPA ANNIGERI,
MINOR GUARDIAN HIS GRAND FATHER
BHARAMAPPA S/O. YAMANAPPA HADIMANI,
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SAGANUR, TQ: BADAMI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587155.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5798
RSA No. 101049 of 2023
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
100 OF CPC PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE IN O.S.25/2015 PASSED BY III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND J.M.F.C., GADAG DATED 29.03.2021 AND ALSO BY SETTING
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN R.A.NO.36/2021 PASSED BY
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE GADAG DATED 26.06.2023 THE
APPEAL BE ALLOWED AND THE SUIT O.S.25/2015 BE DISMISSED
AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the defendant No.1 assailing
the judgment and decree dated 26.06.2023 in R.A.No.36/2021
on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gadag (for short
"the First Appellate Court") dismissing the appeal and
confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2021 in
O.S.No.25/2015 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge and
JMFC, Gadag (for short "the Trial Court") decreeing the suit of
the plaintiff.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5798
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff and
defendant No.1 to 3 are the children of deceased-Irappa
Puradappa Annigeri. It is further averred in the plaint that the
suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the
plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 3 and as such, it is contended in
the plaint that the plaintiff is entitled for share in the suit
schedule properties. It is also averred in the plaint that the
defendant No.1 and 2, without the consent of the plaintiff, have
sold the schedule properties in favour of defendant No.4 and
accordingly, the plaintiff has sought for legitimate share in the
suit schedule properties.
3.1. After service of notice, defendant No.1 entered
appearance and filed detailed written statement. Defendant
No.2 to 4 remained absent and placed ex-parte. It is the
contention of defendant No.1 that there was a registered
partition deed dated 18.12.2013. Defendant No.1 has admitted
the description of the suit schedule properties and also it is
averred in the written statement that though the suit schedule
properties are the ancestral properties, however, the plaintiff
and defendant No.1 to 3 have their share subject to the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5798
registered partition deed dated 18.12.2013 and accordingly,
sought for dismissal of the suit.
3.2. The Trial Court, based on pleadings on record,
formulated issues for its consideration. In order to establish her
case, the plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and produced three
documents, which were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. The
defendants have examined three witnesses as DW1 to DW3 and
have produced three documents, which were marked as Ex.D1
to Ex.D3. The Trial Court, after considering the material on
record, by its judgment and decree dated 29.03.2021 decreed
the suit in part holding that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th
share in the suit schedule properties. Feeling aggrieved by the
same, the defendant No.1 has preferred R.A.No.36/2021 before
the First Appellate Court and same was contested by the
plaintiff.
3.3. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the
material on record, by its judgment and decree dated
26.06.2023 dismissed the appeal, consequently confirmed the
judgment and decree in O.S.No.25/2015. Feeling aggrieved by
the same, the defendant No.1 has preferred this appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5798
4. I have heard Sri.Aravind D Kulakarni, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that
the plaintiff has not questioned the registered partition deed
dated 18.12.2013 and also not challenged the sale made in
favour of defendant No.4 and therefore, both the Courts below
have committed an error in granting 1/4th share to the plaintiff
and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.
6. In the light of the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant, I have carefully examined
the finding recorded by both the Courts below. In order to
understand the relationship between the parties, the genealogy
of the parties is produced as under:
Puradappa (Dead)
Irappa (Dead)
Yallavva (Dead) Renavva Iravva Muttappa Yallappa
(D3) Plaintiff (D1) (D2)
7. Perusal of the genealogy would indicate that the
plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 3 are the children of late Irappa.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5798
Another child of Irappa viz., Yallavva died without leaving
behind any legal heirs. It is also forthcoming from the finding
recorded by both the Courts below that the suit schedule
properties are belonging to Puradappa (father of Irappa). In
that view of the matter, it is to be concluded that the schedule
properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff and
defendant No.1 to 3. Taking into consideration the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
and the finding recorded by the Courts below, the submission
of the learned counsel cannot be accepted as the suit filed by
the plaintiff is with regard to claim her 1/4th share in the suit
schedule properties. It is also forthcoming that the plaintiff is
not a party in the registered partition deed dated 18.12.2013
and also sale deed said to have been executed by defendant
No.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.4. In that view of the
matter, by following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and
Others1, I am of the view that the finding recorded by both the
Courts below requires to be confirmed and therefore, I do not
find any acceptable ground to interfere with the impugned
AIR 2020 SC 3717
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5798
judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. In that view
of the matter, the appeal fails as the appellant herein has not
made out a case for formulation of substantial question of law
as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908. In the result, the appeal fails.
8. In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
YAN
CT-MCK
