Karnataka High Court
Shri. Gulabsab S/O Meerasab Hakki vs Smt.Jindabi W/O Hasansab Mulla on 6 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9925
RFA No. 100380 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100380 OF 2018 (PAR/POS-)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. GULABSAB S/O MEERASAB HAKKI
AGE.65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O. KOUJALAGI, TQ. GOKAK-591307, DIST. BELAGAVI.
2. SHRI. BABUSAB S/O GULABSAB HAKKI
AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O. KOUJALAGI, TQ. GOKAK-591307, DIST. BELAGAVI.
3. SHRI. MEHABOOBSAB S/O GULABSAB HAKKI
AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O. KOUJALAGI, TQ. GOKAK-591307, DIST. BELAGAVI.
4. SHRI. ALLISAB S/O GULABSAB HAKKI
AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O. KOUJALAGI, TQ. GOKAK-591307, DIST. BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRIYUTHS. A.S PATIL & SABEEL AHMED, ADVS)
AND:
1. SMT. JINDABI W/O HASANSAB MULLA
Digitally
AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
signed by
VINAYAKA R/O. NAGANUR, TQ. RAMDURG-591123, DIST. BELAGAVI.
VINAYAKA B V
BV Date:
2025.08.11 2. SHRI. SHABBIR S/O MAHABOOBSAB HAKKI
16:03:04
+0530 AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O. KOUJALAGI, TQ. GOKAK-591307, DIST. BELAGAVI.
3. SHRI. RAMJAN S/O SHAMANSAB HAKKI
AGE.45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O. KOUJALAGI, TQ. GOKAK-591307, DIST. BELAGAVI.
4. SHRI. MEERASAB S/O SHAMANSAB HAKKI
AGE.48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O. KOUJALAGI, TQ. GOKAK-591307, DIST. BELAGAVI.
5. SMT. BEEBIJAN S/O ALLISAB MULTANI
AGE.45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O. KOUJALAGI, TQ. GOKAK-591307, DIST. BELAGAVI.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9925
RFA No. 100380 of 2018
HC-KAR
6. SHRI. BADSHAH S/O NASRUDDIN HAKKI
AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O. KOUJALAGI, TQ. GOKAK-591307, DIST. BELAGAVI.
7. SMT. NABIRABI LADKHAN MULTANI
AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O. KOUJALAGI, TQ. GOKAK-591307, DIST. BELAGAVI.
8. SHRI. VILAS NASRUDDIN HAKKI
AGE.52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O. KOUJALAGI, TQ. GOKAK-591307, DIST. BELAGAVI.
9. SMT. MOBBAT RASULSAB MULTANI
AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O. KOUJALAGI, TQ. GOKAK-591307, DIST. BELAGAVI.
10. SHRI. RAJU NASRUDDIN HAKKI
AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O. KOUJALAGI, TQ. GOKAK-591307, DIST. BELAGAVI.
11. SMT. MAHIRAJBI PRADHANSAB MULTANI
AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O. KOUJALAGI, TQ. GOKAK-591307, DIST. BELAGAVI.
12. SHRI. MEERASAB NASRUDDIN HAKKI
AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O. KOUJALAGI, TQ. GOKAK-591307, DIST. BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1 TO R12 ARE SERVED)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT & DECREE DTD:11.06.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.16/2013
ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GOKAK,
TO THE EXTENT OF THE FINDINGS RECORDED ON ADDITIONAL
ISSUE NO.2 AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9925
RFA No. 100380 of 2018
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellants,
challenging the finding recorded on additional issue No.2,
in O.S.No.16/2013 dated 11.06.2018 by the learned I
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gokak.
2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit in
O.S.No.16/2013 for the relief of partition and separate
possession regarding the suit schedule properties. The said
suit was contested by the appellants by filing a written
statement. The trial court framed the issues, and after
recording the evidence, dismissed the suit vide judgment
dated 11.06.2018. The trial court answered additional
issue No.2 in the negative. The appellants, aggrieved by
the finding recorded by the trial court on additional issue
No.2 have filed this Regular First Appeal.
3. The appeal filed by the appellants challenging
the finding recorded by the trial court, on additional issue
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9925
HC-KAR
No.2 is not maintainable, in view of the proposition of law
laid down by this Court in the case of M. KRISHNAPPA SMT.
LAKSHMAMMA AND OTHERS reported in 1998 (6) KAR.L.J
656 wherein it is held that, no appeal lies against the
mere finding of the court for simple reason that the code
does not provide filing such appeal. An appeal lies only
against a decree or as against an order passed under rules
from which an appeal is expressly allowed by under Order
XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. Admittedly, in the instant case, the appellants,
aggrieved by the finding recorded by the trial court on
additional issue No.2, have filed this appeal. The appeal
filed by the appellants is not maintainable.
5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, as not
maintainable.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
MBS
CT: BSB
