[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shri.Jyotiba S/O Hanamantrao Ghorpade vs Smt.Tanabai W/O Anantrao Bagal on 1 December, 2025
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16867-DB
RFA No. 100281 of 2019
C/W RFA No. 100311 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100281 OF 2019 (PAR/POS)
C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100311 OF 2019
IN RFA No. 100281/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. JYOTIBA S/O. HANAMANTRAO GHORPADE
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MALLAMMA NAGAR,
WARD NO.V, MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.
2. SHRI. GOPAL S/O. HANAMANTRAO GHORPADE
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. WARD NO.5, MALLAMMA NAGAR,
MUDHOL-587313, DIST: BAGALKOT.
MOHANKUMAR
3. SMT. SUMITRA W/O. PANDURANG BHOSALE
B SHELAR AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. PLOT NO.250, NEAR DNYANESHWAR GARDEN,
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR
Location: HIGH COURT OF
SECTOR NO.28, NIGDI PRADHIKARAN,
KARNATAKA DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2025.12.03 16:35:40 PUNE-411044 (MAHARASHTRA).
+0530
4. SMT. SUBHADRA D/O. HANAMANTRAO GHORPADE,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O:WARD NO.5, MALLAMMA NAGAR,
MUDHOL-587313, DIST: BAGALKOT.
5. SMT. SHOBHA W/O. SHANKAR SHINDHE
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: WARD NO.2, BRAHMAN GALLI,
MUDHOL-587313, DIST: BAGALKOT.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16867-DB
RFA No. 100281 of 2019
C/W RFA No. 100311 of 2019
HC-KAR
6. SMT. SAKKUDAI W/O. MOHAN KOKATI
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHLD WORK,
R/O: GADDANAKERI CROSS,
NEAR INDIAN PETROL PUMP,
NOW AT ANADINNI CROSS, ANADINNI YADAHALLI,
TAL: MUDHOL-587103, DIST: BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. G.B.NAIK AND SMT. P.G.NAIK, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SMT. TANABAI W/O. ANANTRAO BAGAL
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. NAVNAGAR, BAILHONGAL,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SMT. SARASWATIBAI W/O. SADASHIV MUDHOLE
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: HOSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: MAIGUR ROAD, JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
3. SMT. SUVARNA W/O. HANAMANT MAGI
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOSUEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KORTI REHABILITATION CENTRE,
TAL: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
4. SHRI. PANCHAKSHARAYYA
S/O. SHIDRAMAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. AMALAZERI, TAL: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S.JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41
RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 29.03.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.15/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,
BILAGI, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR DECLARATION
AND PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16867-DB
RFA No. 100281 of 2019
C/W RFA No. 100311 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN RFA NO. 100311/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. SUVARNA W/O. HANAMANT MAGI
AGED 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KORTI REHABILITATION CENTRE,
TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
2. PANCHAKSHARAYYA S/O. SHIDRAMAYYA HIREMATH
AGED 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. AMALZERI, TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. TANABAI W/O. ANANTRAO BAGAL
AGED 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. NAVANAGAR, TAL: BAILHONGAL,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591102.
2. SARASWATIBAI W/O. SADASHIV MUDHOLE
AGED 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. MAIGUR ROAD, JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587301.
3. JYOTIBA S/O. HANAMANTRAO GHORPADE
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MALLAMMANAGAR, WARD NO.V MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587313.
4. GOPAL S/O. HANAMANTRAO GHORPADE
AGED 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MALLAMMANAGAR, WARD NO.V,
MUDHOL, MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT-587313.
5. SUMITRA W/O. PANDURANG BHOSALE
AGED 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16867-DB
RFA No. 100281 of 2019
C/W RFA No. 100311 of 2019
HC-KAR
R/O. PRADIKAL NAGAR, AKRODI,
PUNE, MAHARASHTRA STATE-411035.
6. SUBHADRA D/O. HANAMANTRAO GHORPADE
AGED: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: MALLAMMANAGAR, WARD NO.V, MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOTE-587313.
7. SHOBHA W/O. SHANKAR SHINDHE
AGED: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: MUDDESH PRABHU SWEET MART,
AT: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587313.
8. SAKKUBAI W/O. MOHAN KOKATI
AGED: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: GADDANAKERI CROSS,
NEAR INDIAN PETROL PUMP, BAGALKOT,
DIST: BAGALKOTE-587101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S.JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. G.B.NAIK AND SMT. P.G.NAIK, ADVOCATES FOR R3 TO R7;
NOTICE TO R8 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH
ORDER 41 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC 1908, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.03.2019 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.15/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, BILAGI, PARTLY
DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR DECLARATION AND PARTITION
AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
THESE REGULAR FIRST APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16867-DB
RFA No. 100281 of 2019
C/W RFA No. 100311 of 2019
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS)
These two appeals arise out of the judgment and
decree dated 29.03.2019 passed in O.S.No.15/2013 on
the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bilagi.
Therefore, the appeals were clubbed, heard together and
are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The suit is filed by two of the daughters of late
Sri.Hanmantrao Ghorpade seeking partition and separate
possession of the suit schedule properties; to enquire for
future profits from the date of the suit till delivery of
possession under Order 21 Rule 12(1)(c) of the CPC. The
trial court held that the burden is on the plaintiffs to prove
that the suit schedule properties are the joint family
properties and that the plaintiffs are having a share in the
suit schedule properties. It is noticed that the defendants
have only filed written statement, but have failed to enter
into the witness box to disprove the case of the plaintiffs.
Defendant Nos.8 and 9 are the subsequent purchasers.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16867-DB
HC-KAR
The trial court therefore held that even though the
plaintiffs have not produced any documentary evidence to
show that the suit schedule properties are joint family
properties, nevertheless, defendant Nos.1 and 2 in their
written statement have pleaded that there was a prior
partition in the year 1984 and they have succeeded to the
suit schedule-A properties and that item No.1 in
schedule-B was purchased by their father in the year 1999
and therefore, the same is self-acquired property of their
father, and during his lifetime, on submergence of the said
property, three sites were allotted to their father and
defendant Nos.1 and 2, i.e., item Nos.2, 3 and 4 in
schedule-B, which were sold in favour of defendant Nos.8
and 9 in the years 2011 and 2012, the same is not
available for partition. Nevertheless, since defendant Nos.1
to 7 did not step into the witness box to substantiate their
contention, the trial court has proceeded to decree the suit
filed by the plaintiffs.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16867-DB
HC-KAR
3. Learned counsels for the appellants would
therefore submit that an opportunity should be given to
defendant Nos.1 to 7 to substantiate their contentions
raised in the written statement by allowing them to enter
the witness box and make themselves available for cross-
examination at the hands of the plaintiffs.
4. Having heard the learned counsels for the
appellants, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs
and on perusing the appeal papers, this court is of the
considered opinion that defendant Nos.1 to 7 should be
given an opportunity to enter the witness box and after
their examination, they should be available for cross-
examination at the hands of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, this
court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeals are allowed in part while imposing
cost of Rs.5,000/- on the appellants in RFA
No.100281/2019, which shall be paid to the
plaintiffs on the first date of hearing on remand.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16867-DB
HC-KAR
ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated
29.03.2019 passed in O.S.No.15/2013 on the
file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bilagi is
hereby quashed and set aside only to enable
defendant Nos.1 to 7 to enter the witness box,
examine themselves and thereafter be available
for cross-examination at the hands of the
plaintiffs. Needless to say that, if the plaintiffs
also want to lead further evidence, they shall be
permitted to do so.
iii) Parties are directed to appear before the
learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bilagi on
05.01.2026 without waiting for further notice.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE
MBS
Ct:vh
