[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Ekanathsa S/O Narayansa Arasiddi vs Uma D/O Narayansa Arasiddi on 18 December, 2025
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18390-DB
RFA No. 100172 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 18TH 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. 100172 OF 2025 (PAR/INJ)
BETWEEN:
EKANATHSA S/O. NARAYANSA ARASIDDI
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O. J.T.COLLEGE ROAD,
NEAR GANAPATI,
TQ. AND DIST: GADAG-582101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. J.S.SHETTY ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UMA D/O. NARAYANSA ARASIDDI
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. J.T. COLLEGE ROAD,
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR
NEAR GANAPATI TEMPLE GADAG,
TQ. AND DIST. GADAG-582101.
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA DHARWAD
BENCH
2. ANNAPURNA
Date: 2025.12.19 10:47:54
+0530 W/O. DASHARATH DUTTE @ DANI,
AGE: 78 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. C/O. DASHRATH DUTTE,
SURVEY NO. 33/1, BLOCK NO. CN
CHINTAMANI RESIDENCY,
SHANI MARUTI MANDIR, AMBEGON,
PUNE-111045.
3. JAYA W/O. SHANKARSA RAYABAGI
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. J.T.COLLEGE ROAD,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18390-DB
RFA No. 100172 of 2025
HC-KAR
NEAR GANAPATI TEMPLE GADAG,
TQ. AND DIST. GADAG-582101.
4. SMT. SHOBABAI W/O. HANAMANTSA ARASIDDI
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. J.T.COLLEGE ROAD,
NEAR GANAPATI TEMPLE GADAG,
TQ. AND DIST. GADAG-582101.
5. LAXMI D/O. HANAMANTSA ARASIDDI
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. J.T.COLLEGE ROAD,
NEAR GANAPATI TEMPLE GADAG,
TQ. AND DIST. GADAG-582101.
6. SAVITA D/O. HANAMANTSA ARASIDDI
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. J.T.COLLEGE ROAD,
NEAR GANAPATI TEMPLE GADAG,
TQ. AND DIST. GADAG-582101.
7. KAVITA D/O. HANAMANTSA ARASIDDI
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. J.T.COLLEGE ROAD,
NEAR GANAPATI TEMPLE GADAG,
TQ. AND DIST. GADAG-582101.
8. DEEPAK S/O. GURUNATHSA LADWA
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. KARIYAMMA KALLU BADAVANE,
IRANI COLONY, GADAG,
TQ. AND DSIT: GADAG-582101.
9. PRAVEEN S/O. SADASHIV ARATTI
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O. H.NO. 262, 10TH CROSS, SHIVAJI NAGAR,
BETAGERI, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG-582101.
10. KIRAN S/O. SADASHIV ARATTI
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O. H.NO. 262, 10TH CROSS, SHIVAJI NAGAR,
BETAGERI, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG-582101.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18390-DB
RFA No. 100172 of 2025
HC-KAR
11. NAVEEN S/O. SADASHIV ARATTI
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O. H.NO. 262, 10TH CROSS, SHIVAJI NAGAR,
BETAGERI, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG-582101.
12. KOMAL W/O. ASHOK NAGARIYA
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. C/O. DEEPAK S/O. GURUNATHSA LADWA,
KARIYAMMA KALLU BADAVANE,
IRANI COLONY, GADAG,
TQ. AND DIST. GADAG-582101.
13. SUMITRA W/O. HARISH KARANIYA
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. NEAR RAJEEVGANDHI NAGAR,
POLICE STATION, KELAGINAMANI,
GADAG EXTN, GADAG,
TQ AND DIST. GADAG-582101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.S.SHETTAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. KAVYA C.SHETTAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R13)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96
OF CPC PRAYING TO JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.02.2025
PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM GADAG
IN O.S.NO.95/2019, MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE BY ALLOWING
THIS APPEAL, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18390-DB
RFA No. 100172 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS)
This Regular First Appeal filed at the hands of
defendant No.2 in O.S.No.95/2019 on the file of the learned
Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Gadag is coming up for
admission.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents who not
only represents the plaintiffs but also other defendants
submits that all the members of the family have accepted
the decision of the trial court which has declared 1/6th share
each to all the children of late Narayansa. Learned counsel
submits that the only ground on which this appeal is filed by
defendant No.2 is that one of the daughter of late
Narayansa, namely Smt.Vimalabai has not been arrayed as
a party-defendant in the suit and no share is declared in
favour of said Smt.Vimalabai. Learned counsel submits that
it is clearly stated in the plaint that no one has heard of
Smt.Vimalabai from many years and there is no information
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18390-DB
HC-KAR
of the whereabouts of Smt.Vimalabai. Learned counsel
submits that there is an admission of defendant No.2, the
appellant herein that no one has heard or seen
Smt.Vimalabai for many years. In fact, it is stated that
Smt.Vimalabai left the house more than 25 years ago. In
that view of the matter, learned counsel submits that there
is no tenable ground raised in this memorandum of appeal
at the hands of defendant No.2. Therefore, the appeal
cannot be admitted and it should be dismissed since a
better share accrues to all the parties to the suit in the
absence of Smt.Vimalabai.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the
appellant/defendant No.2 submits that other than the issue
regarding the share to be allotted to Smt.Vimalabai,
defendant No.2 has also raised a ground that in the written
statement filed at the hands of defendant No.2, he had
taken up a contention that there was a prior partition and in
terms of prior partition and division of the joint family
properties, each of the parties to the suit are enjoying their
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18390-DB
HC-KAR
shares separately, but the trial court has rejected such a
contention on the ground that there is no evidence placed
on record to substantiate prior partition.
4. To a pointed question to the learned counsel for
the appellant, as to how the appellant is affected if there is
no share allotted to Smt.Vimalabai and what is the material
on record to prove prior partition, there is no answer from
the learned counsel.
5. We also find that in terms of Section 108 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, when the question is whether a
man/woman is alive or dead, and it is proved that he/she
has not been heard of for seven years by those who would
naturally have heard of him/her, if he/she had been alive,
the burden of proving that he/she is alive is shifted to the
person who affirms it. Similar provision is also found in
Section 111 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
Having regard to the relevant provision, we do not find any
infirmity in the finding of the trial court, although the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:18390-DB
HC-KAR
provision has not been quoted in the judgment. We are also
of the opinion that when a better share is given to the
parties in the absence of one of the coparcener/family
member, there cannot be a valid ground for a party to come
before this court and contend that no share is allotted to a
person who is not heard of. The appeal requires to be
rejected on the ground that tenable ground is not raised by
the appellant.
6. For the reasons stated above, we are of the
considered opinion that there is no merit in the appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE
MBS
Ct:VH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16
