Karnataka High Court
S Yenkappa vs Veerupakshappa Since Dead By His Lrs on 5 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261
RSA No. 252 of 2008
C/W RSA No. 253 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 252 OF 2008 (PAR-)
C/W
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 253 OF 2008
IN RSA NO. 252/2008
BETWEEN:
SMT. NEELOGAL PARVATHAMMA
W/O. VEERABHADRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT: 59 YEARS,
R/AT: DHARMASAGARA VILLAGE,
HOSPET TALUK- 583201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K. RAGHAVENDRA RAO, AND
SMT. V. VIDYA IYER, ADVOCATES)
AND:
VN
BADIGER
1. VEERUPAKSHAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
Digitally signed
by V N BADIGER
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
SMT. KOTRAMMA
Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.02.11
16:19:02 +0530
W/O. LATE SRI. VEERUKASHAPPA,
SINCE DECEASED.
(AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 27-11-2015
THE RESPONDENT NO.14 IS THE LR
OF DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.1)
2. S. DODDAPPA
S/O. LATE SINGANALU THIMMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT: 70 YEARS,
R/AT: DHARMASAGARA VILLAGE,
HOSPET TALUK- 583201.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261
RSA No. 252 of 2008
C/W RSA No. 253 of 2008
NILAKANTAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE NILAKANTAPPA,
3. AGED ABOUT: 60 YEARS,
R/AT: KRISHNA NAGAR,
HOSPET TALUK- 583201.
4. THIPPESWAMY S/O NILAKANTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT: 51 YEARS,
R/AT: KRISHNA NAGAR,
HOSPET TALUK- 583201.
5. DODDABASAPPA S/O CHANNABASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT: 80 YEARS,
R/AT: DHARMA SAGAR VILLAGE,
HOSPET TALUK- 583201.
S. ANANDAPPA,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
6. GOWRAMMA W/O ANANDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT: 60 YEARS,
7. VENKAPPA S/O ANANDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT: 45 YEARS,
8. JAYAPPA S/O ANANDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT: 42 YEARS,
9. THIPPAREDDY S/O ANANDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT: 40 YEARS,
RESPONDENT 6 TO 9
ARE RESIDING AT DHARMA SAGAR VILLAGE,
HOSPET TALUK- 583201.
10. S. CHANDRAPPA S/O S. CHANNABASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT: 50 YEARS,
R/AT: KRISHNA NAGAR,
HOSPET TALUK- 583201.
11. S. VEERABASAPPA S/O. CHANNABASAPPA,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261
RSA No. 252 of 2008
C/W RSA No. 253 of 2008
AGED ABOUT: 47 YEARS,
R/AT: MUDDATANUR, HOSPET TALUK- 583201.
12. S. SHANKAR GOWDA S/O. S. YENKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT: 34 YEARS,
R/AT: DHARMASAGARA VILLAGE,
HOSPET TALUK- 583201.
13. S. YANKAPPA S/O S. DODDABASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT: 60 YEARS,
R/AT: DHARMASAGARA VILLAGE,
HOSPET TALUK- 583201.
14. S. JAMBANA GOWDA
S/O. SINGANALU VEERUPAKSHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT: 38 YEARS,
R/AT: DHARMASAGARA VILLAGE,
HOSPET TALUK- 583201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MAHANTESH R. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4,
SRI S.N. BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4, R6, R10 & R11,
SRI DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R14,
NOTICE TO RD2, R7, R9 & R13
ARE SERVED UNREPRESENTED,
R3, R5(A-F) & R12 APPEAL IS ABATED,
R1 IS DECEASED,
NOTICE TO R8 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC IS PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE LEARNED
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) HOSPET IN R.A. NO.
29/2006 DATED 9-10-2007 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPLE CIVIL JUDGE
(JR. DN.) AND JMFC HOSPET IN O.S. 88/1994 DATED 01-12-
2005 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO ORDERING PARTITION IN
RESPECT OF ITEM NO.5 OF THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTIES
ALLOW THIS APPEAL WITH COST AND GRANT SUCH OTHER
RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261
RSA No. 252 of 2008
C/W RSA No. 253 of 2008
IN RSA NO. 253/2008
BETWEEN:
S. YANKAPPA S/O. S. DODDABASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT: 60 YEARS,
R/AT: DHARMASAGARA VILLAGE,
HOSPET TALUK- 583201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SURABHI KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
S. VEERUPAKSHAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
1. SMT. KOTRAMMA
W/O LATE SRI. VEERUPAKSHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT: 60 YEARS,
R/AT: DHARMASAGARA VILLAGE,
HOSPET- 583201.
(AMENDED COPY ORDER DATED 27-11-2015
THE RESPONDENT NO.14 IS THE LR OF
DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.1)
2. S. DODDAPPA
S/O. LATE SINGANALU THIMMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT: 70 YEARS,
R/AT: DHARMASAGARA VILLAGE,
HOSPET TALUK- 583201.
NILAKANTAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
3. SMT. PARVATHAMMA
W/O. LATE NILAKANTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT: 60 YEARS,
R/AT: KRISHNA NAGAR,
HOSPET TALUK- 583201.
4. THIPPESWAMY S/O. NILAKANTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT: 51 YEARS,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261
RSA No. 252 of 2008
C/W RSA No. 253 of 2008
R/AT: KRISHNA NAGAR,
HOSPET TALUK- 583201.
5. DODDABASAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
5A. S. THIMAPPA S/O. S. DODDABASAPPA,
AGE ABOUT: 45 YEARS,
5B. S. NAGAPPA S/O. S. DODDABASAPPA,
AGE ABOUT: 40 YEARS,
5C. S. CHIDANANDA S/O. S. DODDABASAPPA,
AGE ABOUT: 35 YEARS,
5D. S. GANGAMMA D/O. S. DODDABASAPPA,
AGE ABOUT: 60 YEARS,
5E. S. PARVATAMMA D/O. S. DODDABASAPPA,
AGE ABOUT: 32 YEARS,
5F. MANGALAMMA D/O. S. DODDABASAPPA,
AGE ABOUT: 28 YEARS,
S. ANANDAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
6. GOWRAMMA W/O ANANDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT: 60 YEARS,
7. VENKAPPA S/O ANANDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
8. JAYAPPA S/O ANANDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT: 42 YEARS,
9. THIPPAREDDY S/O ANANDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT: 40 YEARS,
RESPONDENT 6 TO 9
ARE RESIDING AT DHARMA SAGAR VILLAGE,
HOSPET TALUK- 583201.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261
RSA No. 252 of 2008
C/W RSA No. 253 of 2008
10. S. CHANDRAPPA S/O S. CHANNABASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT: 50 YEARS,
R/A: KRISHNA NAGAR,
HOSPET TALUK- 583201.
11. S. VEERABASAPPA S/O. CHANNABASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT: 47 YEARS,
R/A: KRISHNA NAGAR,
HOSPET TALUK- 583201.
12. S. SHANKAR GOWDA S/O S. YENKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT: 34 YEARS,
R/AT DHARMASAGARA VILLAGE,
HOSPET TALUK- 583201.
13. SMT. NEELOGAL PARVATHAMMA
W/O. VEERABHADRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT: 59 YEARS,
R/AT: DHARMASAGARA VILLAGE,
HOSPET TALUK- 583201.
14. S. JAMBANA GOWDA
S/O. SINGANALU VEERUPAKSHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT: 38 YEARS,
R/AT: DHARMASAGARA VILLAGE,
HOSPET TALUK- 583201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4,
SRI. S.N. BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4-R6, R10 & R11,
SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R4,
R1 IS DECEASED,
R2, R5(A-F) IS ABATED,
R3 & R12 STANDS DISMISSED,
NOTICE TO R7, R9 & R13 ARE SERVED,
NOTICE TO R8 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261
RSA No. 252 of 2008
C/W RSA No. 253 of 2008
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC IS PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE LEARNED
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) HOSPET IN R.A. NO.
27/2006 DATED 9-10-2007 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPLE CIVIL JUDGE
(JR. DN.) AND JMFC HOSPET IN O.S. 88/1994 DATED 01-12-
2005 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO ORDERING PARTITION IN
RESPECT OF ITEM NO.5 OF THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTIES
ALLOW THIS APPEAL WITH COST AND GRANT SUCH OTHER
RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH)
In these appeals, defendant No.10 and defendant No.9
have challenged the common judgment and decree dated
09.10.2007 in R.A.No.29/2006 and R.A.No.27/2006,
respectively, on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn),
Hospet (for short 'the First Appellate Court') confirming the
judgment and decree dated 01.12.2005 in O.S.No.88/1994 on
the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Hospet
(for short 'the Trial Court') decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.
2. RSA No.252/2008 is filed by defendant No.10 with
regard to Item No.5 of the suit schedule properties and RSA
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261
No.253/2008 is filed by the defendant No.9 with regard to Item
No.4 of the suit schedule properties.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the
son of defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 is the brother of
defendant No.1. It is further stated in the plaint that the suit
schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff
and defendant No.1 and 2. It is also stated that defendant No.2
had taken portion of schedule properties in terms of the
partition effected between himself and his brother-defendant
No.1 and their mother as per the judgment and decree in
O.S.No.53/1971. It is also stated in the plaint that the suit
schedule properties are standing in the name of one SSinganalu
Thimmappa, who is the father of defendant No.1 and 2, and the
said Singanalu Thimmappa died during 1972 leaving behind
defendant No.1 and 2 and the plaintiff. Therefore, as defendant
No.2 was separated from the joint family of the said Singanalu
Thimmappa, during the lifetime of his father-Thimmappa, it is
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261
the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is having a share
in the suit schedule properties.
4.1. It is also stated in the plaint that the said Singanalu
Thimmappa had some other properties, which are standing in
the name of his wife-Hanumavva (mother of defendant No.1
and 2, and grandmother of plaintiff). It is also averred in the
plaint that since the plaintiff is the only legal heir of defendant
No.1 and as defendant No.1 has refused the share in ancestral
property, plaintiff filed suit seeking relief of partition and
separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties.
4.2. It is also stated in the plaint that the land bearing
Survey No.135F, to an extent of 2 acres out of 3.91 acres was
gifted in favour of Smt.Gangamma (sister of defendant No.1
and 2) and thereafter, the said Gangamma has sold 2 acres of
land in favour of defendant No.9 and the said sale deed is
illegal. Accordingly, it is the case of the plaintiff that the
plaintiff is having a share in Survey No.135F of the suit
schedule properties. Hence, he filed a suit in O.S.No.88/1994
seeking partition and separate possession to an extent of half
share in the suit schedule properties.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261
4.3. After service of notices, defendant No. 1, 2, 5, 9
and 10 have filed their written statements and defendant No.3,
4, 6 and 8 have adopted the written statement filed by the
defendant No.9 and 10.
4.4. Defendant No.1 has admitted that the suit schedule
properties are the ancestral properties and also stated that he
had acquired the suit schedule properties through partition
effected between his father-Thimappa along with defendant
No.2. It is the contention of defendant No.1 that as per the
judgment and decree in O.S.No.53/1971 filed by the mother-
Hanumavva against defendant No.2, the defendant No.2 has no
right to claim in respect of the suit schedule properties. It is
also stated in the written statement that the land bearing
Survey No.135F was standing in the name of his mother-
Hanumavva, who had executed registered gift deed in favour of
her daughter-Gangamma (sister of defendant No.1 and 2) and
thereafter, the said Gangamma has sold 2 acres of land to
defendant No.9 as per the registered sale deed and accordingly
revenue records were mutated in favour of defendant No.9. It
is the case of defendant No.1 that the sale deed made by his
sister-Gangamma in favour of defendant No.9 is only to an
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261
extent of 2 acres and therefore, defendant No.9 has no right
insofar as remaining extent of 1.91 acres in Survey No.135F.
Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the suit.
4.5. Defendant No.2 has contended that the plaintiff is
his brother's son and defendant No.1 is his brother and also
contended that defendant No.3 to 7 and 9 are the children of
Channabasappa, and defendant No.8 is the pre-deceased son of
Channabasappa. It is also the case of defendant No.2 that the
said Channabasappa, Thimmappa and Bangarappa are the
children of the original propositus-Veerabasappa and after the
death of said Veerabasappa, Channabasappa and Thimmappa
have partitioned the suit schedule properties. It is also stated
that the defendant No.2 is the son of S.Thimmappa, who died
during 1972 and the said S.Thimmappa had a half share in the
land bearing Survey No.17C and 17B and in two houses bearing
No.2/52 and 2/53 of Dharmasagara village and accordingly, it
is the contention of the defendant No.2 that the plaintiff has no
share in the suit schedule properties.
4.6. It is the contention of defendant No.5 in the written
statement that the suit schedule properties are not the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261
ancestral properties of the plaintiff as the defendant No.2 had
taken share in the suit schedule properties and also denied that
the revenue records stand in the name of late Hanumavva in
respect of land bearing Sy.No.135/5. Defendant No.5 also
denied the partition said to have been taken which is the
subject matter in O.S.No.53/1997. It is the contention of
defendant No.5 that the land bearing Sy.No.17/B measuring
5.80 acres was purchased by the father of defendant No.5 -
Channabasappa as per the registered sale deed dated
26.07.1945 and therefore the suit schedule property is the self-
acquired property of his father and on his demise defendant
No.5 along with defendants No.3 to 9 have succeeded to the
same and they are in possession of the suit schedule property
and accordingly sought for dismissal of the suit.
4.7. Defendant No.9 has filed written statement denying
the averments made in the plaint. It is the case of defendant
No.9 that one Veerabasappa had three sons namely
Channabasappa, Bangareppa and Shashtri Timmappa and the
said Bangareppa, has severed from the joint family. It is also
stated that, after the death of Veerabasappa, Channabasappa
and Shastri Timmappa got divided the suit schedule properties
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261
and are enjoying the properties which are fallen to their shares.
It is the contention of defendant No.9 that all the three sons of
Veerabasappa are died and therefore, their respective children
have inherited the suit properties which are allotted to their
shares and accordingly it is the contention of defendant No.9
that as the partition has already been taken place in respect of
the suit schedule properties and accordingly suit itself is not
maintainable and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit.
4.8. Insofar as land bearing Sy.No.135F is concerned, it
is stated in the written statement that the total extent of land
in Sy.No.135F was measuring 3.90 acres which was belong to
Veerabasappa and on his demise, his sons - Channabasappa
and Timmappa have succeeded to an extent of 1.90 acres and
2.00 acres respectively and upon death of Channabasappa,
1.90 acres was inherited by Channabasappa and defendant
No.4 and remaining 2 acres of the said Timmappa was given to
his daughter by way of gift, who subsequently sold the same to
defendant No.9. Accordingly, it is the case of defendant No.9
that as the land has been acquired by virtue of the sale deed by
defendant No.9 and therefore the suit itself is not maintainable.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261
4.9. The Trial Court based on the pleadings on record,
formulated issues for its consideration. In order to establish
their case, plaintiff has examined two witnesses as PW.1 and
PW.2 and got marked 46 documents and same were marked as
Exs.P.1 to P.46. Defendants have examined 14 witnesses as
DW.1 to DW.14 and got marked 17 documents as Exs.D.1 to
D.17. The Trial Court after considering the material on record,
by its judgment and decree dated 01.12.2005, decreed the suit
holding that the plaintiff is entitled for half share in Sy.No.17C,
16, 135F and 152 as well as the house properties. Feeling
aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial
Court, defendant No.9 and 10 have filed appeals in
R.A.No.24/2006 and R.A.No.29/2006. R.A.No.41/2006 was
preferred by the plaintiff in respect of Item No.17B measuring
5.80 acres situated at Dharmasagar village of Hospet Taluk.
The First Appellate Court after considering the material on
record, by its judgment and decree dated 09.10.2007
dismissed the appeals and as such confirmed the judgment and
decree in O.S.No.88/1994. Feeling aggrieved by the same,
defendant No.10 has filed RSA No.252/2008 and defendant
No.9 has filed RSA No.253/2008.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261
5. This Court vide order dated 29.09.2016 formulated
the following substantial question of law:
"Whether the judgment and decree of both the Courts
below are perverse in misreading the evidence and material
on record and decreeing the suit so far as the suit schedule
item Nos.4 and 5 are concerned?"
6. I have heard Smt.V.Vidya Iyer, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant in RSA No.252/2008 and
Smt.Surabhi Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant in RSA No.253/2008 and Sri.Dinesh M Kulkarni for
the contesting respondent.
7. It is the submission of the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant in RSA No.252/2008 by referring to
the genealogical tree of the parties that, originally the land in
question is belong to Kivuda Timmappa and the said
Timmappa has sold the same to Sharanappa and
Hanumanagowda as per registered sale deed dated
29.09.2007. The said sale deed is binding on the parties and
therefore it is the specific contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant that the Item No.5 of the suit
property has been sold and the said Item No.5 is not belong to
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261
the branch of Channabasappa S/o Veerabasappa and therefore
the finding recorded by both the Courts below requires to be
interfered with in this appeal.
8. It is also stated by the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant that the land in question has been gifted to
Gangamma (sister of defendants No.1 and 2) by her mother
Hanumavva and therefore, as the appellant herein had
purchased the same from Gangamma and therefore it is the
contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
that the subject matter of Item No.5 could not have been the
item in the schedule property in the suit and accordingly sought
for interference of this Court.
9. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant refers to the memo dated 07.01.2025 and also
produced certain documents including the registered sale deeds
and the encumbrance certificate to substantiate the right of the
appellant herein. It is also submitted by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant by referring to the resettlement
register as produced in the memo and admitted that the appeal
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261
requires to be allowed by interfering with the judgment and
decree passed by the Court below.
10. Smt.Surabhi Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant in RSA No.253/2008 contended by inviting the
attention of the Court to para No.9 of the plaint as well as the
evidence of PW.1 and also referring to the gift deed dated
29.10.1969 (Ex.P.3) as well as the mutation register produced
at Ex.D.11, wherein it is marked that the sale deed dated
27.01.1988 has been made insofar as Item No.4 is concerned
and since the entire extent of land in Item No.4 is 3 acres 90
cents and further, as the 2 acres of the land has been gifted by
Hanumavva in favour of Gangamma and therefore it is the
contention of the appellant that the said aspect of the matter
was ignored by both the Courts below and accordingly sought
for interference of this Court.
11. Per contra, Sri.Dinesh M Kulkarni, learned counsel
for respondent No.14 refers to the RTC extracts produced at
Ex.P.17 and also invited attention of the Court to the re-
settlement and also Ex.D.3 sale deed dated 19.10.1970 and
argued that as both the Courts below have concurrently held
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261
against the appellants herein with regard to the division of
properties and also he further contended that as the learned
counsel for the appellant in RSA No.252/2008 has not filed
relevant application in a manner known to law, however, filed a
memo along with certain documents and same cannot be
accepted and therefore it is contended by the learned counsel
for the plaintiff/respondent No.14 to confirm the judgment
decree passed by the Courts below.
12. In the light of the submission made by the learned
counsel for the parties, the genealogical tree of the parties is
extracted hereunder for reference:
Genealogy
Bangareppa
2 children
Veerbasappa (dead) Pompanna (dead)
3 children one son
Chennabasappa Bangareppa Shastry Timmappa kivid Timmappa
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261
(dead) (dead) (dead) (dead)
st
1 wife Eramma Wife sharanamma (dead) wife Hanumavva (dead) wife Hanumavva (dead)
nd
2 wife Hanumavva
(dead)
Children Children Children No children
1.Neelkantappa (dead) 1.Basappa(dead) 1.Verupakshappa(dead)
2.Doddabasappa(dead) 2.Yarappa(dead) 2.Doddappa(dead)
3.Yankappa(dead) 3.Thimmappa(dead)
4.Anandappa(dead)
5.Chandrappa(dead)
6. Veerbasappa(dead)
Neelkantappa Doddabasappa Yankappa Anandappa Chandrappa Veerbasappa
Children Children Children Children Children Children
Tippeswamy 1.Yankappa Shankargouda 1.Yankappa 1.Shanbhu 1. Mallikarjun(dead)
2.Timmappa 2.Jayappa 2. Kotrappa 2.Reddy
3.Nagappa 3.Timmappa
4.Chidanand(dead)
Basappa Yareppa Timmappa Virupaxppa Doddappa
Children No Children Children Children Children
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261
1.Chandrappa 1. Gavisidd Jambunngouda Basavaraj
2.Lokappa 2 Doddanagouda
3.Somashekhar
4.Hemanna
13. Having taken note of the submission of the learned
counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the original
propositus Bangareppa had two children namely Veerabasappa
and Pompanna. Veerabasappa had three children namely
Channabasappa, Bangareppa and Shastri Timmappa.
Pompanna (second son of Bangareppa) had a son named as
Kivuda Timmappa. The said Kivuda Timmappa died during 1972
leaving behind his wife Hanumavva and had no issues. The first
son of the Bangareppa - Veerabasappa had three children
Channabasappa, Bangareppa and Shastri Timmappa. The said
Bangareppa had separated through lifetime of Veerabasappa
and therefore, Channabasappa died leaving behind his wife
Hanumavva and defendants No.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, Yankappa
predeceased leaving behind his son Shankara gouda (defendant
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261
No.8) and defendant No.9 (son of defendant No.4) and a
daughter Sharanamma.
14. It is also forthcoming from the genealogical tree
that the third son of Veerabasappa- Shashtri Timmappa had a
wife - Hanamavva and three children namely Virupakshappa
(defendant No.1), Doddappa (defendant No.2) and Gangamma.
Plaintiff is the son of defendant No.1. It is the case of the
appellants herein that, the Hanamavva W/o Timmappa had
gifted the Item No.4 in favour of her daughter Gangamma and
in turn the said Gangamma has sold 1 acre 91 cents in favour
of defendant No.9.
15. It is also forthcoming from the arguments advanced
by the learned counsel for the appellant in RSA No.252/2008
that Item No.5 of the suit schedule property measuring 5 acres
50 cents was nothing to do with the branch of Channabasappa.
In this regard, taking into consideration the factual aspects on
record, though the learned counsel for the respondent
vehemently opposed the acceptance of the documents
produced by the appellant in RSA No.252/2008, however, these
documents are nothing but the registered documents which
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261
specifically confer title in respect of the parties. In that view of
the matter, I am of the view that as the suit is of the year 1994
and accordingly it is expedient to remand the matter to the
First Appellate Court and to re-hear the matter after affording
an opportunity of hearing to the parties as well as taking into
consideration the documents filed by the parties before this
Court and to dispose of the same in accordance with law.
16. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeals are allowed.
ii. The judgment and decree dated 09.10.2007 in
R.A.No.29/2006 and R.A.No.27/2006 on the file of
the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Hospet are set
aside.
iii. The matter is remanded to the First Appellate Court
to re-hear the matter after affording an opportunity
of hearing to the parties.
iv. It is made clear that the parties are permitted to file
necessary documents before the First Appellate
Court.
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2261
v. It is open for the parties to file necessary
documents to enable the Appellate Court to arrive
at a just conclusion and also adduce further
evidence in the circumstances of the case.
vi. Needless to say that as the parties are appeared
through their learned counsels and accordingly in
order to avoid further delay in the matter, the
parties are directed to appear before the First
Appellate Court on 06.03.2025 at 11.00 a.m.
without awaiting for further notice from the First
Appellate Court.
vii. The First Appellate Court is requested to expedite
the hearing.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
YAN,
SH from para 4.6
