Karnataka High Court
B N Hulugappa S/O Late Neelakantappa vs Ningamma W/O B N Malleshappa on 13 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2936
RSA No. 100753 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100753 OF 2014 (PAR-)
BETWEEN:
B. N. HULUGAPPA,
S/O. LATE NEELAKANTAPPA,
AGE: 34 YEARS, HINDU,
AGICULTURIST CUM BUSINESSMEN,
R/O. COWL BAZAAR, BELLARY,
DIST: BELLARY-583101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHREDDY SAHUKAR (NOC), ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. NINGAMMA
W/O. B. N. MALLESHAPPA,
AGE. 54 YEARS,
2. B. N. HANUMANTHAPPA
S/O. LATE B. N. MALLESHAPPA,
AGE. 34 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by V N
BADIGER 3. B. N. SHAMBULINGAPPA,
Location: High S/O. LATE B. N. MALLESHAPPA,
Court of
Karnataka, AGE. 32 YEARS,
Dharwad Bench
4. B. N. NAGARAJ
S/O. LATE B. N. MALLESHAPPA,
AGE. 30 YEARS,
5. B. N. LAXMIDEVI
D/O. LATLE B. N. MALLESHAPPA,
AGE: 28 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 ARE
R/O : RAMNAGAR, WARD NO.29,
BANDIHATTI, BELLARY,
DIST. BELLARY - 583101.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2936
RSA No. 100753 of 2014
6. SMT. DURUGAMMA W/O. RAMANJINI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: NO.88, MUDDALAPUR,
BASAVANGUNJA ROAD,
TAYAMMA TEMPLE, WARD NO.II,
HOSPET-583201,
DIST: BELLARY.
7. SMT. MANJAMMA W/O. THIPPAIAH,
AGE. 46 YEARS,
8. N. T. PURUSHOTHAM S/O. THIPPAIAH,
AGE. 30 YEARS,
9. N. T. NAGARAJ S/O. THIPPAIAH,
AGE: 28 YEARS,
10. N. T. SANNA NAGARAJ S/O. THIPPAIAH,
AGE. 26 YEARS,
11. N. T. PARASHURAM S/O. THIPPAIAH,
AGE. 24 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO. 7 to 11
R/O. RAMANAGAR, WARD NO.29,
BANDIHATTI, BELLARY,
DIST: BELLARY - 583101.
12. SMT. HULIGAMMA W/O. HULUGAPPA,
AGE: 46 YEARS, R/O : PDL QUARTERS,
CHITWADIGI, HOSPET -583201,
DIST. BELLARY.
13. SMT. TAYAMMA @ PARVATHI
W/O. B. N. SHIVALINGAIAH,
AGE: 36 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. NEAR SUNKALAMMA TEMPLE,
BANDIHATTI, BELLARY,
DIST: BELLARY-583101.
14. N. S. SWATHI
D/O. LATE B. N. SHIVALINGAIAH,
AGE: 18 YEARS,
R/O. NEAR SUNKALAMMA TEMPLE,
BANDIHATTI, BELLARY,
DIST: BELLARY - 583101.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2936
RSA No. 100753 of 2014
15. N. S. GEETA
D/O. LATE B. N. SHIVALINGAIAH,
AGE: 16 YEARS, MINOR REPTD
THROUGH MINOR GUARDIAN
HER MOTHER, RESPONDENT NO.13,
SMT. TAYAMMA @ PARVATHI,
R/O : NEAR SUNKALAMMA TEMPLE,
BANDIHATTI, BELLARY,
DIST: BELLARY - 583101.
16. SMT. ISWARAMMA W/O. RAMANNA,
AGE: 39 YEARS, HINDU, HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: NEAR SUNKALAMMA TEMPLE,
BANDIHATTI, BELLARY,
DIST. BELLARY - 583101.
17. SMT. B. N. SHIVALINGAMMA
W/O. RAMANJINI,
AGE. 36 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. NEAR T.B.SANITORIUM
SCHOOL, RAMANJINEYA NAGAR,
BELAGAL CROSS, BELLARY,
DIST: BELLARY - 583101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNASWAMY B HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1-5
R6 -R12 AND R16 & R17 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH;
R13 & R15 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; R14 - PARTY LEFT)
-----
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CIVIL
PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.09.2014, PASSED BY
THE FIRST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BELLARY IN
R.A.NO.44/2012 CONFRIMED WITH MODIFICATION OF THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATD 04.06.2012 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., BELLARY, IN
O.S.NO.293/2009, AND DISMISS THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEALCOMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2936
RSA No. 100753 of 2014
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by defendant No.13
challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.09.2014
passed in R.A.No.44/2012 on the file of the I Additonal
Senior Civil Judge, Bellary allowing the appeal in part and
modified the shares of the parties as per judgment and
decree dated 04.06.2012 in O.S.No.293/2009 on the file of
the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bellary decreeing the
suit of the plaintiff in part.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this
appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and
ranking before the trial Court.
3. The plaint averments are that the plaintiffs
have filed suit in O.S.No.293/2009 on the file of the Trial
Court seeking relief of partition and separate possession in
respect of suit schedule property. It is the case of the
plaintiff that, original propositus Neelakantappa died
leaving behind 8 children, namely, B.N.Malleshappa,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2936
(husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of Plaintiff Nos. 2 to
5), Ramanji, (husband of defendant No.1), Tippaiah
(husband of defendant No.2 and father of defendant No.3
to 6), Huligemma (defendant No.1) B. N Shivalingaiah
(wife of defendant No.8 and father of defendant No.9 and
10), Smt. Eshwaramma (defendant No.11) and defendant
No.12 and defendant No.13. It is the case of the plaintiff
that the suit schedule property is belong to Neelakantappa
and as such, the plaintiffs have share in the suit schedule
property. Hence, plaintiffs have filed suit seeking relief of
partition and separate possession.
4. After service of summons, the defendants
entered appearance, however, defendant No.7 placed ex-
parte. It is the case of defendant Nos.1, 3 to 6, 8 to 10
and 12 including the defendant No.2 that, the plaintiffs are
not entitled for share in the suit property and defendants
are entitled for 1/8th share each in the suit schedule
property. It is the contention of defendant No.13 in the
written statement that the plaintiffs have filed suit for
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2936
declaration and also stated that, the suit property is not an
ancestral property and one Smt.Beemakka wife of elder
brother of late Neelakantappa was the owner of the
property and the said Beemakka had given the property in
question to defendant No.13 and accordingly, sought for
dismissal of the suit.
5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial
Court has formulated issues for its consideration.
6. In order to establish the case, plaintiff
examined three witnesses as PW.1 to PW.3 and got
marked 14 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.14. On the other
hand, defendants have examined three witnesses as DW.1
to DW.3 and produced 13 documents and same are
marked as Exs.D.1 to D.3.
7. The Trial Court, after considering the material
on record, by its judgment and decree dated 04.06.2012
decreed the suit of the plaintiff in part holding that
plaintiffs are entitled for 9/40th share in the suit schedule
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2936
property and being aggrieved by the same, the defendant
No.13 has preferred Regular Appeal in RA No.44/2012 on
the file of First Appellate Court. The said appeal was
resisted by the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court after
re-appreciating the material on record, by its judgment
and decree dated 01.09.2014 modified the shares of the
parties and being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.13
has preferred this Regular Second Appeal.
8. I have heard Sri.Hanumanthreddy Sahukar,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant and
Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B Hiremath, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents.
9. Sri.Hanumanthreddy Sahukar, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant contended that both the Courts
below have committed an error in not considering the fact
that the suit schedule property belongs to Beemakka, wife
of the elder brother of - Neelakantappa. He also argued
that after the death of the said Smt.Beemakka revenue
records were mutated in favour of defendant No.13 and
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2936
therefore it is submitted that the both the Courts below
have committed an error in arriving at a conclusion that
the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of late
Neelakantappa.
10. Having taken note of the submission made by
the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and in
order to understand the relationship between the parties,
genealogy of the parties is extracted below:
Neelakantappa (Died on 06.04.1998)
B.N. Malleshappa Ramanji Thippaiah Huligamma B.N. Shivalingaiah
Wife Wife Wife (Def.7) Wife
Smt. Ningamma Durugamma Manjamma Thayamma
(Plaintiff - 1) (Def. -1) (Def.2) (Def.8)
B.N.Hanumanthappa (Pt-2) N.T. Purushotham (Def.-3) N.S. Swathi (Def.9)
B.N. Shambulingappa (Pt-2) N.T. Nagaraj (Def.-4) N.S. Geeta (Def.10)
B.N. Nagaraj (Pt-4) N.T. Sanna Nagaraj (Def. 5)
B.N. Lakshmidevi (Pt-5) N.T. Parashuram (Def.6)
Smt. Eswaramma Smt. B.N. Shivalingamma B.N. Hulugappa
(Def. 11) (Def. 12) (Def. 13)
11. Perusal of the genealogy would indicate that
original propositus Neelakantappa died leaving behind 8
children, namely, B.N.Malleshappa, (husband of plaintiff
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2936
No.1 and father of Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5), Ramanji,
(husband of defendant No.1), Tippaiah (husband of
defendant No.2 and father of defendant No.3 to 6),
Huligemma (defendant No.1) B. N Shivalingaiah (wife of
defendant No.8 and father of defendant No.9 and 10),
Smt. Eshwaramma (defendant No.11) and defendant
No.12 and defendant No.13. It is the case of the plaintiffs
that the suit schedule property is an ancestral property
and it is the case of defendant No.13 - appellant herein
that the suit property is belong to Beemakka - wife of
elder brother of Neelakantappa. The plaintiffs have
produced the record of rights as per Exs.P.8 and P.9 to
P.14 to establish that the suit property is belong to
Neelakantappa and on the other hand, the defendant
No.13, though contended that the said property is not the
ancestral property, however, has not produced any
document before the Trial Court to establish how the
property in question was given to defendant No.13 by
Beemakka - wife of elder brother of Neelakantappa. In the
absence of the transfer of title from said Beemakka to the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2936
defendant No.13 as required under law, mere mutation of
entries would not confer any title to defendant No.13.
12. In this regard, it is relevant to cite the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (Dead) Through legal
representatives vs. Arthur Import & Export Company
and Others reported in 2019 (3) SCC 191 and in the
case of Union Of India and Others vs. Vasavi Co-Op.
Housing Society Limited and Others reported in 2014
(2) SCC 269, wherein it is held that the plaintiffs name in
the revenue record do not confer title. In that view of the
matter, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the
appellant has not made out a case for formulation of
substantial question of law.
13. Hence, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of
admission.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SB,SH
