Karnataka High Court
Shri Ningappa S/O Neelappa Girennavar vs Smt. Mayawwa W/O Mallappa Girennavar on 17 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3165
RSA No. 101131 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 101131 OF 2022 (DEC/PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI NINGAPPA
S/O NEELAPPA GIRENNAVAR
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HIREBUDANUR, TQ. SAUDATTI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591128.
2. SHRI. RANGESH
S/O NINGAPPA GIRENNAVAR
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HIREBUDANUR, TQ. SAUDATTI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591128.
3. SMT. GANGAWWA
W/O DODDASHIDDAPPA SURANNAVAR
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HIREBUDANUR, TQ. SAUDATTI,
Digitally DIST. BELAGAVI-591128.
signed by
VN ...APPELLANTS
BADIGER
(BY SRI GIRISH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
Location:
High
Court of
Karnataka, AND:
Dharwad
Bench
1. SMT. MAYAWWA
W/O MALLAPPA GIRENNAVAR
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. HIREBUDANUR, NOW AT MALAGALLI,
TQ. SAUDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591128.
2. SMT. LALITA
W/O. LAKKAPPA GIRENNAVAR
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. MALAGALLI, TQ. SAUDATTI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591128.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3165
RSA No. 101131 of 2022
3. KUM. VARUN S/O. LAKKAPPA GIRENNAVAR
AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. MALAGALLI, TQ. SAUDATTI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591128.
4. MISS. MEGHA
D/O. LAKKAPPA GIRENNAVAR
AGE: 11 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. MALAGALLI, TQ. SAUDATTI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591128.
5. MISS. SHREYA
D/O. LAKKAPPA GIRENNAVAR
AGE: 8 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. MALAGALLI, TQ. SAUDATTI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591128.
6. MISS. VARSHA
D/O. LAKKAPPA GIRENNAVAR
AGE: 8 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. MALAGALLI, TQ. SAUDATTI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591128.
(SINCE RESPONDENT NO.2 IS THE
MOTHER GUARDIAN OF RESPONDENT 3 TO 6)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.G.CHIKKANARAGUND, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR B. HORATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
R3 TO R6 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN R.A.NO.35/2020 DATED
06.08.2022 PASSED BY THE XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
BELAGAVI AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN
O.S.NO.41/2015 DATED 27.08.2018 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, SAUDATTI AND ALLOW THE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3165
RSA No. 101131 of 2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH)
challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.08.2022 in
R.A.No.35/2020 on the file of the XI Additional District
Judge, Belagavi (for short "the First Appellate Court")
dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and
decree dated 27.08.2018 in O.S.No.41/2015 on the file of
the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti (for short "the
Trial Court") decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.
2. The parties are referred to as per their rank
before the Trial Court.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule
'A' property is the joint family property of the plaintiff and
her son-defendant No.1. The defendants No.2 and 3 are the
father and son and distant relatives of plaintiff. It is stated in
the plaint that one Neelappa was the original propositus of
the property and on his demise, his two sons viz., Mallappa
(husband of Mayavva) and Meelagireppa inherited the said
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3165
property. It is also stated that the said Meelagireppa died
leaving behind his three daughters viz., Basavva, Siddavva
and Kenchavva. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that the
suit schedule property is belonged to the husband of the
plaintiff (Mallappa). The defendant No.2 to 4 are claiming
right over the property based on an unregistered
relinquishment deed dated 12.04.2000 and therefore, the
plaintiff has filed suit seeking declaration regarding the
same.
3.1. On service of notice, defendants entered
appearance and filed their written statement. It is the case
of the legal heirs of defendant No.1 that the schedule
property was in joint possession of the plaintiff and the
defendant No.1 and the said property is belonging to
Mallappa (husband of the plaintiff). The legal heirs of
defendant No.1 supported the contention of the plaintiff.
3.2. Defendant No.3 entered appearance by filing the
written statement stating that the son of the plaintiff-
Lakkappa had executed the relinquishment deed in favour of
defendant No.2 in respect of the land bearing Survey No.274
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3165
measuring 4 Acre 17 Guntas of Hirebudanur village as per
the relinquishment deed dated 12.04.2000 before the
witnesses and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit
stating that the revenue records have been transferred into
his name and he is in possession of the said property.
3.3. Based on the pleadings on record, the Trial Court
framed issues and additional issues for its consideration. In
order to establish their right, the plaintiff has examined
herself as PW1 and produced 12 documents , which were
marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. On the other hand, the
defendants have examined two witnesses as DW1 and DW2
and produced 8 documents, which were marked as Ex.D1 to
Ex.D8.
4. The Trial Court, by its judgment and decree dated
27.08.2018 decreed the suit and feeling aggrieved by the
same, defendant No.2 to 4 have preferred R.A.No.35/2020
before the First appellate Court. The said appeal was resisted
by the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court, by its
judgment and decreed 06.08.2022 dismissed the appeal and
confirmed the decree in O.S.No.41/2025. Feeling aggrieved
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3165
by the same, the defendant No.2 to 4 have preferred this
appeal.
5. I have heard the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that both the Courts below have not considered
Ex.D1 wherein the land in question has been relinquished by
the son of the plaintiff/defendant No.1 in favour of defendant
No.3 and therefore, sought for interference of this Court.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent sought to justify the judgment and decree
passed by the Courts below by stating that the
relinquishment deed said to have been placed reliance by
defendant No.2 to 4 is unregistered document and same
would not confer title in favour of defendant No.2 to 4 and
accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. In the light of the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute
that the land in question is a joint family property of Nelappa
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3165
and his son Mallappa (the husband of plaintiff and father of
defendant No.1). Taking into consideration the fact that the
said property is joint family property and the defendant No.2
to 4 are placing reliance on an unregistered document at
Ex.P4, said to have been considered as relinquishment deed
executed by original defendant No.1 in favour of defendant
No.2 to 4 and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Yellapu Uma Maheswari &
Anr v. Buddha Jagadheeswararao & others1, I am of the
view that the unregistered document-relinquishment deed
does not confer title to the transferee. In that view of the
matter, both the Courts below have rightly decreed the suit
in favour of the plaintiff holding that the relinquishment deed
(Ex.P4) said to have been executed by the son of the plaintiff
(original defendant No.1) in favour of defendant No.2 to 4
cannot be considered as a valid document to confer title in
favour of defendant No.2 to 4. In that view of the matter, I
do not find any merit in the appeal.
(2015) 16 SCC 787
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3165
9. In view of the above, the appeal stands dismissed
at the stage of admission itself since the appellant has not
made out a case for formulation of substantial question of
law as required under Section 100 of CPC.
10. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
YAN
CT.GSM
