Karnataka High Court
Sri Chinnappa S/O Mahantappa Hugar ... vs Mallappa S/O Shivabasappa Hugar on 7 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:140
RSA NO.100800 OF 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100800 OF 2024 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
CHINNAPPA
S/O MAHANTAPPA HUGAR
SINCE DEAD THROUGH HIS LRS.
1. SMT. RENAVVA
W/O CHINNAPPA HUGAR
AGE: 60 YEARS,
OCC.: HOUSE MAKER.
2. SMT. MAHADEVI
W/O SANGAPPA HUGAR
AGE: 49 YEARS,
OCC.: HOUSEWIFE.
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF
Digitally NEAR OPPOSITE TO POLICE STATION,
signed by
MANJANNA SH BAGALKOT-HUNGUND ROAD,
E WARD NO.2, AMINAGAD,
Location: HUNGUND TAUK,
HIGH
COURT OF BAGALKOT DISTRICT - 587 112.
KARNATAKA
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SANTOSHKUMAR G. RAMPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MALLAPPA
S/O SHIVABASAPPA HUGAR
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC.: BUSINESS.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:140
RSA NO.100800 OF 2024
2. SHIVANAND
S/O SHIVABASAPPA HUGAR
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC.: BUSINESS.
RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ARE
R/O NEAR OPPOSITE TO POLICE STATION,
SH BAGALKOT-HUNGUND ROAD,
WARD NO.2, AMINAGAD,
HUNGUND TALUK,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT - 587 112.
3. SMT. SHANTAVVA
W/O SHARANAPPA HUGAR
AGE: 48 YEARS,
OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O MYAGERI,
BAGALKOT TALUK,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT - 587 107.
4. SMT. SUVARNA
W/O MAHANTESH HUGAR
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O NEAR OLD GOVT. HOSPITAL,
BEHIND MARKHANDESHWAR TEMPLE,
ILKAL,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT - 587 118.
5. SMT. KASTURAVVA
W/O SHANTAPPA HUGAR
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O NAGUR,
HUNGUND TALUK,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT - 587 118.
6. SMT. GOURAVVA
W/O SADAPPA HUGAR
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O WARD NO.3, AMINAGAD,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:140
RSA NO.100800 OF 2024
HUNGUND TALUK,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT - 587 112.
7. SM. MAHANTAVVA
W/O MALLIKARJUN HUGAR @ JEER
AGE: 31 YEARS,
OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O BASAVANAGAR,
NEAR LIC OFFICE,
BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
VIJAYAPUR DISTRICT - 586 203.
8. EXECUTIVE OFFICER
SRI. SANGAMESHWAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,
AMINAGAD, SH BAGALKOT-HUNGUND ROAD,
HUNGUND TALUK,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT - 581 112.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN REGULAR APPEAL NO.01
OF 2019 DATED 15TH JULY, 2024 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., HUNGUND, CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC., HUNGUND IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.290 OF
2013 DATED 20TH DECEMBER, 2018.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH)
This Regular Second Appeal is preferred by the
defendants 6 and 7 challenging the judgment and decree dated
15th July, 2024 passed in Regular Appeal No.01 of 2019 on the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:140
RSA NO.100800 OF 2024
file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Hunagund (for short,
hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), confirming
the judgment and decree dated 20th December, 2018 passed in
Original Suit No.290 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Civil
Judge and JMFC., Hungund (for short, hereinafter referred to as
'Trial Court'), wherein the suit filed by the plaintiffs came to be
decreed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal
shall be referred to in terms of their ranking before the Trial
Court.
3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs and
defendants 1 to 5 are the children of Shivabasappa Hugar.
Defendants 6 and the husband of defendant No.7 are the
brothers of the father of plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 5. It is
stated in the plaint that the defendants 6 and 7 have created
the relinquishment deed and based on which, the mutation
entries have been changed in their favour in respect of the suit
schedule properties and as such, plaintiffs have filed Original
Suit No.290 of 2013, seeking relief of partition and separate
possession in respect of suit schedule properties.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:140
RSA NO.100800 OF 2024
4. After service of notice, defendants entered appearance
and filed written statement. Defendants 1 to 5 have admitted
the averments made in the plaint and accordingly, sought for
one-seventh share each in the suit schedule property.
Defendants 6 and 7 have filed written statement and took-up a
specific contention that the father of the plaintiffs and
defendants 1 to 5 namely Shivabasappa Hugar, had agreed
during his lifetime to convey the suit schedule properties to his
brothers Sri. Chinnappa (defendant No.6) and husband of the
defendant No.7 (Sangappa) and as such, defendants 6 and 7
are in the possession of the suit schedule properties and
accordingly, they sought for dismissal of the suit filed by the
plaintiffs.
5. Based on the pleadings on record, the Trial Court,
framed the issues for its consideration.
6. In order to establish their case, plaintiff No.1 had
examined as PW1 and got marked 4 documents as Exhibits P1
to P4. On the other hand, defendants examined 4 witnesses as
DW1 to DW4 and got marked 4 documents as Exhibits D1 to
D4.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:140
RSA NO.100800 OF 2024
7. The Trial Court, after considering the material on
record, by judgment and decree dated 20th December, 2018,
decreed the suit of the plaintiffs in-part and held that the
plaintiffs are entitled for one-seventh share each along with
defendants 1 to 5. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants 6
and 7 have preferred Regular Appeal No.01 of 2019 before the
First Appellate Court and same was resisted by the plaintiffs
and defendants 1 to 5. The First Appellate Court, after re-
appreciating the material on record, by its judgment and
decreed dated 15th July, 2024, dismissed the appeal preferred
by the defendants 6 and 7, consequently, confirmed the
judgment and decree dated 20th December, 2018 passed by the
Trial Court in Original Suit No.290 of 2013. Being aggrieved by
the same, the legal representative of defendant No.6 and
defendant No.7 preferred this Regular Second Appeal.
8. Heard Sri. Santosh Kumar G. Rampur, learned counsel
appearing for appellants.
9. Sri. Santosh Kumar G. Rampur, learned counsel
appearing for appellants contended that the revenue records in
respect of the subject matter of the land stands in favour of the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:140
RSA NO.100800 OF 2024
defendants 6 and 7 as the plaintiffs themselves have given
Wardi to the Panchayat Authorities stating about entering the
name of the defendants 6 and 7 in the revenue records and
therefore, the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 5 have relinquished
the right in respect of the subject land. Accordingly, he sought
for interference of this Court.
10. In the light of submission made by learned counsel
appearing for appellants, there is no dispute with regard to
relationship between the parties as stated in the plaint.
Defendant No.6 and husband of the defendant No.7 are the
brothers of the father of plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 5. The
entire case of the defendants 6 and 7 is based on the Wardi
said to have been given by the plaintiffs to the Panchayat
Authorities. Undisputably, no relinquishment deed is produced
before the Courts below. In view of judgment rendered by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of YELLAPU UMA
MAHESWARI AND ANOTHER vs. BUDDA
JAGADHESWARARAO AND OTHERS reported in (2015) 16
SCC 787, the relinquishment deed requires to be compulsorily
registered and in the absence of the same, defendants 6 and 7
cannot claim any relief in respect of the suit schedule
NC: 2025:KHC-D:140
RSA NO.100800 OF 2024
properties based on the Wardi as stated in the written
statement. In that view of the matter, both the Courts below,
after appreciating the material on record held that the plaintiffs
and defendants 1 to 5 are entitled for one-seventh share each
in the suit schedule properties. Therefore, I am of the view
that the appellants have not made out a case for formulation of
substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of the
Code of Civil Procedure and as such, the appeal deserves to the
dismissed at the stage of admission itself. Accordingly, Regular
Second Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(E.S. INDIRESH)
JUDGE
ARK
