Karnataka High Court
Sri.Satyappa S/O Mallappa Kokatanur vs Kumari Chaitra D/O Bahubali Kokatanur on 29 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1725
RSA No. 100422 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100422 OF 2019 (PAR-)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SATYAPPA
S/O MALLAPPA KOKATANUR
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/AT TERDAL,
TQ:RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI,
(JAMKHANDI),
DIST:BAGALKOTE-587315.
2. SMT. TANGEWWA
W/O. SATYAPPA KOKATNUR,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/AT TERDAL,
TQ: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI,
(JAMKHANDI),
DIST:BAGALKOTE-587315.
MANJANNA 3. SMT. BHARATI W/O. RAJENDRA TAKADE
E
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
MANJANNA E
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.02.01 11:43:08
OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK,
C/O:R.B.TAKADE,
+0530
POLICE WIRELESS OPERATOR,
KOLHAPUR, HOUSE NO.866,
MARATHA COLONY,
BEHIND MEDICAL COLLEGE,
KOLHAPUR, DIST:KOLHAPUR,
MAHARASTRA-401411.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1725
RSA No. 100422 of 2019
AND:
1. KUMARI CHAITRA
D/O. BAHUBALI KOKATANUR,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
OCC:STUDENT,
R/AT TERDAL,
TQ:RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI,
(JAMKHANDI),
DIST:BAGALKOTE-587315.
2. SMT. PADMAVATI @ PADMASHREE
W/O. BAHUBALI KOKATNUR,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCC:HOUSEHOLD,
R/AT TERDAL,
TQ:RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI,
(JAMKHANDI),
DIST: BAGALKOTE-587315.
RESPONDENT NO.2 IS DECEASED AND
R1 IS TREATED AS THE SOLE LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE BY ORDER DT: 29.01.2025
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN C. HUKKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 -SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 16.02.2019 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.92/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT, TO SIT AT JAMKHANDI, DISMISSING
THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
28.10.2014, PASSED IN O.S. NO.198/2005 DATED 28.10.2014 AND
DISMISS THE SUIT BY ALLOWING PRESENT WITH COSTS IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1725
RSA No. 100422 of 2019
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is preferred by the defendants
challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2019 in
R.A.No.92/2014 on the file of the I Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Bagalkot (sitting at Jamkhandi)1
dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and
decree dated 28.10.2014 in O.S.No.198/2005 on the file of
the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi2 decreeing the
suit of the plaintiffs.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.1
is the grand daughter and plaintiff No.2 is the daughter-in-
law of defendants No.1 and 2 and further defendant No.3
is the daughter of defendants No.1 and 2. It is further
stated that, father of plaintiff No.1 and husband of plaintiff
hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'
hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1725
No.2 - Bahubali S/o Satyappa Kokatnur died on
29.06.2005 at Terdal and defendant No.3 is married. It is
also stated that, the suit schedule properties are the
ancestral properties of the parties and accordingly
plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking relief of partition and
separate possession in respect of suit schedule properties.
4. On service of notice, the defendants entered
appearance and filed detailed written statement denying
the averments made in the plaint and accordingly sought
for dismissal of the suit.
5. The Trial Court based on the pleadings on
record, has formulated issues for its consideration. In
order to establish their case, plaintiff No.2 was examined
as PW.1 and produced 11 documents and the same were
marked as Exs.P.1 to P.11. Defendant No.1 was examined
DW.1 and got marked four documents as Exs.D.1 to D.4.
6. The Trial Court after considering the material on
record, by its judgment and decree dated 28.10.2014
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1725
decreed the suit in part holding that the plaintiffs are
entitled for 1/4th share together in the suit schedule
properties. Feeling aggrieved by the same, defendants
No.1 and 2 have filed appeal in R.A.No.92/2014 before the
First Appellate Court and 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 16.02.2019, dismissed the appeal, and as
such confirmed the judgment and decree in
O.S.No.198/2005. Feeling aggrieved by the same,
defendants No.1 and 2 have preferred this Regular Second
Appeal.
7. By consent of parties, the appeal was taken for
admission.
8. I have heard Sri.Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi, learned
counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.Mallikarjun C
Hukkeri, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1725
9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
contended that both Courts below have committed an
error in granting right in favour of granddaughter of
defendant No.1 who has no right insofar as claim in
respect of suit schedule properties are concerned and
therefore sought for interference of this Court.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents sought to justify the impugned order passed
by the Courts below.
11. In the light of the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in
dispute with regard to the relationship between the
parties. Defendants No.1 and 2 have two children namely
defendant No.3 and one Bahubali. The said Bahubali died
on 29.06.2005 leaving behind the plaintiffs. It is also not
in dispute with regard to the fact that suit schedule
properties are joint family properties of the parties and on
perusal of finding recorded by the both Courts below, it is
not in dispute that plaintiffs are entitled for 1/4th share
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1725
together in respect of suit schedule properties. In that
view of the matter, taking into consideration the finding
recorded by both Courts below, I am of the view that no
interference is called for in this appeal.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as the
appellants herein have not made out a case for
formulation of substantial question of law as required
under law. In the result, Appeal fails.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SH
