Karnataka High Court
Shivarudragouda vs Virupaxgouda @ Virupanagouda on 11 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4623
RSA No. 2066 of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2066 OF 2006 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. [SRI. SHIVARUDRAGOUDA,
S/O. BASANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GUDGUDI, TALUK: HANGAL-581104,
DISTRICT: HAVERI.]
[SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS]
1.a) CHANDRAGOUDA
S/O. SHIVARUDRAGOUDA PATIL, (SON)
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GUDGUDI, TALUK: HANGAL,
DISTRICT: HAVERI.
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR 1.b). GADIGEPPAGOUDA
S/O. SHIVARUDRAGOUDA PATIL,(SON)
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B
SHELAR
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF R/O. GUDGUDI, TALUK: HANGAL,
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DISTRICT: HAVERI.
1.c). SOMANAGOUDA
S/O. SHIVARUDRAGOUDA PATIL,(SON)
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GUDGUDI, TALUK: HANGAL,
DISTRICT: HAVERI.
2. VEERANAGOUDA
S/O. BASANAGOUDA PATIL,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4623
RSA No. 2066 of 2006
AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GUDGUDI, TALUK: HANGAL-581104,
DISTRICT: HAVERI.
[SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS]
2.a) SMT. NEELAWWA
W/O. VEERANAGOUDA PATIL,[WIFE]
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. GUDAGUDI, TALUK: HANGAL,
DISTRICT: HAVERI.
2.b) BASANAGOUDA
S/O. VEERANAGOUDA PATIL,(SON)
AGE: 5 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GUDAGUDI, TALUK: HANGAL,
DISTRICT: HAVERI.
2.c). SMT. JAYASHEELA
W/O. SHIDDABASAPPA KONDOGI, (DAUGHTER)
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BADMAGATTI, TALUK: HANGAL,
DISTRICT: HAVERI.
2.d). SMT. GEETA
W/O. SHIDDAPPA KONDOGI,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. MUDUR, TALUK: HANGAL,
DISTRICT: HAVERI.
3. [NINGANAGOUDA
S/O. BASANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GUDGUDI, TALUK: HANGAL-581104,
DISTRICT: HAVERI.
[SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS]
3.a). HANUMANTHAGOUDA NINGANAGOUDA PATIL,(SON)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4623
RSA No. 2066 of 2006
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GUDGUDI, TALUK: HANGAL,
DISTRICT: HAVERI.
3.b). KALLANAGOUDA NINGANAGOUDA PATIL,(SON)
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GUDAGUDI, TALUK: HANGAL,
DISTRICT: HAVERI.
3.c). CHANNABASANAGOUDA NINGANAGOUDA PATIL,(SON)
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GUDAGUDI, TALUK: HANGAL,
DISTRICT: HAVERI.
3.d). BAPUGOUDA NINGANAGOUDA PATIL,(SON)
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GUDAGUDI, TALUK: HANGAL,
DISTRICT: HAVERI.
3.e). BASANAGOUDA NINGANAGOUDA PATIL,(SON)
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GUDAGUDI, TALUK: HANGAL,
DISTRICT: HAVERI.
3.f). SMT. NEELAVVA W/O. BASAVANNEPPA TONDUR,
(DAUGHTER)
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BAAD, TALUKA: SHIGGAON.
4. [SRI. SATANAGOUDA
S/O. BASANGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GUDGUDI, TALUKA: HANGAL-581104,
DISTRICT: HAVERI.
(SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS)
4.a). MALLAVVA W/O. SATANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4623
RSA No. 2066 of 2006
R/O. GUDAGUDI, TALUK: HANGAL,
DISTRICT: HAVERI.
4.b). NAGANAGOUDA SATANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GUDAGUDI, TALUK: HANGAL,
DISTRICT: HAVERI.
4.c). BHARAMAGOUDA SATANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GUDAGUDI, TALUK: HANAGAL,
DISTRICT: HAVERI.
4.d). MALLANAGOUDA SATANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GUDAGUDI, TALUK: HANAGAL,
DISTRICT: HAVERI.
4.e). SMT. AKKAMMA W/O. DYAMANNA HOTANALLI,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. GUDAGUDI, TALUK: HANAGAL,
DISTRICT: HAVERI.
4.f). SMT. PAVITRA W/O. MAHESHAGOUDA KABBANUR,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. SHIRUR, TQ: KUNDGOL, DIST: DHARWAD.
4.g). RAMANAGOUDA SATANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GUDAGUDI, TALUK: HANAGAL,
DISTRICT: HAVERI.
5. SRI. SHANKARAGOUDA
S/O. BASANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GUDAGUDI, TALUK: HANAGAL-581104,
DISTRICT: HAVERI.
[SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS]
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4623
RSA No. 2066 of 2006
5.a). [SMT. SHARADAVVA W/O. SHANKARGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. GUDAGUDI, TALUK: HANAGAL,
DISTRICT: HAVERI.]
DECEASED BY LRS ALREADY ON RECORD 5B, 5C, 5D
5.b). SHAMBUGOUDA S/O. SHANKARGOUDA PATIL,(SON)
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GUDAGUDI, TALUK: HANAGAL,
DISTRICT: HAVERI.
5.c). SMT. ROOPA W/O. RAMANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. SHIRAGOD, TQ: HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI.
5.d). SMT. REKHA W/O. NINGARAJ KALLADEVARU,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KARAJAGI, TQ: DIST: HAVERI.
6. SRI. SHEKARAGOUDA
S/O. BASANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GUDGUDI, TALUK: HANAGAL-581104,
DISTRICT: HAVERI.
7. SMT. GOURAWWA
W/O. MALLESHAPPA BIDARKOPPA,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
R/O. MUNDAGOD-581349,
DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA.
...APPELLANTS
(By SRI. M.C. BANDI & SRI. D.M. BANDI, ADVOCATES)
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4623
RSA No. 2066 of 2006
AND:
1. SRI. VIRUPAXGOUDA @ VIRUPANAGOUDA
S/O. BASANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GUDGUDI, TALUK: HANAGAL-581104,
DISTRICT: HAVERI.
2. [SMT. MALLAWWA W/O. BASANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. GUDGUDI, TALUK: HANAGAL-581104,
DISTRICT: HAVERI.]
DECEASED BY LRS, ALREADY ON
RECORD, RESPONDNET NO.3 TO 7
3. SRI. SHIVANAGOUDA S/O. BASANAAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GUDGUDI, TALUK: HANAGAL-581104,
DISTRICT: HAVERI.
4 SMT. SAVANTRAVVA W/O. BASANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. GUDGUDI, TALUK: HANAGAL-581104,
DISTRICT: HAVERI.
5. SMT. SHANKARAWWA W/O. VIRUPAX YALIGAR,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. SHIGIHALLI, TALUK: HANAGAL-581104,
DISTRICT: HAVERI.
6. SMT. CHANNAVVA W/O. VEERAPPA YALIGAR,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. SHIGIHALLI, TALUK: HANAGAL-581104,
DISTRICT: HAVERI.
7. SMT. SUSHILAWWA W/O. PARWATAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4623
RSA No. 2066 of 2006
R/O. KATOOR, TALUK: MUNDAGOD-581349,
DISTRICT: UTTAR KANNADA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. C. CHAKALABBI &
SRI. S. B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATES)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
100 OF CPC PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.04.2006 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.24/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE FAST TRACK COURT, HAVERI
AND AFFIRM JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.07.2003 ON THE
FILE OF THE FAST TRACK COURT, HAVERI AND AFFIRM JUDGEMENT
AND DECREE DATED 14.07.2003 PASSED IN O.S.NO.66/2002 ON
THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) HANAGAL AND
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE ORIGINAL SUIT IN RESPECT OF SUIT
SCHEDULE PROPERTIES AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
05.03.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT,
THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
CAV JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the defendant Nos.1 to 7,
challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2006 in
RA No.24/2003 on the file of Court of Fast Track, Haveri
(for short, hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate
Court'), allowing the appeal and setting aside the
judgment and decree dated 14.07.2003 in OS No.66/2002
on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Hanagal, (for short,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4623
hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), dismissing the suit
of the plaintiff.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. Facts in nutshell for the purpose of adjudication
of the appeal as averred in the plaint are that, one
Basanagouda was propositus of the family died on
09.05.1962 leaving behind two wives namely Channavva
and Dyamavva (defendant No.8). Defendant Nos.1 to 7
are the children of deceased Basanagouda through
defendant No.8. The first wife of Basanagouda -
Channavva had a son namely Basanagouda, who died on
19.04.1970 leaving behind his wife (defendant No.9) and
their children, defendant Nos.10 to 14 along with plaintiff.
3.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that, suit schedule
properties are the joint family properties of the parties to
the suit and therefore, sought for share in the suit
schedule properties. It is also stated that, defendant No.1
has filed L.C.No.82/1965 before the Munsiff Court, Haveri,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4623
against the plaintiff's father seeking relief of injunction
which came to be dismissed on 08.07.1969 against which
the defendant No.1 has preferred RA No.29/1971. In the
meanwhile, father of the plaintiff - Basanagouda died on
19.04.1970 and the said appeal was disposed off and
therefore it is contended that the Appellate Court without
granting fair hearing to the parties disposed of the same.
It is contended by the plaintiff that the plaintiff was minor
at the time of disposal of the appeal and therefore,
plaintiff contended that the judgment and decree in RA
No.29/1971 is not binding on the plaintiff. Hence, plaintiff
has filed OS No.66/2002 and sought for share in the suit
schedule properties.
4. On service of notice, the defendant No.5
entered appearance disputing the genealogy as narrated in
the plaint. The defendant No.5 denied the averments as to
Channavva as wife of deceased Basanagouda and also
contended that, the plaintiff and defendant Nos.10 to 11
were not born in wedlock between Channavva and late
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4623
Basanagouda and accordingly, it is the contention of the
defendants that, the children of Basanagouda through
defendant No.8 are entitled for share in the suit schedule
properties.
5. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 6 to 8 have adopted
the written statement of defendant No.5. The defendant
No.10 has filed written statement admitting the claim of
the plaintiff and countered the written statement of
defendant Nos.1 to 8.
6. The Trial Court based on pleadings on record,
formulated issues for its consideration.
7. In order to establish their case, plaintiff has
examined four witnesses as PW1 to 4 and produced 25
documents and same were marked as Ex.P1 to P25.
Defendants have examined three witnesses as DW1 to 3
and produced 18 documents and same were marked as
Ex.D1 to D7. The Trial Court after considering the material
on record by its judgment and decree dated 14.07.2003
dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the
plaintiff has preferred RA No.24/2003 before the First
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4623
Appellate Court and same was resisted by the respondents
therein. The First Appellate Court after considering the
material on record allowed the appeal and as such set
aside the judgment and decree in OS No.66/2002. Feeling
aggrieved by the same, the defendant Nos.1 to 7 have
preferred this RSA.
8. This Court vide order 10.04.2012 formulated
the following substantial question of law:
"1. Whether the Appellate Court was
justified in holding that the plaintiff,
Virupaxgouda @ Virupanagouda is entitled to
seek partition in the property of propositus
Basanagouda Patil when it was already held
that his father Basanagouda was the
illegitimate son of propositus Basanagouda
Virupanagouda Patil in earlier proceedings?
2. Whether the Appellate Court has
properly appreciated the evidence available on
record before deciding the legitimate right of
plaintiff to seek share in the property of
original propositus Basanagouda
Virupanagouda Patil?
3. Whether the Appellate Court was
justified in not taking into consideration the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4623
delay in filing the suit, when the same was
specifically urged?"
9. I have heard Sri. M.C. Bandi, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants and Sri. A. C. Chakalabbi,
learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
10. Sri. M. C. Bandi, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants contended that, the First Appellate Court
has committed an error in interfering with the impugned
judgment and decree of the Trial Court erroneously and
further contended that, the First Appellate Court has failed
to notice that, the plaintiff has falsely claiming that,
Basanagouda as his father through late Channavva and
therefore it is contended that, the plaintiff, being
illegitimate child of late Basanagouda and therefore,
plaintiff not entitled for share in the suit schedule
properties. He further contended that, the relationship
between the parties is already adjudicated in RA
No.29/1971 and therefore, the finding recorded by the
First Appellate Court requires to be interfered with.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4623
11. Per contra, Sri. A. C. Chakalabbi, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents sought to justify
the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial
Court.
12. In the light of the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully
examined the finding recorded by both the Courts below
and perused the record. In order to ascertain the
relationship between the parties as averred in the plaint,
the genealogy at paragraph No.3 of the plaint reads as
under:
Basanagouda Veeranagouda Patil
[Propositus]
(Died on 09.05.1962)
Chennavva (wife) Dyamavva (wife)
(Deft. No.8)
Basanagouda
(Died on 19.04.1970)
Mallawwa (wife)
(Deft. No.8)
1. Shivanagouda 1. Shivanagouda
(Deft. No.10) (Deft. No.1)
2. Virupaxagouda 2. Veeranagouda
(Plaintiff) (Deft. No.2)
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4623
3. Shankarawwa 3. Ninganagouda
(Deft No.12) (Deft. No.3)
4. Chennawwa 4.Shantanagouda
(Deft. No.13) (Deft. No.4)
5. Sushilawwa 5. Shankaragouda
(Deft. No.14) (Deft. No.5)
6. Savantrawwa 6. Shekaragouda
(Deft. No.11) (Deft. No.6)
7. Gowrawwa
(Deft. No.7)
13. Perusal of the same would indicate that, the
plaintiff is son of Basanagouda, who had born in wedlock
of Smt. Channavva with Basanagouda (grandfather of the
plaintiff). It is also forthcoming that, defendant Nos.1 to 7
are the children of Dyamavva (defendant No.8) and late
Basanagouda. In this regard, I have carefully consider the
finding recorded by Trial Court in L.C.No.82/1965
(Ex.P.15) and judgment and decree in RA No.29/1971
(Ex.P.17). It is also not in dispute that, the marriage with
Smt. Dyamavva (defendant No.8) with Basanagouda was
held to be valid in the aforesaid proceedings.
14. In that view of the matter, as the plaintiff failed
to prove that, the original propositus - Basanagouda
(grandfather of plaintiff) had a son Basanagouda through
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4623
Channavva through cogent evidence and in view of the
judgment of the Court in L.C.No.82/1965 and in RA
No.29/1971, the judgment and decree passed by the
Courts below require to be modified in view of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Revanasiddappa and Another Vs. Mallikarjun and
Others1. Therefore, the defendant Nos.1 to 8 and
Basanagouda Patil (grandfather of the plaintiff) entitled for
1/9th share each. Since, the said Basanagouda Patil died
leaving behind defendant Nos.1 to 8, defendant Nos.9 to
14 and plaintiff as legal representatives, share of original
propositus - Basanagaouda Patil is 1/9th share in the suit
schedule property is to divided amongst the children of
Channavva and Dyamavva (defendant No.8). The
defendant Nos.1 to 8 are entitle for 1/9th + 1/81 = 10/81
share each. Basanagouda (father of plaintiff) is entitle for
1/81 share. Therefore, plaintiff along with defendant
Nos.9 to 14 are entitle for 1/567 each in the suit schedule
property.
(2023) 10 SCC 1
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4623
15. In that view of the matter, the substantial
question of law framed above favours the defendant Nos.1
to 7 with modification in terms of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Revanasiddappa
(supra) and accordingly, share of the parties is modified.
16. In the result, I pass the following
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed in part.
ii) Judgment and decree dated 04.04.2006
in RA No.24/2003 on the file of Court of
Fast Track, Haveri, is allowed in part.
iii) Judgment and decree dated 14.07.2003
in OS No.66/2002 on the file of Civil
Judge (Sr.Dn.), Hangal, is hereby set
aside by modifying the shares of the
parties.
iv) Defendant Nos.1 to 8 are entitled for
10/81 share each in the suit schedule
properties and the grand children of
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4623
Channavva - plaintiff, defendant Nos.9 to
14 are togetherly entitled for 1/81 share
i.e., 1/567 each in the suit schedule
properties.
v) Suit of the plaintiff is decreed in part.
Sd/-
(E.S. INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SMM
