Karnataka High Court
Sri. Basappa Ramappa Ingalgi vs Smt. Muttawwa on 19 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5061
RSA No. 100071 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100071 OF 2020 (PAR-)
BETWEEN:
SRI. BASAPPA RAMAPPA INGALGI
SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S.
SMT. LAXMIBAI BASAPPA INGALGI,
SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S.
1. SRI. MALLAPPA S/O. BASAPPA INGALGI
SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S.
1(A) SMT. SUMITRA MAHADEV INGALGI,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: HOSUEHOLD WORK,
1(B) SRI. SACHIN MAHADEV INGALGI,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
1(C) KUMARI REKHA MAHAVEV INGALGI,
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
1(D) KUMARI BHARATI MAHADEV INGALGI,
Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
ASHPAK
KASHIMSA
MALAGALADINNI
Location: HIGH APPELLANT 1(C) AND 1(D) REP. BY THEIR
COURT OF GUARDIAN/MOTHER
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD SMT. SUMITRA MAHADEV INGALGI,
BENCH
Date: 2025.03.25 APPELLANT 1(A)
16:02:40 +0530
ALL ARE R/AT SIDDAPUR, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
2. KUM. SHARAWWA D/O. BASAPPA INGALGI,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, INSANE REP. BY GUARDIAN,
BROTHER SRI. MALLAPPA S/O. BASAPPA INGALGI,
APPELLANT NO.1.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5061
RSA No. 100071 of 2020
AND:
1. SMT. MUTTAWWA,
W/O. SIDDAPPA INGALGI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT. JALIBERI, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
2. KUM. BASAWWA
D/O. SIDDAPPA INGALGI
AGED 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/AT. JALIBERI, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
3. SRI. RAVI
S/O. SIDDAPPA INGALGI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT. JALIBERI, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
4. KUMAR SHRIKANT
S/O. SIDDAPPA INGALGI
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT. JALIBERI, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
5. SRI. MAHADEV
S/O. BASAPPA INGALGI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT. JALIBERI, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
6. KUM. SHANTAWWA
D/O. BASAPPA INGALGI,
AFTER MARRIAGE SHANTAWWA @ MAHANANDA
SHEKAPPA ADEPPANNAVAR,
AGED 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT KANKANWADI, TQ: JAMKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF
CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY
THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE TO
SIT AT JAMKHANDI PASSED IN R.A.NO.71/2014 DATED 23.9.2019 AND
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5061
RSA No. 100071 of 2020
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, JAMKHANDI PASSED IN O.S. NO.82/2003 DATED 08.09.2014
AND DISMISS THE SUIT BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT APPEAL, WITH
COSTS THROUGHOUT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT
WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is preferred by legal representatives of
defendants Nos.1 and 4, challenging the Judgment and decree
dated 23.09.2019 in R.A.No.71/2014 on the file of I Addl. District &
Sessions Judge, Bagalkot (Sitting at Jamakhandi), dismissing the
appeal and modifying the Judgment and decree dated 08.09.2014
in O.S.No.82/2003 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Jamkhandi, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred with
reference to their ranking before the trial court.
3. The averments in the plaint are that, plaintiff No.1 is the wife
of Shiddappa Ingalagi and plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are the children of
said Shiddappa Ingalagi and plaintiff No.1. Defendant No.1 is the
father of Shiddappa Ingalagi and father-in-law of plaintiff No.1.
Defendant No.4 is the wife of defendant No.1. Defendant Nos.2, 3,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5061
5 and 6 are the children of defendant Nos.1 and 4. It is the case of
the plaintiffs that suit schedule properties are the ancestral
properties of the plaintiffs and defendants and as there was no
partition in the joint family properties and further as the defendant
No.1 has dissolved his marriage with his first wife - Sarojavva -
mother of Shiddappa Ingalagi, and as such, the plaintiffs have filed
suit seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of
the suit schedule properties in O.S.No.82/2003 before the trial
court.
4. After service of notice, defendants entered appearance and
filed detailed written statement contending that the plaintiffs had
filed four suits seeking similar relief which came to be dismissed for
non prosecution and also stated that Misc.No.127/1999 is also filed
to restore the suit which came to be dismissed on 09.12.2002 and
therefore, the subsequent suit seeking relief of partition and
separate possession is not maintainable and accordingly sought for
dismissal of the suit.
5. The trial court, based on the pleadings on record has
formulated issues and additional issues for its consideration. In
order to establish their case, plaintiffs examined three witnesses as
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5061
P.W.1 to P.W.3 and got marked 12 documents as Exs.P1 to P12.
The defendants examined one witness as D.W.1 and got marked 21
documents as Exs.D1 to D21. The trial court after considering the
material on record, by Judgment and decree dated 08.09.2014,
held that the plaintiffs are together entitled for 1/6th share in the
suit schedule properties. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the
defendants have preferred R.A.No.71/2014 before the First
Appellate Court and the same was resisted by the plaintiffs. The
First Appellate Court, considering the material on record, by
Judgment and decree dated 23.09.2019, dismissed the appeal,
consequently modified the Judgment and decree in
O.S.No.82/2003. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendants
have preferred the present Regular Second Appeal.
6. I have heard Sri. Mruthynjay Tata Bangi, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants, referring to para No.16 of
the memorandum of appeal, contended that the plaintiffs have filed
Original Suit Nos.30/92, 93/94, 291/98 and 83/1994. The first
three suits came to be dismissed for non prosecution and
thereafter, Misc.No.127/1999 was filed to restore the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5061
O.S.No.83/1994 which also came to be dismissed and therefore,
the plaintiffs are barred from filing O.S.No.82/2003 seeking similar
relief.
8. In the backdrop of the aforesaid submission made by the
learned counsel for the appellants, I have carefully examined the
finding recorded by both the Courts below. In order to understand
the relationship between the parties, it is relevant to deduce the
genealogy of the parties which reads as under:
Gurupadappa
Appannappa
Ramappa Gurupadappa
Basappa Balappa Appanna
Sarojawwa Laxmibai (D-4)
Shiddappa Mahadev Mallappa Sharawwa Shantavva
(D-2) (D-3) (D-5) (D-6)
Muttawwa (P-1)
Ravi Shrikant Basavva
(P-3) (P-4) (P-2)
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5061
9. Perusal of the genealogy would indicate that the original
propositus Gurupadappa had a son Appannappa. Appannappa had
two children Ramappa and Gurupadappa. Ramappa had three
children - Basappa (D1), Balappa and Appanna. Basappa had two
wives namely Sarojavva and Laxmibai (D4). Basappa dissolved his
marriage with Sarojavva. Shiddappa is the son of Basappa through
Sarojavva. Shiddappa is the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of
plaintiff Nos.2 to 4. Defendant Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 are the children of
Basappa (D1) through his second wife Laxmibai (D4).
10. On careful examination of the genealogy of the parties would
indicate that the suit schedule properties was the joint family
properties of Ramappa. In that view of the matter, the defendant
Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 and defendant No.1 are entitled for 1/6th share
each in the suit schedule properties and the plaintiffs are entitled
for 1/6th share together (share of Shiddappa) and therefore, I am
of the view that the trial court having taken note of the factual
aspects on record has rightly decreed the suit holding that the
plaintiffs are entitled for 1/6th share together in the suit schedule
properties.
11. It is the submission made by the learned counsel for the
appellants that the earlier three suits were dismissed for non
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5061
prosecution and therefore, the present O.S.No.82/2003 seeking
similar relief is not maintainable. However, the relief claimed by
the plaintiffs is relating to division of joint family properties and the
same having not been denied for lis pendens and since it is a
recurring cause of action, I do not find any merit in the said
submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants.
12. In view of the above observations, no substantial question of
law arises for consideration in this appeal and the appeal is
dismissed as devoid of merits.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
sac
CT-MCK
