Karnataka High Court
Shri Ravikumar Mallikarjun ... vs Shri Rajkumar Shivashankar ... on 21 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5277
RSA No. 100028 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100028 OF 2023 (PAR/POS-)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI RAVIKUMAR MALLIKARJUN RACHANNAVAR,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O. KARADIGUDDI VILLAGE,
TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-591103.
2. SHRI IRANGOUDA MALLIKARJUN RACHANNAVAR,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KARADIGUDDI VILLAGE,
TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-591103.
3. SHRI. RAJANGOUDA MALLIKARJUN RACHANNAVAR,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KARADIGUDDI VILLAGE,
TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-591103.
Digitally signed by 4. SHRI. BASANGOUDA MALLIKARJU RACHANNAVAR,
ASHPAK
KASHIMSA AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE
MALAGALADINNI
Location: HIGH R/O. KARADIGUDDI VILLAGE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-591103.
DHARWAD
BENCH ...APPELLANTS
Date: 2025.03.25
16:02:40 +0530
(BY SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI RAJKUMAR SHIVASHANKAR RACHANNAVAR,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O. CTS NO.7424, KANBARGI ROAD,
MALMARUTI EXTENSION, BELAGAVI-590017.
2. SHRI SOMASHEKHAR SHIVASHANKAR RACHANNAVAR,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O. CTS NO.7424, KANBARGI ROAD,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5277
RSA No. 100028 of 2023
MALMARUTI EXTENSION, BELAGAVI-590017.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
100 PRAYING THAT THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
31.03.2021 PASSED IN R.A.NO.67/2019 PASSED BY THE I
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BELAGAVI IN DISMISSING THE SAID REGULAR
APPEAL AND THEREBY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 01.03.2019 PASSED IN O.S. NO.782/1996 BY THE V
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC BELAGAVI WITH COSTS, BE
KINDLY SET ASIDE, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND THEREBY
DECREEING THE SAID SUIT IN O.S.NO.782/1996, AS PRAYED
THEREIN, 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 the plaintiffs
challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2021 in
R.A.No.67/2019 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil
Judge and CJM, Belagavi1 dismissing the appeal and
confirming the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2019 in
O.S.No.782/1996 on the file of the V Additional Civil
Judge, Belagavi2 dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'
hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5277
3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit
schedule property was allotted in favour of Shivashankar
Rachannavar (husband of defendant No.1). It is stated in
the plaint that, the suit schedule property was purchased
by the deceased Shivashankar through the joint family
funds and therefore the plaintiffs have sought for share in
the suit schedule property. It is also stated that
Shivashankar had given a varadi to the CTS Officer to
enter the names of the defendants and thereafter the
plaintiffs realized that they are entitled for half share in
the suit schedule property. It is also averred that, the
defendant No.1 herself has given a varadi dated
07.01.1994 to enter the names of the plaintiffs. It is also
stated that the father of the defendants No.2 to 4 -
Shivashankar died on 01.07.1995 and therefore, the
plaintiffs have filed suit in O.S.No.782/1996 seeking relief
of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit
schedule property.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5277
4. After service of notice, the defendants entered
appearance and filed detailed written statement and
pleaded that the husband of defendant No.1 -
Shivashankar was working in the Police Department and
as such allotment of suit schedule property was made in
favour of the said Shivashankar as per the lease-cum-sale
agreement dated 07.06.1979 and thereafter City
Corporation has executed registered sale deed in faovur
Shivashankar on 07.03.1999 and accordingly the
defendants have sought for dismissal of the suit.
5. The Trial Court based on the pleadings on
record, has framed issues for its consideration. In order to
establish their case, the plaintiff No.1 was examined as
PW.1 and produced 13 documents and same were marked
as Exs.P.1 to P.13. The defendant No.1 was examined as
DW.1 and got marked 18 documents as Exs.D.1 to D.18.
6. The Trial Court after considering the material on
record, by its judgment and decree dated 01.03.2019,
dismissed the suit and feeling aggrieved by the same, the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5277
plaintiffs have preferred R.A.No.67/2019 on the file of the
First Appellate Court and same was resisted by the
defendants. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciating
the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated
31.03.2021, dismissed the appeal, consequently confirmed
the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2019 in
O.S.No.782/1996. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the
plaintiffs have preferred this Regular Second Appeal.
7. I have heard Sri.Sanjay S Katageri, learned
counsel appearing for the appellants.
8. Sri.Sanjay S Katageri, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants contended that both the
Courts below have committed an error in not considering
the fact that the schedule property is the joint family
property of the appellants and the respondents herein and
further contended that the defendant No.1 herself has
given a varadi to enter the names of plaintiffs in the
revenue records and the said aspect of the matter was
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5277
ignored by both the Courts below and accordingly sought
for interference of this Court.
9. In the light of the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing for the appellants, I have
carefully examined the findings recorded by both the
Courts below. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs and
defendants are related to each other and the genealogy of
the parties is extracted below:
Rudrappa Rachannavar
Mallikarjun Rachannavar (Dead) Shivashankar
(Dead)
Ravikumar Irangouda Rajangouda Basangouda
(P-1) (P-2) (P-3) (P-4)
Shshiladevi Rajkumar Vijayalaxmi Somshekhar
(D-1) (D-2) (D-3) (D-4)
10. Perusal of the same, would indicate that
Rudrappa Rachannavar was the original propitious having
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5277
two children namely Mallikarjun Rachannavar and
Shivashankar. Plaintiffs are the children of Mallikarjun
Rachannavar and defendant No.1 is the wife of the
Shivashankar and defendants No.2 to 4 are the children of
Shivashankar and defendant No.1. It is not in dispute that
the suit schedule property was allotted in favour of the
Shivashankar as per the lease-cum-sale agreement dated
07.06.1979 and after the completion of ten years of lease
period, City Corporation has executed a registered sale
deed in favour of Shivashankar on 07.03.1999.
11. It is also to be noted that the said Shivashankar
has filed O.S.No.171/1981 against his brother -
Mallikarjun Rachannavar (father of the plaintiffs) seeking
relief of partition and separate possession and the said suit
came to be ended with compromise on 28.02.1984.
Indisputably the subject matter of the suit schedule
property is not the subject matter in O.S.No.171/1981. In
that view of the matter, taking into consideration the
finding recorded by both the Courts below, I am of the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5277
view that the suit schedule property is the self acquired
property of Shivashankar as he was working in the Police
Department and had acquired the same during 1979
independently and therefore both the Courts below have
rightly arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiffs are not
entitled for share in the suit schedule property.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the
stage of admission as the appellants have not made out a
case for formulation of substantial question of law as
required under Section 100 of CPC.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SH
CT-MCK
