Karnataka High Court
1. Ramkishan And Ors vs 1. Sharnamma W/O Marutirao And Ors on 24 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1898
RSA No. 200217 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 200217 OF 2017 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. RAMKISHAN
S/O MARUTIRAO
AGED 65 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: NIPPANI,
TQ: CHITTAPUR,
DIST : KALABURAGI.
2. GURUNATH
S/O MARUTIRAO
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
2a. SHASHIKALA
Digitally signed by
BASALINGAPPA W/O GURUNATH
SHIVARAJ AGE: 51 YEARS,
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
COURT OF R/O: NIPPANI,
KARNATAKA
TQ: CHITTAPUR,
DIST: KALABURAGI.
2b. GUNABAI
D/O GURUNATH,
W/O MOHANRAO BANDGAR PATIL,
AGED : 31 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: HALAGARA,
TQ: NEELANGA, DIST: LATUR.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1898
RSA No. 200217 of 2017
2c. KHANDOBA
S/O GURUNATH
AGED: 29 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: NIPPANI,
TQ: CHITTAPUR,
DIST: KALABURAGI.
2d. SUNDARABAI
D/O GURUNATH
W/O LATE SRISHAIL
AGED: 27 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: LONI (K), TQ: INDI,
DIST : VIJAYAPURA.
2e MANJUBAI
D/O GURUNATH,
W/O RAGHAVENDRA
AGED : 25 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: RAMTIRTH,
TQ: CHINCHOLI,
DIST: KALABURAGI.
2f LAXMANRAO
S/O GURUNATH
AGE: 23 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: NIPPANI,
TQ: CHITTAPUR,
DIST: KALABURAGI.
2g MALLIKARJUN
S/O GURUNATH
AGE: 26 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: NIPPANI,
TQ: CHITTAPUR,
DIST : KALABURAGI.
3. ANSUBAI
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1898
RSA No. 200217 of 2017
W/O KASHINATH PATIL
AGE: 47 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: NIPPANI,
TQ: CHITTAPUR,
DIST : KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI B.K. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHARNAMMA
W/O MARUTIRAO
AGE: ABOUT 62 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD & AGRI,
R/O: NIPPANI,
TQ: CHITTAPUR,
DIST : KALABURAGI.
2. RUKMINIBAI
W/O SHANTAPPA
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD & AGRI,
R/O: NIPPANI,
TQ: CHITTAPUR,
DIST : KALABURAGI.
3. SATYABHAMA
W/O BALAJIRAO
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD & AGRI,
R/O: SARPOSHKINAGI,
TQ. & DIST : KALABURAGI.
4. TULUJABAI
D/O MARUTIRAO
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD & AGRI,
R/O: NIPPANI,
TQ: CHITTAPUR,
DIST : KALABURAGI.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1898
RSA No. 200217 of 2017
5. SHANTABAI
D/O MARUTIRAO
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD & AGRI,
R/O: NIPPANI, TQ: CHITTAPUR,
DIST : KALABURAGI.
6. LAXMIBAI
W/O HANAMANTRAO
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: AMBALGI VILLAGE,
TQ: ALAND, DIST: KALABURAGI.
7. INDUBAI
W/O BHAVRAO HUKKE
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KASARSIRSI, TQ: OMARGA,
DIST: OSMANABAD,
MAHARASHTRA STATE
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA K. BABASHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR
R1 TO R5 AND R7;
V/O DATED 19.03.2025, NOTICE TO R6 IS DISPENSED
WITH)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OV C.P.C. PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE, KALABURAGI, IN R.A.NO.84/2016 DATED
15.04.2017 DISMISSING THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE
APPELLANTS AND ORDER OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CHITTAPUR IN F.D.P.NO.7/2011 DATED 16.06.2016 AND
WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO ESTABLISH AND TO
PROVE THE SELF ACQUIRED PROPERTY AND THEREFORE THE
APPELLANTS PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE, KALABURAGI IN R.A.NO.84/2016 AND
MATTER BE REMANDED BACK TO SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
CHITTAPUR IN F.D.P.NO.7/2011 FOR FRESH ENQUIRY AND
ADJUDICATION OF THE MATTER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1898
RSA No. 200217 of 2017
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
Heard the learned counsel appearing for appellants and
the learned counsel appearing for respondents.
2. This Regular Second Appeal is arising from a decree
in Final Decree Proceeding as well as decree passed in appeal
No.84/16 arising from Final Decree Proceeding No.07/2011.
3. Appellants' contention before the Final Decree Court
is that some of the properties namely Survey Nos.88, 45 and
50 of Nippani Village are the self-acquired properties of the
appellants is not accepted and is rejected by the Final decree
Court.
4. The appellants filed an appeal before the First
Appellate Court in R.A.No.84/2016 on the file of I Additional
District Judge, Kalaburagi. The First Appellate Court rejected
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1898
the contentions of the appellants and dismissed the appeal.
Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would
contend that 3 properties referred to above namely Survey
Nos.88, 45 and 50 of Nippani Village are the self-acquired
properties of the appellants.
6. The First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal
rejecting the contention of the appellants relating to the self-
acquisition of the aforementioned properties on the premise
that the very same contention was raised in the Original Suit
where the appellants were defendants. The Trial Court has
rejected the contention in the Original Suit and thereafter an
appeal was filed in R.A.No.45/2007. The First Appellate Court
raised points for consideration in the said appeal relating to the
defence of self-acquisition in respect of aforementioned
3 properties and in R.A.No.45/2007, the First Appellate Court
held that the properties bearing Survey Nos.88, 45 and 50 are
the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants.
7. The First Appellate Court has also noticed that
decree in R.A.No.45/2007 is confirmed in RSA No.7176/2009
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1898
passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Thereafter,
review petition was filed seeking review of the judgment in RSA
No.7176/2009. The said Revision Petition No.2544/2012 is also
dismissed.
8. Thus, the Final Decree Court as well as the First
Appellate Court came to a conclusion that the matter cannot be
adjudicated as the question is already decided in the
aforementioned Original Suit, the First Appeal as well as the
Second Appeal. The First Decree Court and the First Appellate
Court have rightly held that issue is hit by the principle of
resjudicata.
9. Though, the learned counsel for the appellants
vehemently contended that in earlier proceedings, these
aspects were not properly considered with reference to the
documents adduced by the parties, this Court is of the view
that the finding on the issue having attained finality, the same
cannot be adjudicated afresh in the Final Decree Proceeding.
The scope of final decree is limited. The Final Decree Court is
bound to draw the final decree pursuant to the preliminary
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1898
decree. Preliminary decree is already passed holding that the
aforementioned 3 properties are also joint family properties.
10. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find
any merit in the appeal. No substantial question of law would
arise in the appeal.
11. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
GVP
