Karnataka High Court
Rudrawwa W/O. Dharmanna Dalawar vs Roopa @ Iravva Calling Herself on 17 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15617
RSA No. 5774 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 5774 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
1. RUDRAWWA W/O. DHARMANNA DALAWAR
@ BATAKURKI, AGE: 67 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. JANAMATTI,
TQ. BILAGI-581322, DIST. BAGALKOTE.
2. RUDRAWWA D/O. DHARMANNA DALAWAR
@ BATAKURKI, AGE: 47 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. JANAMATTI,
TQ. BILAGI-581322, DIST. BAGALKOTE.
3. RENUKA W/O. SHIRDHAR KARADIGUDDA,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. JANAMATTI, TQ. BILAGI-581322,
DIST. BAGALKOTE.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
YASHAVANT ROOPA @ IRAVVA CALLING HERSELF
NARAYANKAR W/O. PRABHU DALAWAR @ BATAKURKI,
AGE: 23 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK AND AGRICULTURE,
NARAYANKAR
Date: 2025.11.18 R/O. JANAMATTI, TQ. BILAGI-581322,
10:35:34 +0530
DIST. BAGALKOTE.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MANE, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD. 24.08.2013 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.3/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BILAGI,
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD.17.01.2013 PASSED
IN O.S.NO.49/2009 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BILAGI
BY ALLOWING THE TOP NOTED APPEAL TO MEET THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15617
RSA No. 5774 of 2013
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
Heard.
2. The appellants are the defendants in
O.S.No.49/2009, which was filed for partition and separate
possession. The appellants having suffered the decree in the Trial
Court and in first appeal i.e., in R.A.No.3/2013, are before this
Court in second appeal.
3. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that,
she married one Prabhu, who is the son of defendant No.1 and
brother of defendants No.2 and 3 on 11.05.2006 as per the
custom and rituals prevailed in their community. It was alleged
that she led the marital life with the said Prabhu for a short span
of two years and thereafter, he died an untimely death. When
the appellant sought for her 1/4th share in the suit schedule
property, the defendants denied her share and therefore, she
was constrained to file the suit. She contended that the marriage
was solemnized as per the rituals prevailing in their community
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15617
HC-KAR
and the defendants are unjustly denying her share in the suit
schedule property.
4. The said suit was resisted by the defendants on the
ground that the plaintiff is not the wife of the deceased Prabhu,
the relationship is not admitted. They contended that the plaintiff
is not entitled for any share that would fall to the share of
deceased Prabhu, unless the marriage is proved by the plaintiff.
The defendants contended that the plaintiff has no right, title or
interest over the suit schedule property and the suit is barred by
time and as such, the suit be dismissed.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Trial Court
framed the following issues.
i. Whether the plaintiff proves that suit schedule
properties are the joint family properties?
ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief as prayed
for?
iii. What order or decree?
Addl. Issue No.1
Whether the plaintiff proves that, she is legally
wedded wife of deceased Prabhu?
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15617
HC-KAR
6. In the trial, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and
Exs.P1 to 7 were marked in evidence. Two witnesses were
examined on her behalf as PW2 and PW3. The defendant No.2
was examined as DW1 and no document was produced.
7. After hearing the arguments, the Trial Court
answered issue No.1 and 2 and additional issue in the
'affirmative' and proceeded to decree the suit. Being aggrieved,
the defendants approached the First Appellate Court in
R.A.No.3/2013 and the same came to be dismissed by the
impugned judgment.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits
that the Trial Court and First Appellate Court erred in
appreciating the evidence in a proper way. It is his contention
that Ex.P3 is only a pre-marriage Yadi, where an agreement was
reached between the parties for the marriage. He contends that
the testimony of the PW2 and PW3 show that their say is
unbelievable and the Trial Court relied on secondary evidence
i.e., photographs without the negatives being produced.
Therefore, it is contented that there is perversity in the
appreciation of the evidence.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15617
HC-KAR
9. A careful perusal of the records would reveal that
Exs.P6 and P7 are the photographs which were produced before
the Trial Court. These photographs show that marriage had been
performed between the deceased Prabhu and the plaintiff. The
cross-examination of DW1 shows that she has admitted that in
the said photograph, one of the person is the deceased Prabhu.
The records also reveal that she refused to identify the plaintiff in
the said photograph. Further, it is relevant to note that the
photographs have been marked in the cross-examination of the
DW1, since she had identified one of the person in the
photograph as the deceased Prabhu.
10. Obviously, no objections were raised at the time of
admitting said documents in evidence. So also, Exs.P6 and P7
are marked in the cross-examination of DW1, since, she
admitted that the deceased Prabhu was seen in the said
photograph. Simply because DW1 denies to identify the plaintiff,
it cannot be said that part of the document has to be admitted
and the remaining part has to be rejected. Since the document is
marked in the cross examination on the basis of the admission of
DW1, the question of primary evidence and secondary evidence
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15617
HC-KAR
would not arise. The rules of evidence would not be applicable if
a document confronted to a witness is admitted. In that view of
the matter, this Court does not find any perversity so far as
admission of Exs.P6 and P7 are concerned.
11. So far as Ex.P3-Yadi is concerned, it may be seen
that the document does not mention the date as per the Hindu
calendar. It mentions that the date is 1925 Shake, Subhanu
Samvatsara and that it was a Saturday etc. It is pertinent to
note that though Ex.P3 is only a document which was prepared
at the time of betrothal between the parties, the testimony of
PW2 and PW3 clearly depict that they were present at the time
of the marriage and they have spoken about the marriage.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
custom as stated by PW2 and PW3 has not been established by
the plaintiff. It is pertinent to note that the custom as stated by
PW2 and PW3 was not in question before the Trial Court. The
defendants did not plead anything that a different custom
prevails between the parties. Therefore, when the question was
not raised before the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court,
the same cannot be raised in the present appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15617
HC-KAR
13. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have
rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled for
1/4th in the suit schedule property and it does not require any
interference by this Court. The appellants have failed to establish
that there is any substantial question of law which needs to be
considered. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
RKM
CT:PA
