Karnataka High Court
Smt. Kariyama vs Smt. Girijamma on 24 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48549
RSA No. 1616 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1616 OF 2025 (FDP)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. KARIYAMMA
W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
AGE: 76 YEARS
2. H. ANJINAPPA
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
AGE: 57 YEARS
3. H. MURUDAPPA
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
AGE: 55 YEARS
4. H. HONNAPPA
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
Location: HIGH AGE: 54 YEARS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 5. H. DALAVAYAPPA
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
AGE: 51 YEARS
ALL AGRICULTURISTS
R/O MATTI VILLAGE
DAVANAGERE TALUK - 577502
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI VIGNESHWAR S SHASTRI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI HIREMATHAD MAHESHAIAH RUDRAYYA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48549
RSA No. 1616 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SMT GIRIJAMMA
W/O LATE KARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
2. BASAPPA
S/O LATE KARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
3. NAGARATHNAMMA
W/O LATE REVANASIDDAPPA
AGE: 47 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEWIFE
4. M.R. SHWETHA
W/O RAVI
D/O LATE REVANASIDDAPPA
AGE: 39 YEARS
ADDITIONAL ADDRESS
R/O N.M.D.C.
DONIMALAI, TALUK SANDUR
DISTRICT BALLARI - 583119
5. M.R. SWATHI,
D/O LATE REVANASIDDAPPA
AGE: 37 YEARS
6. M.R. HARISH
S/O LATE REVANASIDDAPPA
AGE: 37 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
7. M.R. SHARATH
S/O LATE REVANASIDDAPPA
AGE: 35 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:48549
RSA No. 1616 of 2025
HC-KAR
8. SMT. MADAMMA
W/O LATE MADAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
HOUSEHOLD WORK
9. SRI. RAVI M.
S/O LATE MADAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
10. SRI. HALESHI M
S/O LATE MADAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
11. KUMARI. SAVITHA M
D/O LATE MADAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
ALL ARE R/O MATTI VILLAGE
DAVANAGERE TALUK - 577502
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.09.2025 PASSED IN R.A.
NO.21/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:48549
RSA No. 1616 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding
of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.
2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the
learned counsel appearing for the appellants.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs
before the Trial Court is that the plaintiffs filed the suit for the
relief of partition including Item Nos.1 to 5 of properties. The
Trial Court considering the material on record granted the relief
in respect of all the 5 acres of land. The said judgment and
decree of the Trial Court also confirmed by the First Appellate
Court in the appeal and thereafter, the plaintiffs have filed final
decree proceedings in FDP No.22/2009. In final decree
proceedings, at the first instance, commissioner was appointed
since the same was not in order, again, the commissioner was
appointed second time and second commissioner submitted the
report on 30.07.2015 and the said report was not challenged
by the appellants herein and also not filed any objections to the
said report. The Trial Court considering the commissioner
NC: 2025:KHC:48549
HC-KAR
report proceeded to pass an order and even details of
commissioner report in respect of all the item of the properties
were also taken note of while passing the final decree and the
same was passed in the year 2015. Being aggrieved by the
same, an appeal was filed before the First Appellate Court in
R.A.No.21/2016. The First Appellate Court considered the
grounds urged in the appeal wherein it is stated that the entire
extent of Sy.No.3/23 in respect of particular number 41/1 and
other properties are also included. The First Appellate Court
having considered the grounds which have been urged in the
appeal taken note of extent of land i.e., 3 acres 23 guntas and
having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed
on record comes to the conclusion that survey has been
conducted and filed the report based on the relief granted in
the original suit in O.S.No.22/1998 and held that the property
is standing in the name of Hanumanthappa. Having considered
the same comes to the conclusion that on careful consideration
it is evident that ratio laid down in the judgments are not
applicable to the facts of the case when defendant No.19 has
no right to prefer the present appeal against the order passed
NC: 2025:KHC:48549
HC-KAR
in the final decree proceedings and confirmed the judgment of
the Trial Court.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants in
this second appeal mainly contend that both the Courts have
committed an error and finding of both the Courts are not
justified and no fair opportunity is given to the appellants for
filing objections to the commissioner's report. The counsel
would vehemently contend that FDP is initiated not only in
respect of suit schedule properties but also other property also
included.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and also on perusal of the material on record, it
discloses that in final decree proceedings, in paragraph 11,
taken note of the earlier commissioner report dated 13.10.2011
and also taken note of the subsequent commissioner report
dated 30.07.2015 and admittedly no objection is filed to the
subsequent commissioner report dated 30.07.2015. Having
taken note of the said fact into consideration, the Trial Court
comes to the conclusion that objections is not filed to the
commissioner's report. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have placed
NC: 2025:KHC:48549
HC-KAR
ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Court, though
respondent nos.3 and 4 appeared before the Court through
their counsel, not filed any objections to the subsequent
commissioner report. Having considered the preliminary decree
passed in O.S.No.22/1998 and also the commissioner report, it
discloses that the property is allotted to the shares of the
plaintiffs in the preliminary decree and properly divided the
same between the parties and hence, accepted the
commissioner report and passed an order in final decree
proceedings. The appeal is also filed challenging the same.
6. The main contention of the counsel for the
appellants that the lands which have been taken into
consideration for allotting the same is not in terms of the
preliminary decree but in the commissioner's report is very
clear that in respect of item No.5 i.e., Sy.Nos.61/3P, 50/2P,
72/1P, 46/4P and 41/1P was taken note of and total extent is 3
acres 23 guntas and with regard to the entire area is
concerned, there is no difference and may be survey numbers
are different. But what is the extent of the claim made in this
suit is very similar and as well as the commissioner visited the
NC: 2025:KHC:48549
HC-KAR
spot and he is none other than the surveyor and demarcated
the property and filed the report. Now, the counsel for the
appellants cannot contend that no opportunity was given to the
appellants to file objections. But the fact that second
commissioner was appointed and he had submitted the report
on 30.07.2015 itself and FDP was disposed of on 22.08.2015.
The First Appellate Court also taken note of the extent of land
for which a preliminary decree was granted and considered the
material and record. When such being the case, I do not find
any ground to interfere with the finding of the Trial Court and
the First Appellate Court as there is a definite finding with
regard to the extent of land is concerned i.e., 3 acres 23
guntas. Apart from that suit was filed in the year 1998, that too
for the relief of partition and almost 27 years is elapsed for
getting the relief of partition. Having considered the said fact
into consideration and when there is no any miscarriage of
justice, I do not find any grounds to admit the appeal and to
frame substantial question of law.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
NC: 2025:KHC:48549
HC-KAR
Order
The second appeal is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if any, does
not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
