Karnataka High Court
Smt Laxmibai W/O Ramappa Sanadi Alias ... vs Manjunath S/O Basappa Sanadi Alias ... on 25 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16369
RSA No. 100609 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100609 OF 2022 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O. RAMAPPA SANADI
@ DEMANNAVAR,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HADIGINAL, TQ. GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-591218.
2. SHRI MUTTEPPA S/O. RAMAPPA SANADI
@ DEMANNAVAR,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HADIGINAL, TQ. GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-591218.
3. SHRI NAGAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA SANADI
@ DEMANNAVAR,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
Digitally R/O. HADIGINAL, TQ. GOKAK,
signed by
YASHAVANT DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-591218.
YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR
NARAYANKAR Date:
2025.11.28
...APPELLANTS
10:40:02
+0530
(BY SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI MANJUNATH S/O. BASAPPA SANADI
@ DEMANNAVAR,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HADIGINAL, TQ. GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-591218.
2. SHRI OMKAR S/O. BASAPPA SANADI
@ DEMANNAVAR,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16369
RSA No. 100609 of 2022
HC-KAR
R/O. HADIGINAL, TQ. GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-591218.
3. SMT. SHOBHA W/O. BASAPPA SANADI
@ DEMANNAVAR,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O. HADIGINAL, TQ. GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-591218.
SHRI BASAPPA S/O. NAGAPPA SANADI
@ DEMANNAVAR,
SINCE DECEASED BY L.RS.
WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD AS
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3
4. SHRI BHIMAPPA S/O. SHIVAPPA CHIPPALAKATTI,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MELAVANKI, TQ. GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-591218.
5. SHRI MALLAPPA S/O. SHIVAPPA CHIPPALAKATTI,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MELAVANKI, TQ. GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-591218.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R3;
SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING
THAT THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.10.2021
PASSED IN R.A.NO.6/2020 BY LEARNED XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, SITTING AT GOKAK, IN ALLOWING
THE SAID REGULAR APPEAL AND THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.10.2019, PASSED IN O.S.
NO.276/2016 BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GOKAK BE
KINDLY BE SET ASIDE BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSING THE SAID THE SUIT IN
O.S.NO.276/2016 IN ITS ENTIRETY WITH COSTS, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16369
RSA No. 100609 of 2022
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and
the respondents.
2. The factual matrix of the case as propounded in the
pleadings may be summarized as below:
a) One Nagappa was the propositus and he died in the
year 1988 leaving behind him four sons and two daughters.
During his lifetime, he effected a partition in the land bearing
Survey No.339/1, which was evidenced by M.E.No.1996 dated
24.11.1980. In the said partition, each of the sons were allotted
2 acres 30 guntas and the propositus-Nagappa retained 4 acres
23 guntas. The share that fell to the defendant No.1-Basappa
was numbered as Survey No.339/3. He sold 1 acre of land in the
said Survey No.339/3 on 29.11.1993 to one Bhimappa.
Therefore, an area measuring 1 acre 30 guntas remained with
the defendant No.1 and it was the ancestral property in his
hands. The brother of the defendant No.1 i.e., Ramappa, who is
now represented by defendant No.2 to 4, was alleged to have
got a relinquishment deed to the extent of 30 guntas and the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16369
HC-KAR
said 30 guntas was re-numbered as R.S.No.339/5. The
remaining 1 acre was numbered as R.S.No.339/4.
b) The plaintiffs, who are the sons and wife of Basappa-
defendant No.1, contend that the document styled as
"relinquishment deed" dated 25.11.1998 is unregistered and
therefore, that cannot be a ground to say that there was a
relinquishment. Thereafter, on 22.06.2016, the defendant No.2,
who is representing the branch of Ramappa has sold 15 guntas
of such relinquished land to defendant No.5 and 6. Therefore,
the plaintiffs contend that the sale deed executed in favour of
defendant No.5 and 6 is void since it did not have any
conveyable title. Thus the plaintiffs claimed partition in the
property that was held by the defendant No.1.
c) The defendant No.2 resisted the suit by filing written
statement contending that Nagappa being the propositus, there
was a partition and the relinquishment by the defendant No.1 in
favour of his brother-Ramappa is acted upon and consequential
mutation entries have been effected. He also contended that the
defendant No.2 has already sold 15 guntas of land received
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16369
HC-KAR
under relinquishment deed to the defendant No.5 and 6 under a
valid registered sale deed.
3. On the basis of the above contentions, the parties
went to trial. The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence that
was let in before it, dismissed the suit on the ground that the
suit schedule property cannot be considered as the ancestral
property and that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the
same.
4. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs had approached the
First Appellate Court in R.A.No.6/2020. The First Appellate Court
after appreciating the evidence held that the plaintiffs are
entitled for 1 acre of land in Survey No.339/4 and 15 guntas of
land in Survey No.339/5 excluding the 15 guntas of land sold to
the defendant No.5 and 6 by defendant No.2. The First Appellate
Court also rejected the declaration with respect to the sale deed
in favour of defendant No.5 and 6. The First Appellate Court
came to such conclusion since defendant No.1 had not entered
the witness box denying the relinquishment made in favour of his
brother-Basappa.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16369
HC-KAR
5. Now the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that the respondents have filed an application
contending that respondent No.4 and 5 purchased the 15 guntas
of land in Survey No.339/5 by virtue of a sale deed dated
21.06.2021 and as such, they have sought for an injunction.
6. The above circumstances would indicate that when
the said 15 guntas of land has been already purchased by
respondent No.4 and 5, who are the applicants in I.A.No.1/2024,
from plaintiffs nothing remains to be decided. The only question
that would remain is whether the relinquishment made by
defendant No.1 in favour of Ramappa would be valid or not.
Once the appellants/plaintiffs have sold the property to
respondent No.4 and 5, nothing remains to be decided except
the academic question of law that whether the unregistered
relinquishment deed would be valid or not. Therefore, when the
property under the said relinquishment has already been
transferred, there is no necessity of going further in determining
whether the relinquishment deed is valid or not. In that view of
the matter, the appellants having lost interest in the property,
which was subject matter of the relinquishment deed, nothing
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16369
HC-KAR
survives to be considered by this Court, which would be of any
assistance to the appellants. Hence, the appeal is devoid of any
merits and stands dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
7. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration
and are disposed of accordingly.
SD/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
YAN
CT:PA
