Karnataka High Court
Veearayya S/O Puttayya Hiremath vs Smt. Nagaratna W/O Jayashankarayya ... on 5 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15114
RSA No. 100072 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100072 OF 2021 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
VEEARAYYA S/O. PUTTAYYA HIREMATH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SANVASAGI-581104,
TQ. HANGAL. DIST. HAVERI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. NAGARATNA
W/O. JAYASHANKARAYYA HIREMATH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
Digitally
signed by R/O. SANVASAGI, TQ. HANAGAL,
YASHAVANT
YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR
NARAYANKAR Date:
DIST. HAVERI,
2025.11.06
14:27:55 NOW RESIDING NEAR RAILWAY TRACK,
+0530
NAGINAMATTI (NEHRU NAGAR), HAVERI-581110,
TQ. AND DIST. HAVERI.
2. SMT. ANNAPURNA
W/O. SHIVASHANKARAPPA UPPAR @ JAPANI,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. NEAR YALAKKI ONI, NEAR BANNADMATH SCHOOL,
HAVERI-581110, TQ. AND DIST. HAVERI.
3. RENUKASWAMY S/O. JAYASHANKARAYYA HIREMATH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SANVASAGI-581104, TQ. HANGAL,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15114
RSA No. 100072 of 2021
HC-KAR
DIST. HAVERI.
4. SMT. ANNAPURNA W/O. RAJASHEKHARAYYA HIREMATH,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. 14 CROSS, BASAVESHWAR NAGAR,
HAVERI-581110, TQ. AND DIST. HAVERI.
5. SMT. AKKAMMA W/O. SHANTAYYA HIREMATH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. HURALIKOPPI-581118,
TQ. SAVANUR, DIST. HAVERI.
6. SHANMUKHAYYA S/O. PUTTAYYA HIREMATH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SANVASAGI-581104,
TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI.
7. KAMALAKSHI W/O. JAGADEESHAYYA SALIMATH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SAVANUR,
NOW RESIDING AT SANVASAGI-581004,
TQ. HANAGAL, DIST. HAVERI.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE COURT OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,
HANGAL IN R.A.NO.21/2018 DATED 06.03.2020 AND THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S. NO.306/2012 DATED 05.10.2016
PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,
HANGAL, 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:15114
RSA No. 100072 of 2021
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
2. The appellant is defendant No.6 before the Trial
Court and the appellant before the First Appellate Court. The
appellant having suffered the decree for partition is before this
Court in appeal.
3. The brief facts that are relevant are that the plaintiff
before the Trial Court, is one Kamalakshi and defendant Nos.1 to
7 are her brother and sisters and defendant No.8 is their mother.
The plaintiff contended that her father inherited the suit schedule
A and B properties in a partition among his siblings. Since then,
the plaintiff and defendants along with their father were in joint
possession and enjoyment of the properties. The father of the
plaintiff and defendants died on 06.03.1989. Thereafter on
04.12.1989, the name of the brothers of the plaintiff was entered
in the revenue records as legal heirs. It is contended that when
the plaintiff sought partition in the year 2012, the defendants
declined to effect the partition and therefore, she was
constrained to file the suit.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15114
HC-KAR
4. The suit was resisted by the defendants contending
that the enjoyment of the properties was in pursuance to a
partition which was entered in their revenue records as a Varsa
Entry i.e. U-form and accordingly notice was served to all the
stakeholders. The plaintiff has filed this suit after lapse of 12
years and as such, she does not have any right, title or interest
in the suit schedule properties. It was contended that the suit is
not maintainable as the plaintiff was given her due share at the
time of her marriage in the form of gold ornaments.
5. The Trial Court framed appropriate issues and the
trial was held where the documents in respect of the entry in the
names of the defendants in the revenue records were marked.
After hearing the arguments, the Trial Court came to the
conclusion that the suit schedule properties are the properties
inherited by father of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 7; and
therefore, the propositus having died prior to coming into force
of the amending the Act of Hindu Succession Act in the year
2005 or the amending Act of Karnataka came into effect in the
year 1994, partition has to be effected notionally allotting a
share to the father of the plaintiff. Thus, it held that the plaintiff
is entitled for 1/24th share in the suit schedule properties. It had
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15114
HC-KAR
also ruled that defendant Nos.1 to 3 together are entitled for
7/24th share and defendant Nos.6 and 7 are entitled for 7/24th
share each.
6. The First Appellate Court also concurred with the
view of the Trial Court and held that there is no merit in the
appeal and as such dismissed the appeal.
7. Being aggrieved, defendant No.6 is before this Court
in appeal. On a careful perusal of the records and perusing the
impugned judgments, it reveals that soon after the death of the
father of the plaintiff and the appellant herein, Mutation Entries
were effected to bring the legal heirs on record. The Mutation
Entries only depict the person who will be in enjoyment of the
suit schedule property and therefore, not entering the name of
the plaintiff in the revenue records would not extinguish her right
in the property. More so, the documents do not reveal that there
was any partition between the plaintiff and the defendants. When
there is no whisper about the partition in the revenue records,
especially the entries which were effected in bringing the names
of few of the defendants in records, this Court is of the view that
such Mutation Entries will not in any way extinguish the right of
the plaintiff. It is settled proposition of law that the mutation
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15114
HC-KAR
entries cannot confer or divest the title from any person. More so
when such Mutation Entries do not depict any partition. In that
view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises and
therefore, the appeal is devoid of any merits. Consequently, the
appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.
SD/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
SSP
CT:PA
