Karnataka High Court
Mahaveer S/O Devappa Chikkaparappa vs Sunanda W/O Bhavubali Chikkaparappa on 10 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15309
RSA No. 6072 of 2012
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 6072 OF 2012 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MAHAVEER
S/O. DEVAPPA CHIKKAPARAPPA,
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. H.NO.268/B, MAHAVEER GALLI,
HONAGA, TAL. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE)
AND.
1. SMT. SUNANDA
W/O. BHAVUBALI CHIKKAPARAPPA,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. C/O. PADMAVATI JINNAPPA PATIL,
Digitally
signed by GUDI ONI, BASTWAD,
YASHAVANT
YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR
NARAYANKAR Date: TAL. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.
2025.11.12
10:43:08
+0530
2. MISS DEEPIKA @ DEEPA
D/O. BHAVUBALI CHIKKAPARAPPA,
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL
MOTHER, RESPONDENT NO.1
SMT. SUNANDA W/O. BHAVUBALI CHIKKAPARAPPA.
3. SRI. DEVENDRA ANNAPPA DESAI
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
3A. SMT. PREMA W/O. DHARMARAJ PATIL,
D/O. DEVENDRA DESAI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15309
RSA No. 6072 of 2012
HC-KAR
R/O. PLOT NO.469, 3RD BUS STOP,
DEVARAJ ARAS COLONY, BASAVAN KUDACHI,
BELAGAVI-590001.
3B. SMT. JAYASHRI
W/O. IGAPPA NARASINGANNAVAR,
D/O. DEVEDRA DESAI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. PLOT NO.400 AND 401,
DEVARAJ ARAS COLONY, BASAVAN KUDACHI,
BELAGAVI-590001.
3C. SMT. SHANTA W/O. SHANTINATH MANNUR,
D/O. DEVENDRA DESAI,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. OPPOSITE TO KANNADA SCHOOL,
MAJGAVI-590001, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1, R3(A), R3(B), R3(C)-NOTICE SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 1 OF CPC,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
01.12.2011 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK-
III AND MACT BELAGAVI IN R.A.NO.308/2009, CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.01.2005 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC
BELAGAVI IN O.S.NO.667/1997, BY ALLOWING THE TOP NOTED
APPEAL IN THE INTERST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15309
RSA No. 6072 of 2012
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER. THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
2. The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.667/1997 and
appellant in R.A.No.308/2009, both of which came to be
dismissed by the Courts below.
3. It is the case of the appellant that he and the original
defendant No.1- Bahubali were brothers and they jointly had
purchased the suit schedule property bearing No.268/B situated
at Halga Village, Taluka Belagavi. It was purchased under a
registered sale deed dated 27.11.1973 for a consideration of
Rs.10,000/-. After the purchase, they were enjoying the said
properties jointly and later, the defendant No.1 was in actual
possession and enjoyment of the house property. It was
contented that the said house property consists of two portions,
one is for residence towards the eastern side and the other on
the western portion was used for the purpose of tethering cattle.
It is contented that both were using and enjoying the said
property jointly as members of the Hindu undivided family. It
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15309
HC-KAR
was contented that on 22.07.1997, the defendant No.1 sold his
half portion in the suit schedule property without the consent of
the plaintiff and without partition to the defendant No.2 for a
consideration of Rs.70,000/-. It was alleged that there was no
partition between the brothers by metes and bounds and the
defendant No.2 being a stranger, he cannot be inducted into the
joint property of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. It was alleged
that the defendant No.2 is trying to interfere with the possession
and enjoyment of the plaintiff and therefore, an injunction be
passed restraining the defendant No.2 from interfering with
possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff.
4. The defendant No.1 had appeared and resisted the
suit contending that though it was purchased in the joint name of
the plaintiff and defendant No.1, the property was given VPC
Nos.268/A2 respectively and the open space was given VPC
Nos.268/C1, 2841/C2 and 268/2. Later, the three numbers were
amalgamated and re-numbered as 268/A and 268/B for the
house properties and 268/C and 268/D for the open spaces,
which are the backyards. It was stated that, there was a
partition that took place between the plaintiff and defendant
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15309
HC-KAR
No.1 and therefore, the share which was fallen to the defendant
No.1 was sold to the defendant No.2. They contented that the
enjoyment was separate and therefore, there cannot be any
injunction against the defendant No.2. The defendant No.2 on his
behalf contented that he is a bonafied purchaser and no
objections were raised at the time of his purchase of the suit
schedule property.
5. The Trial Court framed appropriate issues and in the
trial, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and six documents were
marked as Exs.P1 to P6. The defendant No.1 did not adduce any
evidence and the defendant No.3 was examined as DW1 and
Exs.D1 to 15 were marked.
6. After hearing both the parties, the Trial Court had
dismissed the suit.
7. Being aggrieved, the appellant had approached the
First Appellate Court in R.A.308/2009, which also came to be
dismissed by the impugned judgment.
8. A careful perusal of the judgments of the First
Appellate Court and the Trial Court show that they have come to
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15309
HC-KAR
the conclusion that there was a partition between the plaintiff
and defendant No.1 and on the basis of the statements made
before the Panchayat, the VPC No.268 was divided into four
parts, two of which contained a house and open space each. It
was held that since the enjoyment was shown to be separate,
there is no material to show that the plaintiff and the defendant
No.1 were in the joint possession and enjoyment of the property
as contented.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits
that in the absence of any material to show that there was a
partition between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1, the
remedy open to the defendant No.2 was to file a suit for general
partition and seek bifurcation of his share. It is submitted that
the plaintiff has a joint share in the suit schedule property and
he is enjoying the suit schedule property and therefore, the
defendant No.2 cannot be permitted to intrude into the dwelling
house and as such, the Courts below have erred in dismissing
the suit.
10. A careful perusal of the impugned judgments would
show that at the instance of the plaintiff and the defendant No.1,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15309
HC-KAR
there was amalgamation and bifurcation of the properties and
the Panchayat had acted upon it. It is not the case of the
appellant that the Grama Panchayat had recorded VPC No.268/A,
B, C, D unilaterally without he being heard. The First Appellate
Court notes that though there is a contention that the property is
being jointly enjoyed, PW1 had clearly admitted that property
No.268-A2 was in existence and later the Panchayath authorities
had given separate numbers to the properties. He admitted that
he had produced the old assessment records but not the new
one. There is no explanation by the appellant in respect of the
said Panchayat records and it is not his case that those entries
made by the Panchayat were behind his back. In that view of the
matter, the Courts below came to the conclusion that the
enjoyment of the property by the plaintiff and the defendant
No.1 was separate and it cannot be held that the plaintiff was
also in joint possession and enjoyment of the property sold by
the defendant No.1 to defendant No.2.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant also
submit that after death of the defendant No.1, the LRS of the
defendant No.1 have filed a suit for partition in respect of the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15309
HC-KAR
other properties held by them. He submits that cleverly the
present suit schedule property was not included. In that view of
the matter, if at all, the appellant is aggrieved by bifurcation of
VPC Nos.268/A, 268/B, 268/C, 268/D, he is at liberty to take up
such contention in appropriate proceeding and seek for partition.
So far as the case on hand is concerned, in view of concurrent
findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate court, the fact
has been finally decided and therefore, no substantial question of
law arises. Consequently, the appeal is devoid of any merits and
the same is dismissed.
SD/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
RKM
CT. PA
