Karnataka High Court
Shekhappa @ Rekhu Siddappa Lamani vs Irappa Hanumantappa Waddar on 8 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13634
RSA No. 100947 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100947 OF 2014 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SHEKHAPPA @ REKHU SIDDAPPA LAMANI
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KAREKYATANAHALLI,
TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI.
SHIDDAPPA S/O. TAYAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 82 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KAREKYATANAHALLI, TQ. HANGAL,
DIST. HAVERI.
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.
2. SMT. GUJARAVVA W/O. SHIDDAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KAREKYATANAHALLI, TQ. HANGAL,
DIST. HAVERI.
CHANNABASAPPA S/O. SHIDDAPPA LAMANI
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KAREKYATANAHALLI, TQ. HANGAL,
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT
DIST. HAVERI.)
NARAYANKAR
Date: 2025.10.09
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S WIFE.
10:03:00 +0530
3. NAGAVVA W/O. CHANABASAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KAREKYATANAHALLI, TQ. HANGAL,
DIST. HAVERI.
4. RAMA S/O. SHIDDAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KAREKYATANAHALLI,
TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. B.S. KUKANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13634
RSA No. 100947 of 2014
HC-KAR
AND:
1. IRAPPA HANUMANTAPPA WADDAR
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
C/O. SMT.SEEMA LAXMAN WADDAR,
DOGURAWADI-66, GARPADIGAON
POST, PUNE-1, MAHARASHTRA STATE.
2. SMT. DEEPU W/O RAHUL MAKARAWALI,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HULAGINAKOPPA, TQ. HANGAL,
DIST. HAVERI.
3. KUM. ROJA IRAPPA WADDAR
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O. HULAGINAKOPPA, TQ. HANGAL,
DIST. HAVERI+-581104.
4. MADHU IRAPPA WADDAR
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O. HULAGINAKOPPA, TQ. HANGAL,
DIST. HAVERI-581104.
5. RAKESH IRAPPA WADDAR
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O. HULAGINAKOPPA, TQ. HANGAL,
DIST. HAVERI-581104.
6. SMT. SHARADA W/O IRAPPA WADDAR,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD AND COOLIE,
R/O. HULAGINAKOPPA, TQ. HANGAL,
DIST. HAVERI-581104.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 TO R6 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W. ORDER 41 RULE
1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, ALLOW THE APPEAL
AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.08.2014 IN
R.A.NO.8/2011 PASSED BY THE SENIOR DIVISION CIVIL JUDGE,
HANGAL AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.05.2011
PASSED BY CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HANGAL IN O.S.NO.165/2009, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND CONSEQUENTLY THE
SUIT IS TO BE DISMISSED.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13634
RSA No. 100947 of 2014
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
Heard.
2. The appellants are the respondents before the First
appellate Court and defendants No.2 and 3 before the Trial
Court. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for partition contending that
the suit property was owned by one Thimmanna who had two
sons namely Yallappa and Hanumanthappa. Thimmanna died in
the year 1959. The suit schedule property was granted to
Thimmanna by the Government, by order dated 12.04.1958.
After death of Thimmanna, his sons Yallappa and
Hanumanthappa succeeded to the suit schedule property.
Hanumanthappa died in the year 1985. After his death, the name
of the defendant No.1 was entered as a legal heir and
accordingly, an entry was made in M.E. No.1198. The plaintiff
No.5 is the wife of defendant No.1 and plaintiffs No.1 to 4 are
the children born to them. It was contended that the defendant
No.1 has alienated the property in favour of defendants No.2 and
3, even though the plaintiffs had a share in it and therefore, the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13634
HC-KAR
said alienation is not binding on the plaintiffs. Alleging that the
defendant No.1 was addicted to bad vices, the alienation was not
for the family necessity, they sought partition in the suit
schedule property.
3. After issuance of summons, the defendants though
appeared, did not file any written statement. They even did not
contest the suit before the Trial Court. The Trial Court after the
trial, decreed the suit in part. It rejected the prayer to declare
that the sale deeds executed by defendant No.1 in favour of
defendants No.2 and 3 is not binding, since separate Court fee
has not been paid. The First appellate Court in the appeal filed by
the plaintiffs, rectified the said error stating that it is a
consequential relief and therefore, the Trial Court had erred to
that extent.
4. Now, questioning the decree passed by the Trial
Court as well as the First appellate Court, the defendants No.2
and 3, who are the purchasers of the property from the
defendant No.1 have approached this Court in the second
appeal. Obviously, the appellants herein did not resist the suit or
the first appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants submit
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13634
HC-KAR
that there was a communication gap between the defendants
No.2 and 3 and their counsel who represented before the Trial
Court as well as the First appellate Court and therefore, they
couldn't file the written statement. Hence, he seeks remand of
the matter to hear afresh so that the grievance of the defendants
No.2 and 3 be heard.
5. It is a settled proposition of law that the law comes
to the aid of a person who is vigilant. The law do not assist the
person who is in slumbers. The appellants herein despite
receiving the summons and appearing before the Trial Court did
not resist the suit at all. There is no material on record to show
that the counsel who was appearing for the appellants herein,
before the trial Court and the First appellate Court had made any
submissions in that regard. Therefore, it is evident that the
appellants herein having not participated in the trial in an
effective way, cannot urge before this Court that their
contentions were not heard by the trial Court.
6. The second ground urged by the learned counsel for
the appellant is that the plaintiff should have filed a general suit
for partition including all other properties of the family and they
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13634
HC-KAR
could not have filed a suit only for the suit schedule property
which is alienated. When this ground itself was not raised before
the Trial Court as well as the First appellate Court, it cannot be
urged in the second appeal without pleading to that effect. If at
all the appellants are aggrieved by partial partition, they have
their remedies to choose. Hence, the appeal is bereft of any
merits and there are no grounds to admit the same. Hence, the
appeal is dismissed.
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
RKM
CT:PA
