Karnataka High Court
Hanamanthappa Mallappa Lakkikoppa vs Gurushantappa A/F Yallappa on 16 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13981
RSA No. 100350 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100350 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
1. HANAMANTHAPPA MALLAPPA LAKKIKOPPA,
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,,
R/O. CHANDAPUR, TQ. SHIGGAON,
DIST. HAVERI-581110.
2. BASAPPA MALLAPPA LAKKIKOPPA
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHANDAPUR, TQ. SHIGGAON,
DIST. HAVERI-581110.
3. SHIVALINGAPPA MALLAPPA LAKKIKOPPA
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
Digitally
R/O. CHANDAPUR, TQ. SHIGGAON,
signed by
YASHAVANT
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
DIST. HAVERI-581110.
NARAYANKAR Date:
2025.10.17
11:05:36
+0530
4. PREMAVVA D/O. MALLAPPA LAKKIKOPPA
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHANDAPUR, TQ. SHIGGAON,
DIST. HAVERI-581110.
5. SMT. DEVAKKA W/O. FAKKIRAPPA LAKKIKOPPA
AGE: 51 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHANDAPUR, TQ. SHIGGAON,
DIST. HAVERI-581110.
6. UMESH FAKKIRAPPA LAKKIKOPPA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13981
RSA No. 100350 of 2014
HC-KAR
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHANDAPUR, TQ. SHIGGAON,
DIST. HAVERI-581110.
7. KRISHNAPPA FAKKIRAPPA LAKKIKOPPA
AGE: 31 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHANDAPUR, TQ. SHIGGAON,
DIST. HAVERI-581110.
8. KUMAR S/O. FAKKIRAPPA LAKKIKOPPA
AGE: 26 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHANDAPUR, TQ. SHIGGAON,
DIST. HAVERI-581110.
9. RAGHAVENDRA S/O. FAKKIRAPPA LAKKIKOPPA
AGE: 21 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHANDAPUR, TQ. SHIGGAON,
DIST. HAVERI-581110.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.N. BANAKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
GURUSHANTAPPA A/F YALLAPPA LAKKIKOPPA
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHANDAPUR, TQ. SHIGGAON,
DIST. HAVERI-581110.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS FROM CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIGGAON IN
F.D.P.NO.4/2002 DATED 15.12.2012 SO ALSO, CALL FOR RECORDS
FROM ADDITIOAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HAVERI, IN
R.A.NO.15/2013 DATED 11.04.2014 THEREBY DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN
THE COURTS OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT SHIGGAON IN FDP
NO.4/2002 DATED 15.12.2012 MAY KINDLY BE DISMISSED BY
ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13981
RSA No. 100350 of 2014
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.
2. The appellants, being aggrieved by the dismissal of
R.A.No.15/2013 dated 11.04.2014 by Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Haveri, have approached this court in this appeal.
3. The factual matrix of the case that is relevant is that
the respondent had filed a suit in O.S.No.18/1994 for partition.
The said suit came to be decreed allotting half share to the
respondent. Said decree was challenged in R.A.No.92/2006
before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Haveri and in the said appeal the
decree of the Trial Court was confirmed. Thereafter, final decree
proceedings were instituted in FDP No.4/2002 and a Court
Commissioner was appointed to suggest the partition.
Accordingly, the Court Commissioner submitted the report and
after hearing both the sides, the Trial Court accepted report of
the Court Commissioner and ordered for drawing up of the final
decree. The said order dated 15.12.2012 was challenged by the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13981
HC-KAR
appellants herein before the learned Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Haveri in R.A.No.15/2013. By the impugned judgment,
the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the
order to draw the final decree.
4. The appellants contended before the First Appellate
Court that the partition proposed by the Court Commissioner is
incorrect as it had not taken into consideration the valuation of
three trees, which are situated in the suit schedule property and
the said property has been allotted to the share of the
respondent. It was contended that the valuation of the trees
being to the tune of ₹50,000/- to ₹60,000/- was purposely
allotted to the respondent and therefore, the partition is unequal.
The said contention of the appellants was considered by the First
Appellate Court in paragraph 17 of its judgment and ultimately it
came to the conclusion that there is no infirmity in the impugned
judgment. Being aggrieved, the appellants are before this Court
in this Second Appeal.
5. It is pertinent to note that fundamentally the
contentions raised by the appellants are in the realm of facts.
The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13981
HC-KAR
appreciated the evidence placed on record and have come to the
conclusion that the partition suggested by the Court
Commissioner is proper and correct. The observations of the First
Appellate Court in Paragraph 17 of its judgment reads as below:
"17. That after careful perusal of the entire report, it
appears to the Court that, Court Commissioner report is in
accordance with law and said partition is appears to be
equitable partition. However, also the objections raised by
the respondent is that, Court Commissioner failed to taken
into consideration with regard to the valuable 3 trees
standing in the suit properties which are worth ₹50-60
thousands and purposely failed to allot to the share of
petitioner. In the light of the above said objections, this
Court carefully perused the material available on record
and after careful perusal of the Court Commissioner's
report, it appears to the Court that, three trees are
existing in the suit properties and said trees are not worth
of ₹50-60/- thousands and to substantiate the said fact, no
documents produced by the appellants herein. Further it is
very pertaining to note that, it appears from the pleadings
of the appellants as well as respondent since 1995 entire
suit properties appears to be enjoyed by the appellants
herein though the respondent is having half share in the
suit properties. In the light of the said fact and looking to
the enjoyment of the appellants over the suit properties it
is not justifiable to strictly consider the worth of the said
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13981
HC-KAR
trees which are said to be fallen into the share of the
respondent."
6. It is relevant to note that the appellants had not
placed any material on record before the Trial Court to show the
valuation of the three trees, which they are disputing. Thus,
there being no such evidence, which is available on record, no
fault can be found by the Trial Court as well as the First
Appellate Court in regard to the valuation of the three trees,
which is the bone of contention of the appellants before this
Court. There being absolutely no material on record regarding
the valuation of the trees, the conclusions reached by the First
Appellate Court cannot be interfered with, muchless there is no
substantial question of law, which arises in the present appeal.
In that view of the matter, 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
YAN,
