Karnataka High Court
Sri Gadigeppa S/O Rudrappa Kelur Alias ... vs Smt Chandravva W/O Mukappa Gaddad And ... on 16 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13999
RSA No. 100522 of 2023
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. 100522 OF 2023 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
SRI. GADIGEPPA
S/O. RUDRAPPA KELUR @ SHIREGONDAR,
R/O. HIREHALLI, TQ. BYADAGI,
DIST. HAVERI- 581106.
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.,
SINCE DIED ON 14-02-2023.
1. SMT. SHANTVVA
W/O. GADIGEPPA KELUR @ SHIREGONDAR,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. HIREHALLI, TQ. BYADAGI,
DIST. HAVERI- 581106.
2. SRI. CHANDRAPPA
S/O. GADIGEPPA KELUR @ SHIREGONDAR,
Digitally AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
signed by
YASHAVANT
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR R/O. HIREHALLI, TQ. BYADAGI,
NARAYANKAR Date:
2025.10.18
10:54:55
DIST. HAVERI- 581106.
+0530
3. SMT. SUMANGALA W/O. BASAVARAJ ADAVI,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. MALLIGAR, TQ. HANGAL,
DIST. HAVERI-581104.
4. SRI. JAGADISH S/O. GADIGEPPA KELUR @
SHIREGONDAR,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC, AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HIREHALLI, TQ. BYADAGI,
DIST. HAVERI-581106.
5. SMT. SHOBHA @ GEETA
W/O. VEERESH KODIHALLI,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13999
RSA No. 100522 of 2023
HC-KAR
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KELAVARAKOPPA, TQ. HANGAL,
DIST. HAVERI-581120.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.N. BANAKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1) SMT. CHANDRAVVA W/O. MUKAPPA GADDAD,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BEERANAKOPPA, TQ. BYADAGI,
DIST. HAVERI-581120.
2) SMT. KAMALAVVA W/O. MUKAPPA DIDAGUR,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. SOMASAGAR, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI-581120.
3) SRI. GANESHAPPA S/O. GANAGAYYA SUDAMBI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. BEERANAKOPPA, TQ. BYADAGI,
DIST. HAVERI-581120.
4) SMT. MANJAVVA W/O. KANTESH YALIWAL,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. HIREANAJI, TQ. BYADAGI,
DIST. HAVERI-581120.
5) SMT. PARAVVA W/O. SURYAKANTAYYA SUDAMBI,
AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BEERANAKOPPA, TQ. BYADAGI,
DIST. HAVERI-581120.
6) SMT. NAGAVVA W/O VEERABHADRAPPA KELUR
@ SHIREGONDAR,
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. HIREHALLI, TQ. BYADAGI,
DIST. HAVERI-581106.
7) SRI. SIDDAPPA
S/O. VEERABHADRAPPA KELUR @ SHIREGONDAR,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. HIREHALLI, TQ. BYADAGI,
DIST. HAVERI-581106.
8) SMT. MALAKKA W/O. PADAVESH KYASANUR,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13999
RSA No. 100522 of 2023
HC-KAR
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KOOSANUR, TQ. HANGAL,
DIST. HAVERI-581120.
9) SMT. MANJULA W/O. MAHESH HADIMANI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. WASAN, TQ. HANGAL,
DIST. HAVERI-581120.
10) SRI. RUDRAPPA S/O KALLAPPA PYATI,
SINCE DECEASED ON 08.03.2023,
HIS LRS., ARE ALREADY ON RECORD I.E. R11 AND R12.
11) SMT. SHAKUNTALA D/O. RUDRAPPA PYATI,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. H NO.2265, MCC "A" BLOCK,
7TH MAIN DAVANGERE
DIST. DAVANAGERE.
12) PRAKASH S/O. RUDRAPPA PYATI,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. SUDAMBI, TQ. BYADAGI,
DIST. HAVERI-581120.
13) SMT. KALAVVA W/O. CHANDRASHEKHAR HURALI,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. HIREANAJI, TQ. BYADAGI,
DIST. HAVERI-581120.
NOW R/O. DANESHWARI NAGAR,
BEHIND "SHIVAJYOTI HOSPITAL"
HAVERI, TQ. & DIST. HAVERI-581110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
R1-R4 AND R6-R9 AND R11-R13 ARE NOTICE SERVED;
R11 AND R12 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED R10)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.01.2023 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.8/2016 ON THE FILE O THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, AT BYADAGI, THE APPEAL
PARTLY ALLOWING AND SETTING ASIDE AND MODIFYING THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD 04.12.2015, PASSED IN O.S.
NO.04/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, BYADGI, DECREEING
THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13999
RSA No. 100522 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS REGULAR SECOND 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 appearing for the appellants and
the respondents.
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree in
R.A.No.8/2006 dated 21.01.2023 by Learned Senior Civil Judge
and J.M.F.C., Byadagi, who partly allowed the appeal by
modifying the judgment of the Trial Court in O.S.No.4/2008
dated 04.12.2015, the appellants are before this Court in appeal.
The appellants are the legal heirs of the original defendant No.5
before the Trial Court.
3. The factual matrix that is relevant for the purpose of
this appeal is that the plaintiffs contended that the suit schedule
properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and
defendants. The propositus Rudrappa had six children and
plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are two daughters of Rudrappa. The
defendants are the siblings and children of deceased
Veerabhadrappa, who was the brother of the plaintiffs. The
plaintiffs contended that all the suit schedule properties are the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13999
HC-KAR
joint family properties and therefore, they are entitled for 1/6th
share in the suit schedule property.
4. The defendants appeared before the Trial Court and
contended that the plaintiffs were given their respective shares
at the time of the marriage and the plaintiffs are residing
separately and therefore, they are estopped from seeking any
partition. They further contended that the plaintiffs have given
consent to enter the name of the defendant No.7 in the revenue
records of the suit schedule property and therefore, the plaintiffs
are estopped from seeking any partition.
5. On the basis of the above contentions, the Trial Court
framed the following issues.
"1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule 'A'
properties are the joint family properties of the
family of the plaintiffs and the defendants?
2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule 'A'
properties are in joint possession and enjoyment of
the plaintiffs and the defendants?
3) Whether the defendants prove that the suit of the
plaintiffs is barred by the law of limitation as
contended in para. 13 and 15 of their written
statement?
4) Whether the defendants prove that the plaintiffs
have not property valued the suit for the purpose of
Court fee and jurisdiction as contended in para. 12
of their written statement?
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13999
HC-KAR
5) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for
partition and separate possession of their 1/6th share
each in the suit schedule 'A' properties?
6) What order or decree?"
6. One of the plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and Ex.P.1
to 17 were marked. Defendant No.5 was examined as DW.1 and
defendant No.6(A) was examined as DW.2. Another witness was
examined as DW.3 and Ex.D.1 to 23 were marked.
7. After hearing both the sides, the Trial Court decreed
the suit directing partition of the suit schedule property and
allotting 1/6th share to the plaintiffs.
8. During pendency of the suit, plaintiff No.1 filed a
memo before the Trial Court stating that she does not want to
prosecute the suit and she does not want any share in the suit
schedule property and her rights are given up in favour of
defendant Nos.1 to 5.
9. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court,
defendant No.5 approached the First Appellate Court in
R.A.No.8/2016. The First Appellate Court after hearing the
arguments framed the following points for consideration:
"1) Whether plaintiffs and defendants are joint family
members, suit properties are ancestral and joint
family properties of plaintiffs and defendants?
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13999
HC-KAR
2) Whether call for interference by this Court with
respect of Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial
Court is warranted?
3) What order?"
10. Answering point No.1 in the affirmative and point
No.2 partly in the affirmative, the judgment of the Trial Court
was modified stating that the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/6th
share each.
11. Being aggrieved by the same, the legal heirs of
defendant No.5 are before this Court in appeal.
12. The first contention of the learned counsel appearing
for the appellants is that when plaintiff No.1 had filed a memo
before the Trial Court that she does not want to prosecute the
case and she is giving up all her rights in favour of defendant
Nos.1 to 5, the First Appellate Court could not have passed a
decree granting 1/6th share to plaintiff No.1. Therefore, there is
an error apparent on the face of the record.
13. His second contention is that one of the suit schedule
properties item No.2 was granted to defendant Nos.1 and 5 by
the Land Tribunal and therefore, that would enure to the benefit
of defendant Nos.1 and 5 only.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13999
HC-KAR
14. The first contention of the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant that plaintiff No.1 had given up her share in
favour of defendant Nos.1 to 5 can very well be taken care of
while drawing the final decree. When there is a categorical
statement made by plaintiff No.1 before the Trial Court in the
form of a memo and which has been considered by the Trial
Court in paragraph No.14 of the judgment, the same is to be
taken into consideration by the Court which is drawing the final
decree. The appellant would be at liberty to bring the same to
the notice of the Trial Court before the final decree is drawn.
15. The second point urged by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant that Item No.2 of the suit schedule
property was granted to defendant Nos.1 and 5 exclusively is
concerned. The First Appellate Court in paragraph No.15 of the
judgment has dealt the same in detail. The First Appellate Court
has held that the married daughters are also entitled for share in
the land covered by the Land Reforms Act by placing reliance on
the judgment of this Court in case of Girija W/o Shivanagouda
and Others vs. Ramanagowda S/o Basangouda Patil and
Others1. Therefore, the said finding of the First Appellate Court
2022 (4) KCCR 3076 (DB)
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13999
HC-KAR
is in accordance with law and therefore, there is no reason to
interfere in the same.
16. In the result, no substantial question of law arises in
the present appeal and therefore, the appeal is devoid of any
merits. Therefore the appeal is dismissed.
17. It is clarified that the appellants can bring to the
notice of the Trial Court in final decree proceedings that plaintiff
No.1 had filed a memo before the Trial Court giving up her rights
to defendant Nos.1 to 5.
SD/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
SSP
CT:PA
