Karnataka High Court
Smt Sunanda W/O Tippanna Basatti vs Smt Shantavva W/O Panchappa Shiddigeri on 25 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14250
RSA No. 101255 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 101255 OF 2022 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SUNANDA W/O. TIPPANNA BASETTI,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HOMBAL, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG,
PIN CODE-582204.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SHANTAVVA W/O. PANCHAPPA SHIDDIGERI,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ASHRAYA COLONY, HUILGOL ROAD, BETAGERI,
TQ. AND DIST. GADAG, PIN CODE- 582101.
2. SHRI CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA
S/O. PRABHAPPA HUNASIKATTI,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HOMBAL, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG, PIN CODE-582204.
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR 3. SHRI CHANNAVEERAPPA PRABHAPPA HUNASIKATTI
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT R/O. HOMBAL, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG,
NARAYANKAR
Date: 2025.10.28 PIN CODE-582204.
11:25:46 +0530
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE GADAG, DATED
12.01.2021 IN R.A.NO.56/2020 BY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, GADAG IN O.S.NO.124/2013 DATED
22.01.2020 BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL ALONG WITH COSTS, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14250
RSA No. 101255 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT
WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the
concurrent findings of the Trial Court in O.S.No.124/2013 and
the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.56/2020.
2. The factual matrix, that is relevant is that the plaintiff
and defendant No.1 are the sisters and defendant Nos.2 and 3
are the purchasers of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff
contended that the suit schedule property is the ancestral joint
family property of her father Rajappa and he had obtained the
same in a partition. It was contended that after death of Rajappa
on 16.11.2004, the name of the plaintiff and defendant No.1
should have been entered in the revenue records in respect of
suit schedule property. It was contended that defendant Nos.2
and 3 were cultivating the suit schedule property, even during
the lifetime of their father Rajappa. The plaintiff later came to
know that defendant Nos.2 and 3 had manipulated a sale deed,
alleged to have been executed by Rajappa. It is contended that
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14250
HC-KAR
since the suit schedule properties are their ancestral properties,
the father of the plaintiff Rajappa could not have alienated the
share of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Therefore, the plaintiff
sought partition and separate possession of the suit schedule
property and also declaration that the sale deed executed by her
father is not binding on her.
2. The suit was resisted by defendant Nos.2 and 3
contending that the father of the plaintiff Rajappa had executed
a registered sale in their favour and a sum of ₹2,00,000/- was
received by him as consideration, and it was for family necessity
and therefore, the sale is valid. It is also contended that the suit
schedule property was a self acquired property of the Rajappa
and as such the suit be dismissed.
3. Defendant No.1 contended that she is also entitled
for a share along with the plaintiff and made a counter claim.
Defendant No.1 supported the plaintiff and sought her share in
their property by making a counter claim.
4. The Trial Court framed the following issues:
"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the suit properties
are joint family properties of the plaintiff and
defendants?
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14250
HC-KAR
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, she is entitled for ½
share?
3. Whether Court fee paid is sufficient?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought
in the suit?
5. What Order or Decree?"
5. The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 to 7
were marked. Defendant Nos.2 was examined as D.W.1 and
defendant No.1 was examined as D.W.2 and and Ex.D.1 to
Ex.D.15 were marked in evidence.
6. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on
record, held that issue Nos.1, 2 and 4 in the negative and issue
No.3 in the affirmative and proceeded to dismiss the suit.
7. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff approached the First
Appellate Court in R.A.No.56/2020 and the First Appellate Court
also confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have
erred in holding that the suit schedule property was sold to
defendant Nos.2 and 3 for family necessity and the appreciation
of the evidence by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court is
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14250
HC-KAR
perverse and as such, there is a need for indulgence by this
Court. It is submitted that the perversity of the appreciation of
the evidence is the only question that arises in this appeal.
9. A careful perusal of the impugned judgments shows
that the Trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence on
record. The P.W.1 had admitted that the Rajappa had debts at
Sangali Bank, Gadag. It was admitted that she came to know
about the alleged sale deed only after filing of the suit. It is
pertinent to note that an effort was made by the plaintiff to enter
the name of the son of the plaintiff in the revenue records, which
was a subject matter of a revenue proceeding resulting in
restoration of the name of defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the revenue
records. Thus, it is evident that the Trial Court has considered
the evidence on record and the excerpts of the testimony of the
P.W.1 are extracted in the impugned judgment. It is evident that
the father of the plaintiff Rajappa had debts and for payment of
such debts, the property was sold. During lifetime of the said
Rajappa, the sale was never questioned and therefore, the Trial
Court as well as the First Appellate Court came to the conclusion
that the suit schedule property was alienated for family necessity
and as such the suit deserves to be dismissed.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14250
HC-KAR
10. No fault can be found in the judgment of the Trial
Court as well as the First Appellate Court in appreciating the
evidence and no such instances are shown which depict or
demonstrate that there is any perversity by the Trial Court as
well as the First Appellate Court.
11. In that view of the matter, no substantial question of
law arises in the present appeal and therefore, at the stage of
admission itself, the appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
SSP
CT:PA
