Karnataka High Court
Ninganagouda vs Basanagouda on 31 October, 2025
Author: M.G.S.Kamal
Bench: M.G.S.Kamal
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6435
RSA No. 200547 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 200547 OF 2025
(PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
NINGANGOUDA
S/O BHIMANGOUDA MADAGI,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. VILLAGE WANDAGNOOR, TQ. SHORAPUR,
NOW RESIDING AT VILLAGE HADNOOR,
TQ. SHORAPUR, DIST. YADAGIRI-585221.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G. S. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by RAMESH
MATHAPATI
1. BASSANGOUDA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF S/O BHIMANGOUDA MADGI,
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. VILLAGE WANDAGNOOR, TQ. SHORAPUR,
NOW R/AT VILLAGE HADNOOR,
TQ. SHAHAPUR, DIST. YADAGIRI-585224.
2. SHARANGOUDA
S/O BHIMANGOUDA MADGI,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. VILLAGE WANDAGNOOR, TQ. SHORAPUR,
NOW R/AT VILLAGE HADNOOR,
TQ. SHAHAPUR, DIST. YADAGIRI-585224.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6435
RSA No. 200547 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. BHIMANGOUDA
S/O NINGAREDDAPPA MADGI,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. VILLAGE WANDAGNOOR,
TQ. SHORAPUR,
NOW R/AT VILLAGE HADNOOR,
TQ. SHAHAPUR, DIST. YADAGIRI-585224.
4. YAMNAPPAGOUDA
S/O BHIMANGOUDA MADGI,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. VILLAGE VANDAGNOOR,
TQ. SHORAPUR,
DIST. YADAGIRI-585224.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIRANAGOUDA M. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL
BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
13-03-2024 PASSED IN FDP 11/2022 PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, JMFC SHORAPUR AND R.A. NO.39/2024 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED DIST. JUDGE, YADGIRI AND CONSEQUENTLY
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30-01-2025.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6435
RSA No. 200547 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL)
This appeal is filed by defendant No.3 who is the
judgment debtor No.3 before the Trial Court being
aggrieved by the Final Decree Proceedings dated
13.03.2024 passed in F.D.P.No.11/2022 on the file of
Senior Civil Judge & JMFC-Shorapur, which is confirmed by
the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2025 passed in
R.A.No.39/2024 on the file of file of District Judge Yadgir,
(hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court').
2. There is no dispute of the fact that in a suit
filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, in
O.S.No.72/2006, a preliminary decree was passed in
respect of property bearing Sy.No.17/4 and 263/7, both
situated at Wadagera allotting 1/5th share each to the
parties. The said preliminary decree has attained finality.
Seeking enforcement of the same respondents herein
initiated final decree proceedings in FDP No.11/2022. A
Commissioner was appointed for the purpose of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6435
HC-KAR
demarcation of shares and fixing of boundaries as per the
preliminary decree. The Commissioner had submitted his
report. Respondent No.3/appellant herein had filed
objection to said Commissioner's report. The Trial Court
considering the points urged, framed the following points
for its consideration:
1. Whether Court Commissioners
demarcated the boundaries of the suit
properties as per preliminary decree of
O.S.No.72/2006?
2. What order?
3. On consideration of the facts and the objections
raised, answered the same in the affirmative. Accepting
the Commissioner report further directed that the hand
sketch prepared by the ADLR, Jewargi and Shorapur to be
treated as part and parcel of the final decree. Being
aggrieved, the appellant herein preferred the regular
appeal. Considering the grounds urged, the First Appellate
Court framed the following points for its consideration;
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6435
HC-KAR
"1) Whether the appellant proves that the trial
court has not properly appreciated the oral and
documentary evidence and came to wrong
conclusion?
2) Whether the interference of this court is
needed?
3) What order?"
4. And on re-appreciation of the matter, answered
the same in the negative. Consequently dismissed the
appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by
the Trial Court. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before
this Court.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court
erred in not appreciating the fact that the Commissioner
has not demarcated and bifurcated the properties taken
into consideration of the fact that the share which is
allotted to the appellant herein falls in between the shares
allotted to the other members of the family. He submits
the relationship between the parties is strained to the
extent that they will not be able to peacefully enjoy the
shares allotted to them. He submits the only grievance of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6435
HC-KAR
the appellant is that if he was allotted his share in any
corner of the property, he would be satisfied.
6. Heard and perused the records.
7. The grievance raised by the appellant as noted
above, is only with regard to the location of the share
which had been allotted to the appellant. The appellant not
having good relationship with the other sharers cannot be
the ground for this Court to unsettle the final decree
proceedings which have been conducted, concluded with
the active participation of the appellant.
8. No substantial question of law would arise for
consideration in the appeal. Accordingly, the same is
dismissed. Judgment and final decree passed by the Trial
Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court are
confirmed.
Sd/-
(M.G.S.KAMAL)
JUDGE
MSR
CT:PK
