Karnataka High Court
Gulappa S/O Basavannepppa Alias Pujar vs Smt. Laxmavva Karevva W/O Basavanneppa ... on 3 September, 2025
-1-
RSA No. 100281/2023
Reserved on : 18.08.2025
Pronounced on : 03.09.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
REUGLAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100281 OF 2023
Digitally signed
by
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA
KALMATH
Location: HIGH
BETWEEN:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2025.09.04
12:46:47 +0530
GULAPPA S/O. BASAVANNEPPPA @ PUJAR
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE
R/O: AMMINABHAVI, '
TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S.B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. LAXMAVVA KAREVVA
W/O. BASAVANNEPPA @ BASAPPA PUJAR @ PUJARI
REPORTED TO BE DIED REPRESENTED BY LRS
I.E. APPELLANT AND RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO 4)
1. SMT. YALLAVVA W/O. MANJUNATH RAYANAL
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KURUVINAKOPPA,
TQ. KALAGHATAGI, DIST. DHARWAD.
2. SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O. BASAVANNEPPA
@ BASAPPA PUJARI @ PUJARI
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KURUVINAKOPPA,
TQ. KALAGHATAGI, DIST.DHARWAD.
3. BASAVANEPPA @ BASAPPA
S/O. SOMAPPA PUJAR
AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-2-
RSA No. 100281/2023
R/O: AMMINABHAVI,
TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD.
4. SURESH S/O. BASAVANNEPPA
@ BASAPPA PUJAR
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O: AMMINABHAVI,
TQ. KALAGHATAGI, DIST. DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE SERVED TO R1 TO R4)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, R/W
ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL
BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED.14.09.2022 IN R.A.NO.20/2020 PASSED BY THE III
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM DHARWAD AND SO ALSO
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., DHARWAD ON 17.01.2020 IN
O.S.NO.433/2014 BY DISMISSING THE SUIT OF THE
PLAINTIFF.
IN THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED ON 18.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA)
The captioned second appeal is by the unsuccessful
defendant who is questioning the concurrent findings of the
Courts below in granting share to the plaintiff in respect of suit
schedule properties.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the
plaintiffs filed suit for partition and separate position against the
defendant with respect to the Suit schedule property. It is
stated that the suit property are the ancestral and joint family
properties, comprising of plaintiff and defendant and the
plaintiff and defendant are the members of joint Hindu
undivided family. Plaintiff No.1 is the second wife of defendant
No.1 and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children of plaintiff No.1 and
defendant No.1. Defendants 2 and 3 are children of defendant
No.1 and deceased Shantavva. Defendant No.1 married the
plaintiff after the death of Shantavva, but there is no partition
among the plaintiffs and defendants with respect suit property.
Since the defendants refused to allot their share in the suit
property, plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition and separate
position.
4. Upon service of notice, defendant appeared through
their advocate. Defendant No.3 filed the written statement and
the same is adopted by defendants 1 and 2. Defendant No.3 in
the written statement has admitted that the suit lands are
ancestral properties, but has contended that the VPC No.1563 is
not ancestral property and it is a self-acquired property.
Further, he has contented that the suit of the plaintiffs is bad
for non-joinder of all the properties of the family in the suit.
Plaintiff No.1 purchased the properties bearing RS No.53,
measuring 1 acre five guntas and properties bearing (1) 217/D,
(2) VPC No.91/A, (3) VPC No.11, (4) VPC No.31, (5) VPC No.58,
(6) VPC No.57, (7) VPC No.59, (8) VPC No.90 and (9) VPC
No.217/D, in her name and all are situated in Kuruvinakoppa
village. The above properties which are purchased out of funds
of defendants 2 and 3 and are not included in the suit. Hence,
the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable due to non-joinder
of all the properties.
5. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed four
issues and out of that answered issue No.1 in the negative;
issues 2 and 3 partly in the affirmative and accordingly, decreed
the suit holding that plaintiffs 2 and 3 are entitled for 1/5th
share each in items 1 and 2 of the schedule properties and the
defendants 1 to 3 are entitled for 1/5th share each in items 1
and 2 of the schedule properties. The suit of the plaintiffs with
respect to item No.3 was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the
Judgment and decree, the defendants preferred appeal before
the appellate Court in RA No.20 of 2020. The same came to be
dismissed by judgment dated 14th September 2022. Being
aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed by both the
Courts, the appellant has preferred the present second appeal.
6. Sri S.B. Doddagoudar, learned Counsel appearing for
the appellant would submit that the suit filed by the plaintiff is
not maintainable for the reason that defendants 1 to 3 have
specifically pleaded in their written statement that some of the
properties have not been included in the suit. Hence, the suit is
bad for non-joinder of necessary properties. Without impleading
the properties, defendants have produced Exhibits D1 to D5.
Though the defendants have placed material to show that other
properties existed which ought to have been included for
effecting partition, the trial Court ignored the same and decreed
the suit which is not maintainable. He would further submit
that without impleading the said properties, the finding of the
trial Court that the properties are self-acquired properties of the
plaintiff, is incorrect.
7. Upon perusal of the Judgment of the trial Court it could
be seen that at paragraphs 16 to 29, the trial Court has
elaborately discussed as to the defence set up by the plaintiff
that the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of family
properties. Both the Courts have held that the defendants have
failed to prove that the properties bearing RS No.53, measuring
1 acre 5 guntas and properties bearing numbers (1) 217/D, (2)
VPC No.91/A, (3) VPC No.11, (4) VPC No.31, (5) VPC No.58, (6)
VPC No.57, (7) VPC No.59, (8) VPC No.90 and (9) VPC
No.217/D are the ancestral and joint family properties of
plaintiff and defendants. Both the Courts have properly
appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and
facts and decreed the suit in part.
8. In addition to this, though the defendants have
admitted that suit lands are ancestral properties, they have not
filed any counter-claim in the suit properties and the properties
bearing RS No.53, measuring 1 acre 5 guntas and properties
bearing 1) 217/D, (2) VPC No.91/A, (3) VPC No.11, (4) VPC
No.31, (5) VPC No.58, (6) VPC No.57, (7) VPC No.59, (8) VPC
No.90 and (9) VPC No.217/D. If the above properties are joint
family properties, the defendants would sought for their
legitimate share in those properties. This conduct of the
defendant reveals that the intention of defendants is only for
dismissal of the suit which is not sustainable. Therefore, no
substantial question arises. The Judgments and decree and by
the Courts below are based on legal evidence let in by both the
parties. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal, being devoid of merits, is dismissed at
the stage of admission itself;
ii) In view of the dismissal of the main appeal,
pending applications, if any, do not survive
consideration, and accordingly stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn
CT-CMU
