Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ramappa S/O Durugapap ... vs Maruti A/S Bheemappa Maradiganavar on 3 September, 2025
-1- RSA NO.100123 OF 2023
Reserved on : 21.08.2025
Pronounced on : 03.09.2025
IN THE HIGH CCOURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
Digitally signed
by
MALLIKARJUN BEFORE
RUDRAYYA
KALMATH
Location: HIGH
COURT OF THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2025.09.04
12:46:41 +0530
REUGLAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100123 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAMAPPA S/O. DURUGAPPA
KARIYAMMANAVAR @ MADAR
AGE: 57 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KARUR, TALUK: RANEBENNUR
DISTRICT: HAVERI 581 115.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI N.P. VIVEK MEHTA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MARUTI @ BHEEMAPPA MARADIGANAVAR
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: MAGOD,
TALUK: RANEBENNUR
DISTRICT: HAVERI 581 115
SMT. HALAVVA W/O. BHEEMAPPA
MARADIGANAVAR
(DIED DURING TRIAL APPELLANT NO.1 CAME
ON RECORD AS HER L.R.)
...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECRE DATED 19.09.2022 PASSED IN
RA NO.48/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RANEBENNUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL
AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
29.01.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.447 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE
-2- RSA NO.100123 OF 2023
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, RANEBENNUR DECREEING THE SUIT
FOR PARTITION.
IN THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED ON 21.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS", THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA)
This appeal by the appellant is against the Judgment and
decree dated 29th January, 2018 passed in OS No.447 of 2010 by
the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Ranebennur, which is
confirmed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC
Ranebennur in RA No.48 of 2018 dated 19th September, 2022.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred to as per the rank before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts, leading to this second appeal are that one
Kenchavva is the daughter of Durgappa who was a devadasi and
she had two daughters viz. Durgavva and Fakkiramma. Durgavva
and Fakkiramma were also Devdasis. The said Kenchavva died in
the year 1954 leaving behind Durgavva and Fakkiramma. After
the death of Kenchavva, the names of her daughters, viz.
Durgavva and Fakkiramma have been mutated in the Records of
Rights of suit property vide ME No.2132. The said Durgavva died
-3- RSA NO.100123 OF 2023
issueless. Therefore, the name of Fakkiramma has been mutated
in the name of revenue records under ME No.3538. The deceased
plaintiff No.1-Smt. Halavva and Sri Durgappa, the father of
defendant are the children of Fakkiramma. It is further averred in
the plaint, that defendant, in order to defeat the right of the
plaintiff No.1-Smt. Halavva, got created the document styled as
'Partition deed' by misrepresenting her. Thereafter, deceased
plaintiff No.1-Halavva came to know about the bogus document
through the brother of her adapted son. It is further contended
in the plaint that plaintiff No.1 Smt. Halavva with the consent of
her husband adopted Maruti plaintiff No.1(a), during the lifetime
of her husband, in the year 1993 as per Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act, 1956 and the same was registered in the year
2010. The defendant, in order to dupe the suit property, created
the document on 5th August, 2010 by misrepresenting her and
hence the same is liable to be cancelled. On all these grounds,
the deceased plaintiff No.1-Smt. Halavva filed suit before the trial
Court seeking the relief of declaration to declare that the partition
deed dated 5th August, 2010 is a created one and to cancel the
same and for possession of her half share in the suit property.
4. The defendant appeared through their Counsel and filed
written statement denying the allegations made against him.
-4- RSA NO.100123 OF 2023
Apart from denial, the defendant specifically contended that the
deceased plaintiff No.1-Smt. Halavva, has received an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- from him on 5th August, 2010 in the presence of
witnesses and executed partition deed and the same is registered
before the Sub-Registrar on 06th August, 2010 as per law. The
defendant in order to preserve and retain the property in the
family itself, got arranged the money by raising loan from his
friends and by pledging the property and gave Rs.1,00,000/- to
the deceased plaintiff No.1-Halavva. It is further contended that
the document executed by deceased plaintiff No.1-Halavva is a
registered document and it is valid and legal.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellant Shri N.P. Vivek
Mehta, would contend that both the Courts have failed to
appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective. With
regard to registered partition deed dated 5th August, 2010, it is
stated that in lieu of her share, Smt. Halavva received an amount
of Rs.1,00,000/- and has relinquished her share. The adoption
deed created on 17th September, 2010, and the suit is filed on
16th November, 2010. It is the case of the defendant that Smt.
Halavva has not fixed her LTM on the plaint and affidavit and that
her LTM is a created one. Smt. Halavva had no intention to file
suit. The plaintiffs have failed to prove essential ingredients of
-5- RSA NO.100123 OF 2023
giving and taking to prove the adoption. Mere registration of
adoption deed does not mean that adoption is proved. Maruti
plaintiff 1(a) has filed objections to the revenue authorities to
mutate the revenue records on the basis of registered partition
deed. When the Revenue authorities raised an objection that
there is no adoption deed, then only the adoption deed was
registered. The same is not considered by both the Courts below,
and accordingly, it is sought to admit the appeal by formulating
substantial question of law.
6. Having given my anxious consideration to the
submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant, I
have examined the materials placed before me. The defendants
have not denied the flow of title of suit property to them and
deceased plaintiff No.1. The plaintiff No.1 has filed the suit for
cancellation of registered partition deed dated 5th August, 2010.
The plaintiff has filed suit on 16th November, 2010, within 3
months 11 days from the date of registered partition deed. The
plaintiff has filed suit for cancellation of partition deed contending
that she has not received consideration amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
as stated in the partition deed. The defendant has created the
partition deed by playing fraud and misrepresentation and
accordingly, has sought for cancellation of the partition deed.
-6- RSA NO.100123 OF 2023
7. The defendants have not placed any material to show
that he has paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash to Smt.
Halavva. The trial Court has clearly observed in paragraph 22 of
the Judgment that during the course of cross-examination of the
defendant, he has deposed that he has earned the money on his
own and given to Smt. Halavva. Whereas, in the affidavit filed by
him in lieu of examination-in-chief, he has stated that he has
borrowed the amount from his friends and Dalali merchants to
pay to Smt. Halavva. In the written statement, he has stated
that he has raised loan from his friends and pledged their
property and Rs.1,00,000/- to Smt. Halavva. In the year 2010,
the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was a huge amount. Both Courts
have properly appreciated the evidence on record in its proper
perspective and have come to the conclusion that the registered
partition deed dated 5th August, 2010 is liable to be set aside.
The same cannot be found fault with.
8. With regard to the deed of adoption in favour of plaintiff
No.1(a) is concerned, both the Courts have properly appreciated
the evidence and record and also the provisions of Section 10 and
16 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and have held
that the plaintiff No.1(a) is entitled for a half share in the suit
schedule property. The appellant has not placed any materials to
-7- RSA NO.100123 OF 2023
show that Smt. Halavva has not affixed her LTM in the plaint and
the affidavit and the LTM is a created one. Even in the written
statement, the defendants have not pleaded anything in this
regard. Only, for the first time before this Court, it is argued that
defendant Smt. Halavva has not affixed her LTM in the plaint or in
the affidavit. Hence, the same cannot be accepted.
9. On a careful exam examination of the entire material and
record, I am of the considered opinion that no substantial
question of law arises. The Judgments and decree ended 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, stands dismissed at
the stage of admission itself;
ii) In view of the dismissal of the main appeal,
pending applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn
CT-CMU
