Karnataka High Court
Parappa S/O Jatteppa Dalawai vs Yamanappa S/O Jatteppa Dalawai And Ors on 8 September, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5208
RSA No. 7168 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.7168 OF 2013 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. PARAPPA S/O JATTEPPA DALAWAI,
AGE:: MAJOR, OCC: AGRIL,
R/O: IBRAHIMPUR BIJAPUR,
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
1.a. BORAMMA W/O PARAPPA DALAWAI,
AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
1.b. LAXMAN S/O PARAPPA DALAWAI
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
1.c. SHRISHAIL S/O PARAPPA DALAWAI,
Digitally signed AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
by RENUKA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1.d. PRAKASH S/O PARAPPA DALAWAI,
KARNATAKA AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
1.e. SHARADA W/O PARASHURAM DALAWAI,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
ALL ARE R/O: IBRAHIMPUR,
TQ: & DIST: BIJAPUR.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI S.V.DESHMUKH, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5208
RSA No. 7168 of 2013
HC-KAR
AND:
1. YAMANAPPA S/O JATTEPPA DALAWAI,
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
1.a. JATTEPPA S/O YAMANAPPA DALAWAI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL,
R/O: IBRAHIMPUR,
BIJAPUR - 586 101.
1.b. NARASIMHA S/O YAMANAPPA DALAWAI,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL,
R/O: IBRAHIMPUR,
BIJAPUR - 586 101.
1.c. VILAS S/O YAMANAPPA DALAWAI,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL,
R/O: IBRAHIMPUR,
BIJAPUR - 586 101.
1.d. KRISHNA S/O YAMANAPPA DALAWAI,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL,
R/O: IBRAHIMPUR,
BIJAPUR - 586 101.
1.e. MAHADEVI W/O JATTEPPA ALLOLLI,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: TAMBA TQ: INDI,
DIST: BIJAPUR.
1.f. LAXMIBAI W/O AMOGI TALAWAR,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: IBRAHIMPUR,
BIJAPUR - 586 101.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5208
RSA No. 7168 of 2013
HC-KAR
1.g. BOURAVVA W/O HANAMANT TALWAR,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL,
R/O: IBRAHIMPUR,
BIJAPUR - 586 101.
2. ROSHNABI D/O JAINUDDIN BAILIFF,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: SHAIK COLONY,
J.M. ROAD, BIJAPUR - 586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI AJAYKUMAR A.K., ADV., FOR R1(A) TO R1(E)
AND R1(G);
R1(F) IS SERVED;
VIDE ORDER DATED 18.03.2025 COURT NOTICE TO R2 IS
SERVED)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE IN R.A.NO.30 OF 2004 PASSED BY THE FAST
TRACK COURT-I, BIJAPUR AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IN O.S.NO.312 OF 1987, AND
ALLOW THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5208
RSA No. 7168 of 2013
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR
AMARANNAVAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This second appeal is filed by appellants who are LRs
of plaintiff, challenging the judgment and decree dated
19.01.2013 passed in R.A.No.30/2004 by the Presiding
Officer, Fast Track Court-I/II, Bijapur and the judgment
and decree dated 27.03.1995 passed in O.S.No.312/1987
by the Prl. Munsiff Court, Bijapur.
02. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned counsel for the respondents.
03. The appellants are LRs of plaintiff and
respondents are LRs of defendant.
04. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and
separate possession of his ½ share in the suit properties.
The suit properties are (i) R.S.No.500/1+2/A measuring
13 acres 02 guntas and (ii) R.S.No.500/1+2/B measuring
04 acres 08 guntas.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5208
HC-KAR
05. It is the case of the plaintiff before the Trial
Court that plaintiff and defendant are full brothers and
their father Jatteppa died 15 years ago and the suit lands
are ancestral properties of the parties to the suit and they
constitute a Joint Hindu Family and there was no partition
between them. The further case of the plaintiff is that in
the year 1944, the plaintiff was minor and at that time the
family of the plaintiff was in financial difficulty. Therefore,
the defendant and their mother as guardian of the plaintiff
executed a registered sale deed and sold R.S.No.500/1+2
measuring 13 acres 02 guntas to one Ladlesaheb Talikot.
It is the contention of the plaintiff that the said sale deed
was not an out and out sale, but with a condition of re-
conveyance. It is further case of the plaintiff that the suit
property bearing R.S.No.500/1+2/B measuring 04 acres
08 guntas has been granted by the Land Tribunal in favour
of defendant and the plaintiff is having ½ share in the said
property.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5208
HC-KAR
06. The defendant in his written statement
admitted the relationship between the parties and has also
admitted that the mother of the parties sold property
measuring 13 acres 02 guntas in R.S.No.500/1+2 for legal
necessity of their family to one Ladlesaheb Talikot in the
year 1944. The defendant contended that the land
measuring 04 acres 08 guntas in R.S.No.500/1+2/B has
been granted by the Land Tribunal on 28.10.1974 and
subsequently, the plaintiff has executed a sale deed dated
14.05.1975 and sold his ½ share in favour of the
defendant. The defendant has contended that the said
Ladlesaheb Talikot who has purchased item No.1 of suit
property has not been made as a party.
07. The Trial Court on the basis of the said
pleadings has framed the following issues :-
I. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit lands
are the Hindu undivided joint family properties of
himself and defendant.?
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5208
HC-KAR
II. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the
defendant being their elder brother is the
Manager of their joint family.?
III. Whether the defendant proves that himself and
plaintiff are separated about more than 30 years
back.?
IV. Whether the defendant further proves that the
plaintiff has sold his half share (2 acres 4
guntas) of the suit Sy.No.500/1+2/B for his
family and legal necessity under a registered
sale deed dated 14.05.1975 for a valid
consideration of Rs.3,500/-.
V. Whether the plaintiff proves that the grant of
tenancy right in TNC.SR.No.111/5/74 dated
28.10.1974 and the order of the Land Tribunal
Bijapur in order No.KLR.SR.4 dated 22.01.1975
are for the benefit of their joint family.?
VI. Whether the defendant proves his exclusive title
to the suit lands in his individual capacity.?
VII. Whether this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction
to try this suit.?
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5208
HC-KAR
VIII. Whether the plaintiff has not paid the proper and
sufficient Court fee.?
IX. Whether the plaintiff proves that he has got his
½ share in the suit lands.?
X. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the partition
and separate possession of his alleged half share
in the suit lands.?
XI. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs
sought.?
XII. Whether the defendant is entitled to the
compensatory cost.? If so how much.?
XIII. What order or decree.?
08. The plaintiff has been examined as PW.1 and
got marked Ex.P.1 to 5. The defendant has been examined
as DW.1 and examined one witness as DW.2 and got
marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.9.
09. The Trial Court appreciating the evidence on
record has answered issues No.1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 12 in
the negative, issue No.7 does not survive for consideration
and answered issues No.3, 4 and 6 in the affirmative and
issues No.11 and 13 as per final order and dismissed the
suit of the plaintiff.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5208
HC-KAR
10. The LRs of plaintiff filed appeal challenging the
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in
R.A.No.30/2004. The appellate Court after hearing the
arguments on both sides has formulated the following
points for consideration:-
I. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit lands
are the Hindu undivided joint family properties
or himself and defendant.?
II. Whether the defendant proves that himself and
plaintiff have partitioned the suit lands about 30
years ago and the plaintiff has sold his half share
i.e., 2 acres 4 guntas of suit Sy.No.500/1+2/B
for his family and legal necessity to the
defendant under the registered sale deed dated
14.05.1975 for valid consideration of
Rs.3,500/-.?
III. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the
trial Court is require to be interfered with.?
IV. What order.?
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5208
HC-KAR
11. The appellate Court answered point Nos.1 and 4
in the negative and point Nos.2 in the affirmative and
dismissed the appeal, affirming the judgment and decree
of the Trial Court.
12. The LRs of the plaintiff have challenged the said
judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court,
in the present appeal.
13. Learned counsel for the appellants would
contend that the sale by the plaintiff in favour of the
defendant of his share under the sale deed dated
14.05.1975 (Ex.D.1) is within 07 months of the grant of
the land by the Land Tribunal and that there is violation of
condition. Learned counsel for the appellants admitted that
the said Ladlesaheb Talikot who has purchased the item
No.1 of the suit property in the year 1944 has not been
made as a party.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5208
HC-KAR
14. Learned counsel for the respondents would
contend that the sale by the plaintiff of item No.2 of the
suit property is within the family and the plaintiff has not
produced any documents to show what were the
conditions and what condition has been violated.
15. Having heard the learned counsels for both the
parties, this Court perused the impugned judgments and
the Trial Court records.
16. Ex.P.3 is a sale deed dated 25.09.1944 where
under the mother of plaintiff and defendant has executed
sale deed in favour of Ladlesaheb Talikot alienating
R.S.No.500/1+2/A measuring 13 acres 02 guntas. On the
basis of the said sale deed i.e., Ex.P.3 the name of
Ladlesaheb Talikot has been mutated under M.E.No.2258
on 07.04.1946 which is at Ex.P.2. The said Ladlesaheb
Talikot or his legal heirs have not been made as parties to
the suit. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff that the
said the sale by mother of the plaintiff and defendant is
not out and out sale has been rejected by the Trial Court
and the First Appellate Court.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5208
HC-KAR
17. On perusal of the said sale deed - Ex.P.3 and
translated copy of which at Ex.P.4, does not indicate that
it is not out and out sale and the said Ladlesaheb Talikot
has not been made as a party to the suit.
18. Ex.D.1 is the original sale deed dated
14.05.1975 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the
defendant alienating his ½ share in property
R.S.No.500/1+2/B measuring 04 acres 08 guntas in
favour of the defendant. Ex.D.6 is the copy of Roza Nama
of the Land Tribunal proceedings in KLR.SR.No.4/1974
where under the land bearing R.S.No.500/1+2/B has been
granted in favour of the applicant. The plaintiff has not
produced Form No.10 to show that what was the condition
of the Land Tribunal which is alleged to be violated. The
said sale deed is within the family as one of the brother
has executed the sale deed alienating his ½ share in the
said property in favour of his brother.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5208
HC-KAR
19. Considering all these aspects, the Trial Court
and the First Appellate Court have rightly dismissed the
suit of the plaintiff. Considering the said aspects no
substantial question of law arise for consideration. Hence,
the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
KJJ
CT:VK
