Karnataka High Court
Shri. Sidram S/O Ningappa Kagi vs Shri. Shrihari S/O Shamrao Pise on 8 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11432
RSA No. 101556 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 101556 OF 2022 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. SIDRAM S/O. NINGAPPA KAGI,
AGE-39 YEARS, OCC-AGRICULTURE,
R/O-KALUTI NAGAR, TERDAL-587315.
TQ-RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST-BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. SHRIHARI S/O. SHAMRAO PISE,
AGE-51 YEARS, OCC-AGRICULTURE,
R/O-NEAR DANAMMA TEMPLE,
RABAKAVI-587311,
TQ-RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST-BAGALKOT.
2. SMT. BHAGYASHRI W/O. SHRIHARI PISE,
AGE-46 YEARS, OCC-HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O-NEAR DANAMMA TEMPLE, RABAKAVI-587311,
Digitally signed by
TQ-RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST-BAGALKOT.
CHANABASAPPA K
KALLUR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
3. SMT. RUKMAWWA W/O. NINGAPPA KAGI,
Date: 2025.09.11
16:12:58 +0530 AGE-66 YEARS, OCC-HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O-KALUTI NAGAR, TERDAL-587315,
TQ-RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST-BAGALKOT.
4. SHRI. SIDDAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA KAGI,
AGE-41 YEARS, OCC-AGRICULTURE,
R/O-KALUTI NAGAR, TERDAL-587315,
TQ-RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST-BAGALKOT.
5. SHRI. CHANDRAWWA W/O. MUTTAPPA PUJERI,
AGE-39 YEARS, OCC-HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O-LINGANUR-587301,
TQ-JAMAKHANDI, DIST-BAGALKOT.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11432
RSA No. 101556 of 2022
HC-KAR
6. SHRI. PRABHU S/O. NINGAPPA KAGI,
AGE-37 YEARS, OCC-AGRICULTURE,
R/O-KALUTI NAGAR, TERDAL-587315,
TQ-RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST-BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.1-DECEASED)
(SERVICE OF NOTICE ON RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO R6-HELD
SUFFICIENT)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 READ OF CPC,1908.
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
08.04.2022 PASSED IN R.A.NO.5061/2021 ON THE FILE OF I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT TO SIT AT
JAMKHANDI AT JAMKHANDI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.10.2021
PASSED IN O.S. NO.80/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, BANAHATTI,
DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE
POSSESSION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT
WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA)
The appellant, who is defendant No.1 before the trial Court
has preferred this appeal against the Judgment and Decree
dated 04.10.2021 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Banahatti (for short, 'the trial Court') in O.S.No.80/2017, which
was confirmed by the Judgment and Decree dated 08.04.2022
passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote
sitting at Jamakhandi (for short, 'the first appellate Court') in
R.A.No.5061/2021 clubbed with R.A.No.5070/2021.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11432
HC-KAR
2. The parties are referred to as per their rank before
the trial Court.
3. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that
plaintiff No.1 is the mother and plaintiffs No.2 to 4 and
defendants are her children. It is the case of plaintiffs that
plaintiffs No.2 to 4 and defendant No.1 being the children of
plaintiff No.1 and one Ningappa Kagi, succeeded to the suit
properties. After the demise of Ningappa Kagi, plaintiffs have
4/5th share in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs have
executed a 'General Power of Attorney' (GPA) in favour of
defendant No.1, who has alienated the suit schedule properties.
However, since he has not given them their share of the
consideration amount, they have revoked the GPA, that
defendant No.1 has no right to alienate the suit properties.
Hence, plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition.
4. The defendants have entered appearance through
their counsels. Defendant No.1 has not filed any written
statement. But defendants No.2 and 3, who are the purchasers
of the properties have filed a written statement denying the case
of plaintiffs. It is further contended by said defendants that
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11432
HC-KAR
plaintiffs and defendant No.1 alienated item Nos.1 and 2
properties by a registered Sale Deed dated 28.09.2016 in favour
of defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 has sold property item
No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 by a registered Sale Deed
dated 29.08.2017. The sale transactions have been made by the
plaintiffs and defendant No.1, pursuant to the GPA executed by
the plaintiffs in favour of defendant No.1 and hence, alienation
made by the defendants is just and proper. Hence, defendants
sought for dismissal of the suit.
5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court
has framed 08 issues. To substantiate the case of plaintiffs,
plaintiff No.2 examined himself as P.W.1 and marked 13
documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13. Defendant No.2 examined
himself as D.W.1 and marked three documents as Ex.D.1 to
Ex.D.3. After hearing arguments of both sides, the trial Court has
decreed the suit of plaintiffs in part declaring that plaintiffs and
defendant No.1 that they are entitled for 1/5th share each in all
the suit properties except suit Item nos.1 and 2 of 'B' schedule
by metes and bounds. Suit against defendants No.2 and 3 in
respect of suit Item No.1 plot no.34 and suit item No.2 plot
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11432
HC-KAR
No.35 of 'B' schedule was dismissed with costs. Being aggrieved,
the said Judgment and Decree, plaintiff No.1 preferred
R.A.No.5070/2021 and defendant No.1 preferred
R.A.No.5061/2021. The first appellate Court has dismissed both
appeals and confirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the
trial Court.
6. It is brought to the notice of this Court that one
Smt.Rukmawwa W/o.Ningappa Kagi, who is plaintiff No.1 in
original suit, had filed an appeal before this Court in
RSA.No.100134/2024 and the same came to be dismissed by
this Court vide Judgment dated 30.05.2024. A copy of said
Judgment dated 30.05.2024 is also produced.
7. A perusal of material placed before this Court, clearly
discloses that there are no materials to show that GPA executed
by the plaintiffs in favour of defendant No.1 has been revoked
prior to the sale in question. Both Courts have properly
appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and
facts.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11432
HC-KAR
8. I do not find any error, illegality or infirmity in the
impugned Judgment and Decree passed by both Courts. No
substantial question of law arises for consideration. Hence, I
proceed to pass the following :
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
Registry is directed to send a copy of this order
to the concerned courts.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending
applications, if any shall also stand disposed off.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
CKK
