[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shri Kotresh S/O. Shantappa Sanjjanar vs Shantappa S/O Ayyappa Sajjanar on 7 April, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5092-DB
RFA No. 100249 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100249 OF 2023 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI KOTRESH,
S/O. SHANTAPPA SANJJANAR,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE JOB,
R/O. JAWALI BAZAR,
MUNDARAGI-581118, DIST. GADAG.
2. SMT. GIRIJA,
W/O. BASAVARAJ GANIGER,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. SHIDDAPUR,
TQ. KARATAGI (GANGAVATI)-583227,
DIST. KOPPAL-583231.
VINAYAKA
BV 3. SMT. SAGARIKA @ GANGU,
Digitally signed
W/O. MAHESH SAJJAN,
by VINAYAKA B V AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE JOB,
Date: 2026.04.07 R/O. C/O. MAHESH GUTTEPPA SAJJAN,
14:42:43 +0530
VIRESHWAR NAGAR,
NEAR BASAVA TEMPLE,
R/O. MUDDEBIHAL-586212, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST. BAGALKOTE.
4. SMT. SUVARNA W/O. SHANTAPPA SAJJANAR,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. JAWALI BAZAR,
MUNDARAGI-581118, DIST. GADAG.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR AND
SRI. A.K. JAIN, ADVOCATES)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5092-DB
RFA No. 100249 of 2023
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SHANTAPPA
S/O. AYYAPPA SAJJANAR,
AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. JAWALI BAZAR,
MUNDARAGI-581118, DIST. GADAG.
2. SMT. URMILADEVI,
W/O. RAMESHAPPA BHUMAREDDI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. C/O. BHUMAREDDI OIL MILL,
MUNDARAGI-581118, DIST. GADAG.
3. SMT. NAGAMMA,
W/O. SANGANAGOUDA KARIGOUDRA,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. C/O. HEMAREDDI MALLAMMA NAGAR,
MUNDARAGI-581118, DIST. GADAG.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2 AND
R3 IN CP NO.20894/2023)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.02.2023 IN
O.S.NO.125/2020 PASSED BY COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC LAXMESHWAR, SITTING AT MUNDARGI AND DECREE THE
SUIT WITH EXEMPLARY COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5092-DB
RFA No. 100249 of 2023
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
Heard the counsel appearing for the appellants and also
the counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and
decree of dismissal of the suit passed in OS No.125 of 2020 on
the file of learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Laxmeshwar,
sitting at Mundargi.
3. The suit was filed for the relief of partition of their
1/5th share each in the suit schedule property and also seeking
the relief of declaration declaring that the sale transaction in
respect of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2
and 3 by defendant No.1 dated 17.08.2001 is not binding on the
shares of the plaintiffs. It is their specific case that suit schedule
property is the joint family and ancestral property of the
plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and there is no any partition in
respect of the suit schedule property and the sale made by
defendant No.1 is not binding on them.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5092-DB
HC-KAR
4. The defendants appeared and filed a written
statement contending that defendant No.1 has executed sale
deed in favour of defendant No.2 and 3 to the extent of eastern
portion of 5 acres 2 guntas and remaining portion was sold out
to defendant No.2 and 3 to incur the educational expenses of
plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 for valuable consideration and also took the
defence that the suit is barred by limitation, and so also the suit
suffers from non-inclusion of house property. The trial Court
having taken note that the sale was made by the father and
plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 are also witnesses to the sale deed in favour
of defendant No.2 and 3 and apart from that suit was filed in the
year 2020 and the property was sold in the year 2001 and
having considered all these factors into consideration, comes to
the conclusion that the suit is barred by limitation. Apart from
that, when the suit is filed for the relief of partition, the house
property bearing TMC No. 3106 i.e., the property of the family
was also not included and having considered all these materials
into consideration, the trial Court comes to the right conclusion
that the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief. The fundamental
issue before the Court is with regard to the limitation is
concerned, almost after 19 years of sale of the property, suit was
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5092-DB
HC-KAR
filed for the relief of partition as well as declaration of sale deed.
Even the plaintiffs are also the majors and their ages are also
mentioned as 36, 35 and 33 years respectively as on the date of
filing of the suit. When such material available before the Court,
we do not find any error on the part of the trial Court in
dismissing the suit. Hence, no ground is made out to admit the
appeal for reconsideration.
5. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the
following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and accordingly, they are disposed of.
SD/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SD/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE
JTR
CT:PA
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 9
