[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt.Yallavva W/O Ramappa Tatti vs Smt.Fakeeravva W/O Hanamappa Tatti on 17 February, 2026
-1-
RFA No.100159 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100159 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. YALLAVVA W/O RAMAPPA TATTI
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KAINAKATTI, TQ: BADAMI,
DSIT: BAGALKOT-587201.
2. SMT. TULASAVVA W/O FAKIEERAPPA HOSAKOTI
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: BELLIKINDI, TQ: BADAMI,
DSIT: BAGALKOT-587201.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PRANAV BADAGI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.B. HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. FAKEERAVVA W/O HANAMAPPA TATTI
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KALAHAL, TQ: RAMADURG, DIST: BELAGAVI-591123.
...RESPONDENT
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS SERVED)
Digitally signed
by
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR
Location: High CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
29.09.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.91/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT
OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BADAMI, DECREEING THE SUIT
FILED BY RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF AND DISMISS THE SUIT OF THE
RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS RFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT
ON 03.02.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
-2-
RFA No.100159 of 2019
CAV JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed by defendants seeking to
set aside the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2018 passed in
O.S.No.91/2016, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Badami (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for short).
2. The appellants herein are the defendants and the
respondent herein is the plaintiff, before the Trial Court.
3. For convenience of reference, the parties herein are
referred as arrayed before the Trial Court.
4. Brief facts of the case are that:
The suit was filed by the plaintiff against defendants No.1
and 2 seeking partition and separate possession of her 1/3rd
share in the suit schedule properties. Late Kashappa Tatti was
the propositus of the family. He had two sons, Ramappa and
Hanamappa, both of whom are deceased. Defendant No.2 is the
daughter of late Kashappa and his wife late Siddlingavva. The
plaintiff is the widow of late Hanamappa and defendant No.1 is
the widow of late Ramappa. It is averred that the suit properties
exclusively belonged to late Kashappa during his lifetime. Upon
his demise, the names of the plaintiff and defendants were
entered in the revenue records as his legal heirs. It is the case of
the plaintiff that the parties are in joint possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule properties, each entitled to 1/3rd
share, and that on 12.11.2016 her request for partition was
refused, leading to the institution of the suit.
5. After institution of the suit, summons was duly issued
to the defendants, who have appeared through counsel but failed
to file their written statement before the trial Court.
6. In order to substantiate the case of plaintiff, plaintiff
himself got examined as PW-1 and got marked documents as per
Exs.P1 to P5. On the other hand defendants neither examined
nor adduced any evidence.
7. Based on the oral and documentary evidence of the
plaintiff, the trial Court framed issues and decreed the suit and
held that the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 are entitled for
1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend
that the Trial Court by only relying on the revenue records and
the documents produced by the plaintiff had decreed the suit and
failed to examine the suit on merits. It is further urged that the
Trial Court decreed the suit without affording sufficient and
reasonable opportunity to the defendants to file their written
statement, amounting to violation of principles of natural justice.
9. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants
and perused the material on record.
10. Having considered the contentions advanced and on
careful perusal of the records, this Court is of the considered
view that the Trial Court did not deal with the matter in the
manner expected in a partition suit involving valuable rights in
immovable property. The impugned judgment and decree passed
by the Trial Court has been rendered mainly on the basis of
revenue records and the evidence adduced by the plaintiff
without a full-fledged trial or proper adjudication of rival claims.
In the absence of written statement and effective evidence of the
defendants, the findings recorded by the Trial Court cannot be
said to be based on a holistic appreciation of the case, and
therefore, the decree suffers from material infirmity warranting
interference by this Court.
11. It is further evident that though the
appellants/defendants were represented by counsel, the Trial
Court proceeded to decree the suit without granting them an
opportunity to file their written statement and place their
defence on record. This has resulted in denial of fair opportunity
and violation of principles of natural justice. However, having
regard to the settled position that Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC is
directory and not mandatory and that the Court retains power to
permit filing of written statement beyond the stipulated period in
appropriate cases, this Court deems it just and proper to grant
one final opportunity to the defendants to file their written
statement, subject to payment of costs, instead of finally
deciding the rights of the parties without affording them an
opportunity to contest the matter.
12. In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate,
in the interest of justice and to ensure a fair trial between the
parties, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial
Court liable to be set aside and the matter deserves to be
remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration in accordance
with law.
13. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court
proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
a) The RFA is allowed.
b) The impugned judgment and decree dated
29.09.2018 passed in O.S.No.91/2016, on the file
of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Badami is set
aside and the matter is remitted back to the Trial
Court on payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand only) before the Trial Court for
causing delay in filing the written statement.
c) The appellants/defendants shall deposit the said
cost of Rs.10,000/- within 30 days from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment
before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Badami.
d) The parties are directed to appear before the Trial
Court without waiting for further issuance of
notice.
e) Upon such deposit, the defendants are permitted
and directed to file their written statement within
two weeks from the date of re-opening of the case
before the Trial Court.
f) On compliance with the above, on receipt of
written statement, the Trial Court shall proceed to
dispose of the suit afresh on merits in accordance
with law, as expeditiously as possible, within eight
months from the date of receipt of this order.
g) Both parties are directed to co-operate with the
Trial Court in disposal of the main suit.
No order as to further costs.
Sd/-
(DR. K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE
KGK,CT:VP
