Mayavva W/O Bhimappa Galgali vs Basappa S/O Hanamant Awaradi Alias ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1904 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Mayavva W/O Bhimappa Galgali vs Basappa S/O Hanamant Awaradi Alias ... on 27 February, 2026

                                                   -1-
                                                                MSA No.100015 of 2022




                                                                                    ®
                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
                             DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
                                                BEFORE
                              THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
                            MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.100015 OF 2022
                      BETWEEN:

                             BHIMAPPA LAKKAPPA GALAGALI
                             SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

                      1.     MAYAVVA W/O BHIMAPPA GALGALI
                             AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
                             R/O. TAPASHI VILLAGE,
                             TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591233.

                      2.     KAMALAVVA D/O BHIMAPPA GALGALI
                             SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS

                      2.A     BASAPPA S/O SIDDARAM YABARATTI
                             AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
                             R/O. HIDKAL, TQ. RAIBAGH, DIST.
Digitally signed by          BELAGAVI.
MOHANKUMAR B
SHELAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,            2.B. KAREPPA S/O BASAPPA YABARATTI
Dharwad Bench
                           AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
                           R/O. HIDKAL, TQ. RAIBAGH, DIST.
                           BELAGAVI.

                      2.C MUTTEPPA S/O BASAPPA YABARATTI
                          AGE. 23 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
                          R/O. HIDKAL, TQ. RAIBAGH, DIST.
                          BELAGAVI.

                      3.     KASTURI D/O BHIMAPPA GALGALI
                             AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
                             R/O. TAPASHI VILLAGE, TQ. GOKAK,
                             DIST. BELAGAVI-591233.
                            -2-
                                        MSA No.100015 of 2022




4.   MUTTEPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA GALGALI
     AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
     R/O. TAPASHI VILLAGE, TQ. GOKAK,
     DIST. BELAGAVI-591233.

5.   KALLAPPA
     S/O BHIMAPA GALGALI
     AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
     R/O. TAPASHI VILLAGE, TQ. GOKAK,
     DIST. BELAGAVI-591233.

6.   RENUKA
     D/O BHIMAPPA GALGALI
     AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O. TAPASHI VILLAGE, TQ. GOKAK,
     DIST.BELAGAVI-591233.
                                                ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   BASAPPA
     S/O HANAMANT AWARADI @ YEMMEPPAGOL
     AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
     R/O. TAPASHI VILLAGE, TQ. GOKAK,
     DIST.BELAGAVI-591233.

2.   SMT. DUNDAWWA
     W/O BASAPPA YALLUR
     AGE. 63 YEARS,
     OCC. AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O. TAPASHI VILLAGE, TQ. GOKAK,
     DIST.BELAGAVI-591233.

3.   SMT. LAXMAVVA
     W/O UDDAPPA KULAGOD
     AGE. 60 YEARS,
     OCC. AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O. TAPASHI VILLAGE, TQ. GOKAK,
     DIST.BELAGAVI-591233.
                             -3-
                                           MSA No.100015 of 2022




4.   BAGAWWA
     D/O BALAPPA KARIGAR
     AGE. 73 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
     C/O. GURASIDDAPPA SIDDPPA KARIGAR,
     R/O. WADDAR ONI, GOKAK,
     CALLING HERSELF @ YEMMEPPAGOL-591228.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.B. MALIGWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
R4- HELD SUFFICIENT (VIDE ORDER DATED 01.03.2024)

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
ORDER 43 RULE 1(U) CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.02.2022 PASSED BY THE LD
I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE GOKAK IN R.A.NO.62/2016,
REVERSING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.07.2016
PASSED BY THE LD ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, GOKAK IN O.S.NO.366/2004 AND
CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
08.07.2016 PASSED BY THE LD ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JUDICIAL     MAGISTRATE     FIRST        CLASS,     GOKAK      IN
O.S.NO.366/2004 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.


     THIS MSA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT      ON   18.02.2026      AND     COMING      ON    FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT      THIS   DAY,    JUDGMENT    WAS    DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM:     THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
                                -4-
                                             MSA No.100015 of 2022




                        CAV JUDGMENT

The present appeal is filed seeking to set aside the

judgment and decree dated 05.02.2022 in R.A.No.62/2016, on

the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gokak ('the First

Appellate Court' for short), and restore the judgment and decree

dated 08.07.2016 in O.S.No.366/2004, on the file of the

Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Gokak ('the Trial Court' for

short).

2. The appellants herein were the defendants and

respondents No.1 to 3 herein were the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 before

the Trial Court.

3. For convenience of reference, the parties herein are

referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present

appeal are that:-

The plaintiffs/respondents herein filed O.S.No.366/2004 for

declaration of ownership over the suit schedule property bearing

R.S.No.186/2 measuring 04 acres 29 guntas situated at Tapasi

village, Gokak Taluk, by setting aside the sale deed dated

02.12.1998 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant

No.1, and for permanent injunction and possession. The property

originally formed part of Sy.No.186 measuring 08 acres 10

guntas owned by Dundayya @ Kenchappa Awaradi. After his

death, his son Hanamant succeeded, and thereafter Kenchappa

and Ningappa inherited. The land was divided into R.S. No.186/1

measuring 03 acres 21 guntas allotted to Dundayya Kenchappa

Awaradi and R.S.No.186/2 measuring 04 acres 29 guntas

allotted to Bhima Ningappa Awaradi. Bhima had no issues and

after his death, his wife Smt. Kenchawwa adopted Laxman of

Chikkanandi village. Laxman's wife Siddavva died on

15.06.1968. Laxman died on 01.06.984. The plaintiffs, being the

children of Hanamant and claiming to be the nearest legal heirs

of Laxman who had no issues, contended that they have been in

possession and cultivation of the suit schedule property since

1968, raising crops such as jowar, sajji and madaki. In June

2004 they obtained the record of rights and found the name of

defendant No.1 entered on the basis of a sale deed dated

02.12.1998 allegedly executed by defendant No.2 as wife of

deceased Laxman, which they contended was bogus and forged,

asserting that defendant No.2 was not the wife of Laxman and

that Siddavva had died on 15.06.1968 prior to Laxman's death.

5. Defendant No.1 adopted the written statement of

defendant No.2 and contended that defendant No.2 was the

legally wedded wife of deceased Laxman Bhimappa Awaradi,

having married him on 18.10.1968 in 'Udaki' form after the

death of his first wife Siddavva, and lived with him until his

death that is till 1984. It was contended that Laxman had

purchased the suit schedule property from Bagavva on

30.10.1953, that after his death, defendant No.2 succeeded to

the property and her name was mutated under M.E.No.3363,

and that she sold the suit schedule property to defendant No.1

under a registered sale deed dated 02.12.1998 for valuable

consideration of Rs.25,000/-, whereupon his name was mutated

under M.E.No.3381 and possession was delivered to him on the

same day. The defendants contended that the suit was barred by

limitation and that the plaintiffs had knowledge of the sale. It

was further contended that Shivappa Demappa Jallikatti and

Ramappa Demappa Jallikatti filed RTS appeals against

M.E.No.3363 and M.E.No.3381 before the Assistant

Commissioner, Bailhongal, which were dismissed, and thereafter

instigated the plaintiffs to file the suit.

6. In order to substantiate the case of the plaintiffs,

plaintiff No.3 was examined as PW1 along with PW2 to PW4 and

got marked documents as per Exs.P1 to P34. On the other hand,

defendants examined DW1 and DW2 and got marked documents

as per Exs.D1 to D14; defendant No.1 examined himself as DW3

and examined DW4 and DW5 and got marked documents as per

Exs.D15 to D23.

7. By judgment and decree dated 08.07.2016, the Trial

Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs

preferred R.A.No.62/2016 before the First Appellate Court and

filed I.A.Nos.6 and 7 under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC for

additional evidence and I.A.No.11 for amendment of plaint. By

considering pleadings and materials placed on record, the First

Appellate Court by judgment dated 05.02.2022, allowed

I.A.Nos.6, 7 and 11 on cost of Rs.3,000/-, allowed the appeal

under Order XLI Rule 1 of the CPC, set aside the judgment and

decree passed by the Trial Court and remanded the matter to the

Trial Court for fresh disposal permitting amendment and

additional evidence, directing parties to appear on 08.03.2022

and to bear their own costs wherein it was held as under:-

67. ..... the proposed amendment is sought for insertion of new facts in the plaint relating to the contents of the documents, which are allowed f to be produced as

additional evidence. That apart, the proposed amendment is not utter contrary to the case that has been pleaded by the plaintiffs. Because, same is not denied by the defendants and moreover the proposed amendment is very much necessary to produce and prove the said additional evidence by the plaintiffs and also it is necessary to determine the real question in controversy between the parties. Moreover, it neither changes the nature of the suit nor brings a new cause of action and also it would discussed hereinabove, the 2nd defendant has not proved the not cause hardship to the defendants.

Furthermore, as fact of solemnization of the alleged Udaki marriage between herself and the deceased Laxman. On the other hand, the plaintiffs are able to produce oral evidence to substantiate their case. But, as the relief is in respect of declaration of ownership on the suit property, based on such oral evidence ownership of the plaintiffs over the immovable property cannot be declared and such oral evidence must be corroborated by the documentary evidence. / Therefore, one more opportunity has to be given to the plaintiffs to substantiate their case and prove their right over the suit property by producing additional evidence and amending the plaint as sought in the IA.No.6, 7 and 11. In the circumstances, this court deems fit to hold that there are acceptable reasons and also exceptional and extraordinary circumstances in the case in which the proposed amendment needs to be allowed to meet the ends of justice and avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

68. In view of the aforesaid discussions, reasons and findings of this court, the impugned judgment and decree needs to be set aside by the intervention of this court and remand the matter for fresh disposal in accordance with law by allowing the plaintiffs to carryout amendment as sought in the IA.No.11 and receiving the additional evidence as sought in the IA.No.6 and 7.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants

would contend that the impugned judgment and decree dated

05.02.2022 passed by the First Appellate Court in

R.A.No.62/2016 is contrary to law, facts and evidence on record,

arbitrary, illegal, erroneous and perverse, resulting in

miscarriage of justice. The First Appellate Court has not properly

appreciated the oral and documentary evidence produced by the

appellants, and the findings recorded are contrary to the

pleadings and materials on record. The reasons assigned are

neither proper nor cogent, and the conclusions arrived at are

unsustainable in law.

9. It is further contended that the First Appellate Court

committed grave error in allowing I.A.Nos.6, 7 and 11 at the

stage of arguments of the appeal without the respondents

showing sufficient cause as required under Order XLI Rule 27 of

the CPC. The documents sought to be produced under I.A.Nos.6

and 7 pertain to RTS proceedings, are not relevant for

adjudication of right and title, and were already produced before

the Trial Court. The First Appellate Court failed to determine the

relevancy and necessity of the additional evidence before

exercising jurisdiction. Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC does not

empower acceptance of additional evidence in the absence of

satisfactory explanation for non-production before the Trial

Court, especially when the Trial Court had already determined all

relevant issues including limitation under Article 58 of the

- 10 -

Limitation Act. The First Appellate Court also failed to consider

that the respondents were aware of the RTS proceedings which

had been disposed of prior to filing of the suit, and ought to have

decided the appeal under Order XLI Rule 28 of the CPC instead of

remanding the matter.

10. It is contended that the First Appellate Court further

erred in allowing I.A.No.11 seeking amendment of the plaint at

the appellate stage, which is impermissible in law, alters the

nature of the suit, introduces a new cause of action and is barred

by limitation, and was not necessary for determination of the

issues. Despite recording a finding that declaration of ownership

cannot be granted on oral evidence without corroborative

documentary evidence, the Court granted a fresh opportunity to

the plaintiffs by remanding the matter, thereby prejudicing the

rights of the appellants. The remand for fresh disposal without

proper enquiry and consideration of all relevant aspects is

erroneous and has resulted in miscarriage of justice.

11. In support of the contentions, learned counsel for the

appellants has placed reliance on the following judgments:-

• Andhra Pradesh Southern power Distribution power Company Limited and Another v.

- 11 -

Hinduja National Power Corporation Limited and another reported in (2022) 5 SCC 484;

• Basavaraj v. Indira and others reported in (2024) 3 SCC 705;

• H.S.Goutham v. Rama Murthy and another reported in (2021) 5 SCC 241;

• Shakuntalabai and another v. L.V.Kulkarni and another reported in (1989) 2 SCC 526; and

• Rabiya Bi Kassim M v. The Country wide Consumer Financial Service Limited reported in ILR 2004 KAR 2215.

12. The learned counsel for the respondents would

contend that the I.A.Nos.6 and 7 were filed much prior to the

matter got reserved for judgment. However the I.A.No.11 for

amendment was filed when the matter which was reserved for

judgment was posted for further clarification. The said date is

not reflected on the e-Court services Application. The appellant

herein have also filed objections to the said IA's. Hence the IA's

filed by the respondent are legally sustainable.

13. The learned counsel for the respondents would

further contend that the RTC extracts, mutation register

extracts, gift deed and sale deed pertain to the suit schedule

- 12 -

property and disclose that Kenchavva W/o Bhimappa gifted the

suit schedule property in favour of Bagappa Ittappa Awaradi on

14.01.1946, and that Bagappa Ittappa Awaradi thereafter sold

the suit schedule property in favour of deceased Laxman on

03.07.1953 under a registered sale deed, pursuant to which the

khatha was transferred to the name of Laxman. Though these

transactions were not originally pleaded in the plaint, the

plaintiffs have sought amendment by way of filing I.A.No.11 to

incorporate the said facts, including reference to

O.S.No.232/2005 filed by defendant No.2 before the Trial Court

in respect of another property of Laxman, the pleadings therein

regarding the mode of solemnization of marriage between

defendant No.2 and Laxman, and the orders passed by the

Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal confirming the order of the

Tahasildar cancelling the legal heir certificate issued by the

Village Accountant, as well as the order passed by the Deputy

Commissioner, Belagavi in revision.

14. It is contended that the respondents that deceased

Laxman purchased the suit schedule property and have not

denied the aforesaid transactions under the gift deed dated

14.01.1946 and sale deed dated 03.07.1953, and therefore the

- 13 -

said documents are material for adjudication of title and may be

permitted in light of the decision reported in Ambasa

Peetambarasa Rangreji dead by Lrs and others v.

Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Gadag and

others reported in 2022 (1) KCCR 248, whereas the decision

reported in Surjit Singh and others v. Guruwant Kour and

others reported in (2014) SCCR 887 is stated to be

inapplicable to the facts of the present case.

15. In support of the contentions, learned counsel for the

respondents has placed reliance on the following judgments:-

• Leeladevi and another v. Narayan, since deceased by his LRs. And another reported in ILR 2017 KAR 3557; and

• Shanthaveerappa v. K.N. Janardhanchari reported in ILR 2007 KAR 1127.

16. Heard learned counsel on either side and perused the

materials on record.

17. Having perused the judgments relied upon by the

learned counsel for the parties, the rival submissions advanced

on either side, and on careful examination of the daily orders

reflected in the e-Courts services, it is evident that though the

matter was initially reserved for judgment by the First Appellate

- 14 -

Court, I.A.No.11 had not been filed at that stage when the

matter was set down for judgment before pronouncement of

judgment. The record further discloses that subsequently the

matter, which had earlier been reserved, was posted for

clarification by the First Appellate Court.

18. It is at that stage when the appeal was listed for

clarification that IA No.11 came to be filed. The daily order sheet

clearly indicates that the proceedings had not culminated in

pronouncement of judgment and that the Court had reopened

the matter for the limited purpose of clarification. Therefore, it is

not correct to state that the application was filed when the

matter stood finally reserved for judgment in its strict sense.

19. The records further reveal that upon filing of I.A.

No.11, the appellants herein filed their objections to the said

interlocutory application. The First Appellate Court has taken

note of the objections and thereafter proceeded to consider and

pass orders on the application. Thus, the parties were afforded

due opportunity to contest the matter.

20. In view of the above, the contention that I.A.No.11

was filed after the matter was reserved for judgment and

immediately prior to pronouncement so as to render the

- 15 -