As per case facts, the Regular First Appeal and Cross Objection challenged the trial court's decision to dismiss a partition suit. Plaintiffs and other defendants (except defendant No. 12) claimed ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
- 1 -
RFA No.100069/2016
C/W RFA Crob No.100011/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 27
TH
DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
R.F.A. NO.100069 OF 2016 (PAR/POS)
C/W
R.F.A. CROB. NO.100011 OF 2018
IN RFA NO.100069/2016:
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI BALAGOUDA SIDAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
2. SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. BALAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE:38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
- APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. P.G. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. G.B. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI DADAPPA APPANNA PATIL
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,
1A. SMT. GANGAWWA BALAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BYAKUD ROAD, RAMAPPAGOL FARM,
SAVASUDDI-591235, TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
- 2 -
RFA No.100069/2016
C/W RFA Crob No.100011/2018
1B. SHRI BHIMAGOUD DADAPPA PATIL
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE-591222,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
1C. SHRI REVAPPA DADAPPA PATIL
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE-591222,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
2. SHRI MAHADEV S/O. BASAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE:59 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
3. SMT. BALAWWA W/O. IRAPPA DAWANI,
AGE:49 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
4. SMT. GOURAWWA W/O. SHANKAR PATIL,
AGE:46 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O SOUNSUDDI VILLAGE,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
5. SHRI CHANAGODA S/O. BASAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
6. SHRI NINGONDA @ NINGAPPA SIDAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O. KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
7. SHRI APPANNA S/O SIDAGONDA PATIL
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O. KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
8. SMT. PATREWWA W/O. BASAPPA ULLAGADDI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS,
- 3 -
RFA No.100069/2016
C/W RFA Crob No.100011/2018
8A. SHRI BASAVARAJ HOLEBASAPPA ULLEGADDI
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. 1995, WARD NO.6,
RAJESHWARI ICE FACTORY,
LOKAPUR-587122, DIST. BAGALKOTE.
8B. SHRI VINOD BASAVARAJ ULLEGADDI
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE ,
R/O. 1995, WARD NO.8, SUBHAS NAGAR,
LOKAPUR-587122, DIST. BELAGAVI.
8C. SMT. PRIYA BASAVARAJ ULLEGADDI
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. 1995, WARD NO.6, RAJESHWARI ICE FACTORY,
LOKAPUR-587122, DIST. BELAGAVI.
9. SHRI PATREPPA SIDLINGAPPA TOTAGI
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KUNNAL VILLAGE, TAL. RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
10. SMT. BALAWWA W/O. ASHOK PATIL,
AGE:36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
11. SHRI REVANNA REVPAPA PIDAI
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/.O KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
12. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
HIDAKAL DAM, DIST. BELAGAVI.
13. SHRI BHIMAPPA DODDAPPA PATIL
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
14. SHRI REVAPPA BALAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
- 4 -
RFA No.100069/2016
C/W RFA Crob No.100011/2018
15. SHRI PUNDALIK SHIVAPPA KAMBLE
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
15A. SMT. DRAUPATI W/O. PUNDALIK KAMBLE,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE-591222,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
15B. SHRI NINGAGOUDA S/O. PUNDALIK KAMBLE,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE-591222,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
15C. SHRI KARISIDAGOUDA PATIL S/O. PUNDALIK KAMBLE,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE-591222,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
15D. SHRI RAMESH S/O. PUNDALIK KAMBLE
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE-591222,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
15E. SHRI SHANKAR S/O. PUNDALIK KAMBLE,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE-591222,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
16. SHRI MALLAPPA SHIVAPPA KAMBLE
AGE:57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE-591222,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
17. SHRI HANAMANT NINGAPPA ALAGUNDI
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,
17A. SMT. RANGAWWA W/O. HANAMANT ALAGUNDI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE-591222,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
17B. SMT. SATTEWWA REVAPPA PAKANDI,
- 5 -
RFA No.100069/2016
C/W RFA Crob No.100011/2018
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE-591222
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
17C. SMT. TAYAWWA BHIMAPPA PAKANDI
AGE:38 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. DEVAPURHATTI VILLAGE,
KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE-591222,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
17D. SMT. KEMPAWWA RAYAPPA PUJERI
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. NIPNYAL-591317, TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
17E. SHRI NINGAPPA S/O. HANAMANT ALAGUNDI,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE-591222
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
17F. SHRI NINGAWWA RAMAPPA PUJARI
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O NIPNYAL-591317, TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
17G. SMT. MALLAWWA RAMAPPA PAKANDI,
AGE:28 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. DEVAPURHATTI VILLAGE,
POST: KATAKABHAVI-591222
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
18. SHRI PUNDALIK RAMAPPA MELAVANKI
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
19. SHRI HANAMANT RAMAPPA MELAVANKI
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R10, R13
TO R15(A TO E) AND R17 TO R19 IS APPEARED THROUGH V C;
SRI. BAHUBALI N. KANABARGI, ADVOCATE FOR R11;
- 6 -
RFA No.100069/2016
C/W RFA Crob No.100011/2018
NOTICE ISSUED TO R12, R1(A), R1(A), (B), (C), R8(A TO C);
17(A), R17 (D-G) ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED;
R16-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH;
R17(B) AND R17(C)- SERVICE OF NOTICE IS HELD SUFFIC IENT)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 9 6
R/W. ORDER XLI RULE 1 & 2 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING THAT THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD:11.02.2016 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.56/2011 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAIBAG
REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE PLAINTIFFS FOR PARTITION AND
SEPARATE POSSESSION IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTIES
ALIENATED INFAVOUR OF DEFENDANT NO.12 MAY KINDLY BE SET
ASIDE AND SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFFS IN RESPECT OF THE SAID
PROPERTIES MAY KINDLY BE DECREED BY AWARDING THEIR
LEGITIMATE SHARE IN THE SAID PROPERTIES, IN THE INT EREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN RFA CROB. NO.100011/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI DADAPPA APPANNA PATIL
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,
1A. SMT. GANGAWWA BALAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BYAKUD ROAD, RAMAPPAGOL FARM,
SAVASUDDI. TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591235.
1B. SHRI BHIMAGOUD DADAPPA PATIL
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE, TQ. RAIBAG,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591222.
1C. SHRI REVAPPA DADAPPA PATIL
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE, TQ. RAIBAG,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591222.
- 7 -
RFA No.100069/2016
C/W RFA Crob No.100011/2018
2. SHRI MAHADEV S/O. BASAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE:61 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591222.
3. SMT. BALAWWA W/O. IRAPPA DAWANI,
AGE:51 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE, TAL. RAIBAG,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591222.
4. SMT. GOURAWWA W/O. SHANKAR PATIL,
AGE:48 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O SOUNSUDDI VILLAGE,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591222.
5. SHRI CHANAGODA S/O. BASANGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591222.
6. SHRI NINGONDA @ NINGAPPA
S/O. SIDAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE:61 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591222.
7. SHRI APPANNA S/O. SIDAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE:54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591222.
8. SMT. PATREWWA W/O. BASAPPA ULLAGADDI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS,
8A. SHRI BASAVARAJ HOLEBASAPPA ULLAGADDI
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
R/O. 1995, WARD NO.6,
RAJESHWARI ICE FACTORY,
LOKAPUR, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587122.
8B. SHRI VINOD BASAVARAJ ULLAGADDI
- 8 -
RFA No.100069/2016
C/W RFA Crob No.100011/2018
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE ,
R/O. 1995, WARD NO.6,
RAJESHWARI ICE FACTORY,
LOKAPUR, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587122.
8C. SMT. PRIYA BASAVARAJ ULLAGADDI
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. 1995, WARD NO.6,
RAJESHWARI ICE FACTORY,
LOKAPUR, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587122.
9. SHRI PATREPPA S/O. SIDLINGAPPA TOTGAI
AGE:46 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KUNNAL VILLAGE,
TAL. RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591103.
10. SMT. BALAWWA W/O. ASHOK PATIL,
AGE:38 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591222.
11. SHRI PUNDALIK SHIVAPPA KAMBLE
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
11A. SMT. DRAUPATI W/O. PUNDALIK KAMBLE,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O.KATAKABHAVI, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
11B. SHRI NINGAGOUDA S/O. PUNDALIK KAMBLE,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O.KATAKABHAVI, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
11C. SHRI KARISIDAGOUDA PATIL S/O. PUNDALIK KAMBLE,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O.KATAKABHAVI, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
11D. SHRI RAMESH S/O. PUNDALIK KAMBLE,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O.KATAKABHAVI, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
11D. SHRI SHANKAR S/O. PUNDALIK KAMBLE,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
- 9 -
RFA No.100069/2016
C/W RFA Crob No.100011/2018
R/O.KATAKABHAVI, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
- CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B.RAWOOT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI BALAGOUDA SIDAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE:48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE, TAL. RAIBAG,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591222.
2. SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. BALAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE:40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591222.
3. SHRI REVANNA REVAPPA PIDAI
AGE:38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591222.
4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
HIDKAL DAM, DIST. BELAGAVI.
5. SHRI BHIMAPPA DODDAPPA PATIL
AGE:49 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591222.
6. SHRI REVAPPA BALAGOUDA PATIL
AGE:63 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591222.
7. SHRI PUNDALIK SHIVAPPA KAMBLE
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
DELETED AND HIS LRS HAVE BEEN TRANSPOSED AS
CROSS OBJECTORS NO.11A TO 11E.
8. SHRI MALLAPPA SHIVAPPA KAMBLE
AGE:60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
- 10 -
RFA No.100069/2016
C/W RFA Crob No.100011/2018
R/O KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591222.
9. SHRI HANAMANT NINGAPPA ALAGUNDI
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
9A. SMT. RANGAWWA W/O. HANAMANT ALAGUNDI,
AGE:52 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KATAKABHAVI, TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
9B. SMT. SATTEWWA W/O. REVAPPA PAKANDI,
AGE:40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O KATAKABHAVI,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
9C. SMT. TAYAWWA BHIMAPPA PAKANDI
AGE:38 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. DEVAPURHATTI VILLAGE,
KATAKABHAVI, TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
9D. SMT. KEMPAWWA RAYAPPA PUJERI
AGE:36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KATAKABHAVI,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
9E. SHRI NINGAPPA S/O. HANAMANT ALAGUNDI,
AGE:34 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O KATAKABHAVI,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
9F. SHRI NINGAWWA RAMAPPA PUJARI
AGE:32 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O NIPNYAL,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
9G. SMT. MALLAWWA RAMAPPA PAKANDI
AGE:28 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. DEVAPURHATTI VILLAGE,
POST: KATAKABHAVI,
TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
10. SHRI PUNDALIK RAMAPPA MELAVANKI
- 11 -
RFA No.100069/2016
C/W RFA Crob No.100011/2018
AGE:39 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE, TAL. RAIBAG,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591222.
11. SHRI HANAMANT RAMAPPA MELAVANKI
AGE:39 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O KATAKABHAVI VILLAGE, TAL. RAIBAG,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591222.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. P.G.NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.G.B. NAIK,
ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. BAHUBALI N. KANABARGI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R9(A) TO (E) NOTICE SERVED ON
IA 10/22 TO IA 12/2022 BUT UNREPRESENTED;
R9(F) AND (G)-NOTICE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED;
V/O/DATED 26.09.2024 DECEASED R7 COME ON
RECORD AS CROSS OBJECTOR 11(A TO E);
V/O/DATED 17.08.20222 CROSS OBJECTION
AS AGAINST R9 IS ABATED)
THIS RFA CROB IN RFA NO.100069/2016 FILED UNDER
ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDG E
AND JMFC RAIBAG IN O.S.NO.56/2011 DATED 11.02.2016 IN SO
FAR AS REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THESE DEFENDANTS IN
RESPECT OF THE PROPERTIES ALIENATED IN FAVOUR OF
DEFENDANT NO.12 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL FILED BY TH ESE
CROSS OBJECTORS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQU ITY.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION,
HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 25.03.2026, COMIN G ON
FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, JUSTICE
H.P.SANDESH, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
- 12 -
RFA No.100069/2016
C/W RFA Crob No.100011/2018
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
The Regular First Appeal and the Regular First Appeal
Cross Objection are filed challenging the judgment and
decree passed by the trial Court in dismissing the suit in
respect of the properties which have been sold in favour of
defendant No. 12 by the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and t he
defendants No.1 to 5 so also defendants No. 7 to 11 on the
file of the learned Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Raibag in O.S.
No. 56/2011 vide judgment dated 11.02.2016.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs as well
as the defendants who have filed this appeal and the cross
objection is as follows:
In the plaint as well as in the written statement filed
by them they contended that the suit properties belong to
the joint family and plaintiffs claim 1/3 share in the said
properties. Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are the husband and wife.
It is contended that sale deed was executed without their
knowledge and behind their back, without any legal
- 13 -
RFA No.100069/2016
C/W RFA Crob No.100011/2018
necessity. Hence sale deeds are not binding on the shares
of the plaintiffs. It is contended that deceased Sidagouda
Patil said to have executed two sale deeds dated
14.05.2003 in respect of R.S. No. 4/1 and also in respect of
4/4A totally measuring 1 acre 35 guntas and 3 acres 24
guntas respectively in favour of defendant No. 12. On the
same day, defendant No. 8 said to have executed a s ale
deed in respect of R.S. No. 4/4 measuring 3 acres 2 4
guntas in favour of defendant No. 12 so also on the very
same day defendant No. 7 said to have executed anot her
sale deed in respect of R.S. No. 4/2D measuring 16 guntas
and R.S. No. 4/4B measuring 3.23 acres in favour of
defendant No. 12. It is contended that the said properties
are part and parcel of the suit property bearing R.S. No. 4.
3. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendant N o. 12
has got created these sale deeds with an intention to grab
suit properties. It is also contended that defendant No. 12
is not a bonafide purchaser. There is no partition by metes
and bounds in the suit properties. The plaintiffs are also in
- 14 -
RFA No.100069/2016
C/W RFA Crob No.100011/2018
joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properti es.
Defendant No. 12 on the basis of these sale deeds causing
disturbance to the plaintiffs with their possession. It is also
contended by the defendants that when they filed th eir
individual written statements, defendant No.1 contends that
the case of the plaintiff is true and he also claims 1/3
rd
share so also defendants No.2 to 5 filed their writ ten
statement admitting the plaint averments. They also claim
for 1/3 share so also defendants No. 6, 9 to 12 hav e also
admitted the plaint averments and prayed 1/3 share in the
suit properties. Hence it is clear that based on the pleadings
of the plaintiffs as well as other defendants excep t
defendant No. 12 all of them are sailing in the same boat
contending that sale deeds are created by defendant No.12.
4. The defendant No. 12 who has filed the written
statement has denied the plaint averments and conte nded
that he had purchased the properties by paying the sale
consideration and from the date of sale he is in possession
of the same and the said land was divided and he ha s
- 15 -
RFA No.100069/2016
C/W RFA Crob No.100011/2018
purchased portion of the properties in R.S. No. 4 from the
defendant No.1 as well as defendants No. 7 and 8 on the
same day, i.e. on 14.05.2003. Those properties are sold for
the family necessities. The said properties have been fallen
to the share of the deceased Sidagouda Patil in the family
properties. It is also contended that first plaint iff was
personally present at the time of execution of the sale
deeds by Sidagouda Patil so also defendants No. 7 and 8 as
attesting witnesses to all these sale deeds. Hence
defendant No. 12 is a bonafide purchaser of these
properties. It is also contended that name of def endant
No. 12 has been mutated in the concerned R.T.C. ext racts
and also contended that suit is barred by limitation and all
the sale deeds are more than three years and prayed the
Court to dismiss the suit as against him.
5. The trial Court having considered the pleadings of the
parties framed the following issues:
ISSUES
“1. Whether plaintiffs prove that, the suit properties are
joint family properties?
- 16 -
RFA No.100069/2016
C/W RFA Crob No.100011/2018
2. Whether plaintiffs prove that, the Sale Deeds
executed in favour of defendant No.12 by deceased
Sidagouda Patil dt:14.05.2003, executed by
defendant No.8 Appanna dt: 14.05.2003 and
defendant No.7 dt: 14.05.2003 and not binding on
their shares?
3. Whether defendant No.1 proves that, the Sale Deed s
executed in his favour dt: 14.05.2003 by deceased
Sidagouda, Appanna and Ningdouda are for benefit
of the family or for family necessity?
4. Whether suit is time barred?
5. Whether plaintiffs are entitle for any share in the suit
properties? If so, what share?
6. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for any relief?
7. What decree or order?”
6. The plaintiffs in order to substantiate their ca se
examined the first plaintiff as PW1 and two witness es as
PWs.2 and 3 and got marked in all 28 documents and
closed their side. Defendant No. 3 who also claims share
over the properties, examined as DW1. Defendant No . 12
who is the only contesting defendant examined as DW 2 and
marked 14 documents.
7. The trial Court having considered both oral and
documentary evidence answered issue No.1 in the
affirmative in coming to the conclusion that the su it
- 17 -
RFA No.100069/2016
C/W RFA Crob No.100011/2018
properties are joint family properties; answered issue No.2
in the negative in coming to the conclusion that th e sale
deeds executed in favour of defendant No. 12 are no t
binding and not accepted the case of the plaintiffs; so also
the trial Court comes to the conclusion in answering issue
No. 3 in the affirmative that defendant No. 3 sale deeds are
executed for the benefit of the joint family; answered issue
No. 4 partly in the affirmative in coming to the conclusion
that suit was barred by limitation and also comes t o the
conclusion that plaintiffs are entitled for a share over the
properties in respect of the remaining properties other than
the properties which have been sold in favour of defendant
No.12. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the
trial Court, the present appeal as well as cross objections
are filed.
8. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the
appellant in her arguments is that there is no dispute with
regard to the relationship between the plaintiffs a nd
defendants No. 1 to 11. Defendant No. 12 is a third party
- 18 -
RFA No.100069/2016
C/W RFA Crob No.100011/2018
who had purchased the property from the father of t he
plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.1 is also a consenting witness
not only in respect of the sale deeds executed by the father
but also in respect of the sale deed executed by defendants
No. 7 and 8. The counsel also would vehemently con tend
that the sale deeds are marked as Exs.P. 11, 12, 13 and 14
and also contend that plaintiff No.2 is the wife of plaintiff
No.1 and also the granddaughter. The counsel furth er
contends that plaintiff No. 2 is entitled for 1/5
th
share in the
share of Ningavva. The property was sold and the same is
not for the legal necessity but there an averment in the sale
deed. She further contends that burden is on the defendant
No. 12 to prove that he is a bonafide purchaser but the
same is not proved. The counsel also would contend that
mutation is in favour of defendant No. 12 was set aside at
the instance of the Bank since there were entries in favour
of the bank earlier and loan was also availed and the bank
initiated proceedings for recovery of money.
- 19 -
RFA No.100069/2016
C/W RFA Crob No.100011/2018
9. The counsel further submits that the plaintiff no. 1 has
paid the amount in favour of the bank and got cleared the
loan. Hence the trial Judge ought to have granted relief in
favour of the plaintiff. The counsel would vehemen tly
contends that reasons assigned by the trial Court w hile
dismissing the suit that plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and the
defendant No.5 have signed the document of sale dee d
executed in favour of defendant No. 12 in terms of Ex.P.11
to P.14. Hence they are not entitled for any relie f. The
counsel would further submit that even if the plaintiff No.1
and the defendant No.5 have attested the sale deeds as
witnesses, the trial Court ought not to have rejected the
claim of the other plaintiff and also the other defendants.
Further, in coming to the conclusion that sale was made for
family necessity there is no any cogent evidence before the
trial Court. The trial Court committed an error in coming to
the conclusion that sale deeds were executed for le gal
necessity. The very approach of the trial Court is erroneous
and ought to have granted the relief in favour of the other
plaintiff and other defendants who have not signed the sale
- 20 -
RFA No.100069/2016
C/W RFA Crob No.100011/2018
deeds. She further submits that though it was the case of
the defendant No. 12 that sale was made for legal necessity
but the amount was not utilized for clearing the loan. The
plaintiff No.1 only paid the amount to the bank. T he
counsel further submits that father died in the year 2010
and the plaintiff No. 1 paid amount in 2022-23. Th e
counsel also would submit that defendant No. 12 had
purchased the undivided share and when such being t he
case when there was no division and undivided share is sold
to defendant No. 12, the defendant No. 12 himself ought to
have filed the suit claiming right of possession on the basis
of sale deeds.
10. The counsel appearing for the cross objectors a lso
reiterate the grounds which have been urged by the counsel
for the appellants and also would contend that there was no
legal necessity and there was no partition between the
father and his brothers and there were three branch es to
the original propositor. It is further submitted t hat
defendant No. 3 who is also examined before the trial Court
- 21 -
RFA No.100069/2016
C/W RFA Crob No.100011/2018
as DW1 and makes a claim as in consonance with the claim
made by the plaintiffs. The trial Court committed an error
in dismissing the suit. Hence the cross objection is liable to
be allowed setting aside the judgment of the trial Court.
11. Per contra, the counsel for defendant No. 12 wo uld
vehemently contend that there is no dispute that tw o
properties were sold by the father and other proper ties
were sold by defendants No. 7 and 8. The counsel a lso
would submit that while selling the property there is a clear
recital of family necessity, i.e., family is facing the difficulty
properties are sold. The counsel also submit that only 12
acres 34 guntas of land were purchased by defendant No.12
out of 60-70 acres and the remaining properties are vested
with the joint family. The cause of action stated in the suit
is that it was arisen in the year 2007 when defendant No.7
tried to execute the sale deed, the suit was filed in the year
2011. The counsel also vehemently contends that on the
date of sale, possession was delivered in favour of
defendant No. 12, i.e. on 14.05.2003 and suit is filed after
- 22 -
RFA No.100069/2016
C/W RFA Crob No.100011/2018
eight years. When the father of plaintiff No. 1 had sold the
properties and his brothers have not challenged the same
contending that the same was not for the family necessity,
though it is contended that sellers were addicted t o bad
vices and the same are not proved. The counsel also would
submit that when defendant No. 12 was examined befo re
the trial Court as DW2 contention was taken that during the
drunken stage of the sellers, sale deeds are obtained but
the counsel would vehemently contend that admission on
the part of PWs 1 to 3 as well as DW1 is very clear that the
plaintiff was having debts and in order to clear the debt,
properties were sold and those admissions were taken note
of by the trial Court while appreciating both oral and
documentary evidence. Hence question of allowing t he
appeal and the cross objections does not arise and are liable
to be dismissed.
12. Having heard the counsel for the appellants and also
the counsel for the cross objectors as well as respondent/
- 23 -
RFA No.100069/2016
C/W RFA Crob No.100011/2018
defendant No. 12 the points that arise for consideration of
this Court are:
(1) Whether the trial Court committed an error in
answering issue No. 2 as negative and whether the
trial Court committed an error in answering issue
No.3 in coming to the conclusion that plaintiffs failed
to prove the sale deeds executed in favour of
defendant No. 12 not binds the plaintiffs and
defendants and whether the trial Court committed an
error in coming to the conclusion that sale deeds are
executed for the benefit of the family and whether it
requires interference of this Court?
(2) What order?
13. Having heard the respective counsels and also o n
perusal of the material available on record it is n ot in
dispute that in the suit, it is contended that the properties
belong to the joint family. It is also not in dispute that the
trial Court answered issue No.1 in the affirmative that suit
properties are joint family properties but the very
contention of the plaintiffs that sale deeds are not binding
on the plaintiffs and also it is the contention of the
defendants that sale deeds are also not binding on them
and not sold the properties for family necessity but there is
- 24 -
RFA No.100069/2016
C/W RFA Crob No.100011/2018
no dispute that sale deeds are executed by Sidagoud a Patil
and defendants No. 7 and 8 in terms of Exs.P.11 to P.14. It
is also not in dispute and also during the course of evidence
it is emerged that plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 5 have
attested the sale deeds when the same are executed in
favour of defendant No. 12 by Sidagouda Patil and
defendants No. 7 and 8.
14. The main contention appearing for the appellant s that
even if both of them have attested their signatures as
consenting witnesses and trial Judge ought not to h ave
rejected the claim made by the plaintiff No. 2 as w ell as
other defendants. It is also the contention that it was not
for the family necessity and the trial Court committed an
error in coming to such a conclusion. The counsel also fairly
submits before the Court that if the properties are sold for
the legal necessity, the appellants are out of Court but the
contention is that the reason assigned that plaintiff No.1
and defendant No. 5 have signed the same as attesti ng
witnesses and the same disentitles, this reasoning is
- 25 -
RFA No.100069/2016
C/W RFA Crob No.100011/2018
erroneous and also the amount was not utilized for clearing
the loan and plaintiff No. 1 has paid the bank loan amount
but the Court has to take note of the material available on
record particularly the plaintiffs evidence on record.
15. This Court being the first appellate Court has to
consider both question of fact and law to find out whether
an error has been committed by the trial Court whil e
appreciating both oral and documentary evidence since first
appeal is a statutory appeal. The trial Judge havi ng
assessed both oral and documentary evidence in para graph
No. 20 taking note of the deposition of the plaintiffs and
defendants No. 1 to 5 and defendants No. 7 to 11 ta ken
note of the case of the plaintiffs as well as the defendants
are very clear and all of them question the sale deeds made
in favour of defendant No. 12 but there is no dispute with
regard to the relationship between the parties, i.e., plaintiffs
and defendants No. 1 to 11. The same is an admitted fact.
Except the defendant No. 12 none have contested the
matter.
- 26 -
RFA No.100069/2016
C/W RFA Crob No.100011/2018
16. It is also not in dispute that first plaintiff and
defendant No. 5 consented for the sale which were executed
in favour of defendant No.12 by Sidagouda Patil and also
defendants No. 7 and 8. The nature of properties i s also
not in dispute. It is also important to note that there are
four sale deeds of the year 2003 but the particular date,
14.05.2003. The witness PW1 though denies that fam ily
was not having loans but not specifically denied the same,
but only says that he is not aware of the same and in an
ingenious method denies the same and throughout in the
cross examination except saying that he do not know the
same there is no specific denial. It is very clear that PWs 2
and 3 who have been examined on behalf of the plain tiffs
have categorically admitted that there were bank loans and
loans at societies and the same is in favour of the family.
Though PW1 denies that there was no such loan, but
admitted that notices were issued by the banks. He nce
evidence of PW1 and also PW2 and 3 is very clear th at
family was having loan. It is also important to no te that
- 27 -
RFA No.100069/2016
C/W RFA Crob No.100011/2018
deceased Sidagouda Patil and defendants No. 7 and 8 have
alienated the properties.
17. It is also emerged that first plaintiff as well as
defendant No. 5 also signatories to these sale deeds but the
fact is that other defendants have not questioned the sale
deeds which were made in the year 2003 itself but the suit
is filed in the year 2011, i.e. after eight years. No doubt
plaintiff No.2 is the wife of the first plaintiff and she is also a
relative as contended by the counsel for the appellant and
there is no dispute to that effect. It is important to note
that 1/3 share is claimed by the plaintiffs. The v ery
contention that they were not having knowledge abou t
these sale deeds cannot be accepted for the reason that all
of them are residing jointly and the same is admitted and
also when the sale deeds are executed in the year 2 003
itself the family parted with the possession in favour of
defendant No. 12.
18. It is also important to note that DW1 has categorically
admitted that his deceased father and defendants No. 2 and
- 28 -
RFA No.100069/2016
C/W RFA Crob No.100011/2018
7 were managing the family affairs. The very admission on
the part of PW1, 2 and 3 and though PW1 denies abou t the
loan even when suggestion was made categorically
admitted that PW1 and her uncles and all the brothe rs are
residing together and family was having totally 70 acres of
land. The plaintiff also admits that father died o n
14.08.2010 and also categorically admission was mad e that
during the lifetime father was the Kartha of the family and
the Kartha and other family members have availed lo an
including the father, though intelligently denies the loan by
PW1 but admitted the issuance of notice, even not a ble to
tell what was the extent of property that was sold and
intelligently denies very execution of sale deed in favour of
defendant No. 12. PW1 also admits that defendant N o. 5 is
residing along with them. A categorical admission is given
that notice was given to the father as well as othe r
defendants. Even he admits that notice was given to PW1
also. A specific question was put to PW1 that in order to
clear the bank loan, his father and also defendants No. 7
and 8 have sold the property he has not denied spec ifically
- 29 -
RFA No.100069/2016
C/W RFA Crob No.100011/2018
but only stated that he is not aware of the same and there
is no specific denial. PW1 categorically admits that during
the lifetime of the father they did not challenge the sale
deeds. The other admission on the part of PW2 thou gh
supports the case of the plaintiffs who categorically says
that even not aware of the contents of the plaint a nd
against whom the suit was filed. The plaintiffs on ly
approached him to give evidence before the Court. He is
not even aware of the extent of the land but only says that
in respect of four survey numbers the suit is filed .
However, he claims that properties are adjacent to his
property but not produced any documents. However h e
admits that defendants No.7 and 8 have also execute d sale
deeds in faovur of defendant No. 12 but denied sale made
in favour of defendant No. 12. However he categori cally
admits that in order to clear the bank loan, sale deeds are
executed and also there were loans in the Urban Ban k as
well as in M.G.Bank. The revenue documents stand i n the
name of defendant No. 12. He categorically admits that
sisters were cordial with the plaintiff No.1.
- 30 -
RFA No.100069/2016
C/W RFA Crob No.100011/2018
19. The other admission on the part of PW3 is also very
clear that he is not aware of the contents of his c hief
examination and on the say of plaintiff he has signed the
same and even he is not aware for what purpose and
against whom the suit was filed. However he admits that
defendant No. 12 is in possession of some of the properties
though he denies the sale deeds. He admits that defendant
No. 12 has purchased the same from Sidagouda Patil as
well as defendants No. 7 and 8 and sale deeds were
executed in the year 2003 and revenue records stand in the
name of defendant No. 12 so also he categorically a dmits
similarly that he is the friend of first plaintiff and evidence
of PW2 and 3 is contrary to the evidence of PW1.
20. The other evidence, i.e. DW1 who is also the
defendant No.3 and case of the defendant No.3 is al so
similar to that of the plaintiff. He also admits that he is
giving evidence on behalf of the other defendants. He also
admits that there is an averment in the affidavit that there
was a loan and documents are also produced. He
- 31 -
RFA No.100069/2016
C/W RFA Crob No.100011/2018
categorically admits that all of them have given instructions
while filing the suit. Hence it is very clear that it is nothing
but a collusive suit. The admission is very clear that he
came along with the first plaintiff and also along with other
brother and sisters to the Court to depose in the case.
21. Having considered the evidence of defendant No. 12
he claims that he is a bonafide purchaser and while cross
examining this witness except the suggestions that he did
not enquire before purchasing the property and the sellers
were addicted to bad vices and also during the drun ken
stage sale deeds are obtained but nothing is elicited from
the mouth of DW2. When a suggestion was made that he
did not enquire but he categorically says that he enquired
the children of Sidagouda Patil and his children have also
executed the sale deeds.
22. Having re-assessed both oral and documentary
evidence on record and particularly taking note of the claim
of the parties and also the specific contention of defendant
No.12 that he is a bonafide purchaser and that the sale was
- 32 -
RFA No.100069/2016
C/W RFA Crob No.100011/2018
for the family necessity, all these material admission clearly
discloses that sale was made for family necessity and also
some of the family members have also attested the s ale
deed through plaintiff No. 1 as well as defendant No.5, so
also the uncles have not challenged the sale deeds made by
Sidagouda Patil during his lifetime and they kept q uite
during his lifetime. The answers elicited from the mouth of
the witnesses was clear that there was loan in favour of the
family and notices were issued and intelligently PW1 denies
that there was no loan and PW2 and 3 who have been
examined before the Court have also categorically admit the
sale as well as possession is with the defendant No. 12 as
well as the family loans which were in existence.
23. Though counsel for appellant claims that plaintiff no.1
cleared the loan but the fact is that he was also an attesting
witness to the sale deed and mere making of payment by
plaintiff No.1 cannot take away the case of the defendant
No. 12 who had purchased the property for valuable
consideration. It is not their case that sale consideration
- 33 -
RFA No.100069/2016
C/W RFA Crob No.100011/2018
has not been paid, whether the father of the plaintiff has
paid the amount to the bank or not that is immateri al.
Apart from that the admissions are clear that PW1 to 3 as
well as DW1 that there was loan in favour of the family in
the Urban Bank as well as M.G. Bank. When such mat erial
available before the Court and when the sale was made long
back in the year 2003 and none of them have questio ned
the same and only the ground was urged before the t rial
Court that sellers were addicted to bad vices and the same
cannot be accepted and defendant No. 12 is in posse ssion
of the property from the date of purchase that is in 2003
even till filing of the suit, the family also parted with the
possession and the mere contention that they were n ot
having knowledge of the same cannot be accepted in view
of the admission of PW1 that all of them are residi ng
together and hence we do not find any error on the part of
the trial Court in coming to the conclusion that the very
contention of the plaintiffs that the sale deeds ar e not
binding on them cannot be accepted and the said finding is
based on the material so also the trial Court right ly
- 34 -
RFA No.100069/2016
C/W RFA Crob No.100011/2018
appreciated the material on record while answering issue
No. 3 in coming to the conclusion that sale was mad e for
family necessity having taken note of admission on the part
of PW1 to 3 as well as DW1.
24. We do not find any error in appreciation of evi dence
by the trial Court. The trial Court has assigned c ogent
reasons that some of the family members are the att esting
witnesses to the sale deeds as well as they have no t
questioned the same during the lifetime of Sidagouda Patil
and only subsequent to his death suit was filed tha t too
making an allegation that he was addicted to bad vices that
is after the death of Sidagouda Patil and not durin g his
lifetime. It was their grievance that while taking care of the
family by Sidagouda Patil during his lifetime, he w as
addicted to bad vices and the same is not proved. It is
nothing but an afterthought pursuant to the death o f
Sidagouda Patil approached the Court. Hence, no ground is
made out to reverse the finding of the trial Court. In view
of the discussion made above, we pass the following order:
- 35 -
RFA No.100069/2016
C/W RFA Crob No.100011/2018
ORDER
The Regular First Appeal and the Cross Objections are
dismissed by confirming the judgment of the trial Court.
Parties to bear their own costs.
SD/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SD/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE
BVV
CT-PA
Legal Notes
Add a Note....