Present appeal is filed by the appellants, who

are the plaintiffs, aggrieved by the judgment and order

dated 31.07.2020 passed in R.A.No.132/2016 clubbed

with R.A.No.119/2016, on the file of the I Addl.District and

Sessions Judge, Dharwad sitting at Hubballi (hereinafter

referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’), in and by which

the First Appellate Court while setting aside the judgment

and decree dated 29.02.2016 passed in O.S.No.227/2011

on the file of the II Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’), allowed

R.A.No.132/2016 by remanding the matter back to the

Trial Court providing an opportunity to the defendants to

file written statement and to contest the matter.

Consequent to the allowing of R.A.No.132/2016, the First

Appellate Court has dismissed R.A.No.119/2016 without

adverting to the merits of the said appeal. It is this order

- 4 -

of remand, which is challenged before this Court by the

original plaintiffs.

The above suit in O.S.No.227/2011 is filed by

the appellants/plaintiffs seeking partition and separate

possession of 2/4^th share in the suit schedule property. It

is their case that one Siddanagouda Patil, who was the son

of the plaintiffs, was working in South Western Railways,

Hubballi-the defendant No.5 in the suit. That the said

Siddanagouda Patil suffered from paralysis and died on

24.06.2011 during his service. That the said Siddanagouda

Patil was married to defendant No.1 on 16.11.1995. Due

to certain irreconcilable differences between the said

Siddanagouda and defendant No.1, defendant No.1 left the

house in the year 2000. Deceased Siddanagouda Patil and

defendant No.1 did not have any children out of their

marriage. That the defendant No.1 had filed a petition

against the said Siddanagouda Patil in M.C.No.78/2003 on

the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bagalkot under Section

13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the

- 5 -

same was allowed. That during the subsistence of

marriage between the said Siddanagouda and defendant

No.1, he had contacted second marriage with defendant

No.2. That defendant No.2 gave birth to defendant No.3,

out of the said marriage. That there were certain

complaints filed against defendant No.2 by the plaintiffs,

alleging that the defendant No.2 had managed to obtain

her name entered as nominee in the records of Life

Insurance Policies and also in the service records of

Siddanagouda. That taking advantage of her name having

been entered as nominee, she was making claim depriving

the entitlement of plaintiffs, who are the parents of the

said Siddanagouda. Hence, the suit.

Written statement was filed by defendants

No.1, 2, 3 and 4. Defendant No.1 in her written statement

admitted the marriage and also the dissolution of

marriage. It is contented that the petition filed in MC

No.78/2003 for divorce was allowed with a direction to the

said Siddanagouda Patil to pay Rs.1,250/- per month as

- 6 -

maintenance till her lifetime. A counter claim is also made

by defendant No.1 in her written statement. That she has

filed execution petition for recovery of maintenance

amount. That she has not received maintenance amount

after the death of said Siddanagouda Patil and that she

required enhancement amount of Rs.10,000/- per month

and

entitled

to

have

charge

over

the

assets

of

Siddanagouda Patil, against the payment of maintenance.

Defendants

No.2

and

3

in

their

written

statement contented that defendant No.2 is the legally

wedded

wife

of

deceased

Siddanagouda

Patil

and

defendant No.3 is their legitimate child. Therefore

defendant No.2 and 3 are alone entitled for the assets and

benefits of deceased Siddanagouda Patil. Claim of the

plaintiffs and defendant No.1 is denied. Hence, sought for

dismissal of the suit.

Defendant No.4-Life Insurance Company filed

written statement denying the paint averments and

- 7 -

contented that late Siddanagouda Patil had four policies

and had nominated Geeta-the defendant No.2 as his

nominee and as per Secti