IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 5774 OF 2013 BETWEEN:

1. RUDRAWWA W/O. DHARMANNA DALAWAR @ BATAKURKI, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. JANAMATTI, TQ. BILAGI-581322, DIST. BAGALKOTE.

2. RUDRAWWA D/O. DHARMANNA DALAWAR @ BATAKURKI, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. JANAMATTI, TQ. BILAGI-581322, DIST. BAGALKOTE.

3. RENUKA W/O. SHIRDHAR KARADIGUDDA, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. JANAMATTI, TQ. BILAGI-581322, DIST. BAGALKOTE.

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

YASHAVANT ROOPA @ IRAVVA CALLING HERSELF NARAYANKAR W/O. PRABHU DALAWAR @ BATAKURKI, AGE: 23 YEARS, Digitally signed by OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK AND AGRICULTURE, YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR R/O. JANAMATTI, TQ. BILAGI-581322, Date: 2025.11.18

10:35:34 +0530 DIST. BAGALKOTE.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MANE, ADVOCATE)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD. 24.08.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.3/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BILAGI, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD.17.01.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.49/2009 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BILAGI BY ALLOWING THE TOP NOTED APPEAL TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)

Heard.

2. The appellants are the defendants in O.S.No.49/2009, which was filed for partition and separate possession. The appellants having suffered the decree in the Trial Court and in first appeal i.e., in R.A.No.3/2013, are before this Court in second appeal.

3. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that, she married one Prabhu, who is the son of defendant No.1 and brother of defendants No.2 and 3 on 11.05.2006 as per the custom and rituals prevailed in their community. It was alleged that she led the marital life with the said Prabhu for a short span of two years and thereafter, he died an untimely death. When the appellant sought for her 1/4^th share in the suit schedule property, the defendants denied her share and therefore, she was constrained to file the suit. She contended that the marriage was solemnized as per the rituals prevailing in their community and the defendants are unjustly denying her share in the suit schedule property.

4. The said suit was resisted by the defendants on the ground that the plaintiff is not the wife of the deceased Prabhu, the relationship is not admitted. They contended that the plaintiff is not entitled for any share that would fall to the share of deceased Prabhu, unless the marriage is proved by the plaintiff. The defendants contended that the plaintiff has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property and the suit is barred by time and as such, the suit be dismissed.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues.

i. Whether the plaintiff proves that suit schedule properties are the joint family properties?

ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief as prayed for?

iii. What order or decree?

Addl. Issue No.1 Whether the plaintiff proves that, she is legally wedded wife of deceased Prabhu?

6. In the trial, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and Exs.P1 to 7 were marked in evidence. Two witnesses were examined on her behalf as PW2 and PW3. The defendant No.2 was examined as DW1 and no document was produced.

7. After hearing the arguments, the Trial Court answered issue No.1 and 2 and additional issue in the ‘affirmative’ and proceeded to decree the suit. Being aggrieved, the defendants approached the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.3/2013 and the same came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the Trial Court and First Appellate Court erred in appreciating the evidence in a proper way. It is his contention that Ex.P3 is only a pre-marriage Yadi, where an agreem