IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 101255 OF 2022 (PAR/POS)

BETWEEN:

SMT. SUNANDA W/O. TIPPANNA BASETTI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. HOMBAL, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG, PIN CODE-582204.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. SHANTAVVA W/O. PANCHAPPA SHIDDIGERI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. ASHRAYA COLONY, HUILGOL ROAD, BETAGERI, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG, PIN CODE- 582101.

2. SHRI CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA S/O. PRABHAPPA HUNASIKATTI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HOMBAL, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG, PIN CODE-582204.

YASHAVANT 3. SHRI CHANNAVEERAPPA PRABHAPPA HUNASIKATTI NARAYANKAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, Digitally signed by R/O. HOMBAL, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG, YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR PIN CODE-582204.

Date: 2025.10.28

11:25:46 +0530 …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE GADAG, DATED 12.01.2021 IN R.A.NO.56/2020 BY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, GADAG IN O.S.NO.124/2013 DATED 22.01.2020 BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL ALONG WITH COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the concurrent findings of the Trial Court in O.S.No.124/2013 and the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.56/2020.

2. The factual matrix, that is relevant is that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are the sisters and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the purchasers of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff contended that the suit schedule property is the ancestral joint family property of her father Rajappa and he had obtained the same in a partition. It was contended that after death of Rajappa on 16.11.2004, the name of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 should have been entered in the revenue records in respect of suit schedule property. It was contended that defendant Nos.2 and 3 were cultivating the suit schedule property, even during the lifetime of their father Rajappa. The plaintiff later came to know that defendant Nos.2 and 3 had manipulated a sale deed, alleged to have been executed by Rajappa. It is contended that since the suit schedule properties are their ancestral properties, the father of the plaintiff Rajappa could not have alienated the share of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Therefore, the plaintiff sought partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property and also declaration that the sale deed executed by her father is not binding on her.

2. The suit was resisted by defendant Nos.2 and 3 contending that the father of the plaintiff Rajappa had executed a registered sale in their favour and a sum of ₹2,00,000/- was received by him as consideration, and it was for family necessity and therefore, the sale is valid. It is also contended that the suit schedule property was a self acquired property of the Rajappa and as such the suit be dismissed.

3. Defendant No.1 contended that she is also entitled for a share along with the plaintiff and made a counter claim. Defendant No.1 supported the plaintiff and sought her share in their property by making a counter claim.

4. The Trial Court framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the suit properties are joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, she is entitled for ½ share?

3. Whether Court fee paid is sufficient?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought in the suit?

5. What Order or Decree?”

5. The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 to 7 were marked. Defendant Nos.2 was examined as D.W.1 and defendant No.1 was examined as D.W.2 and