IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1576 OF 2023 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI ASHOKA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

2. SMT. GAMINI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

3. SMT VASANTHI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

4. SRI PRAVEEN AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS Digitally signed

5. SMT VISHWANATHA by SHARADAVANI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS B Location: High Court of

6. SRI PURUSHOTHAMA Karnataka AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS NO.1 TO 6 ARE CHILDREN OF DECEASED LATE ANGARA MAISTRI, ALL ARE R/AT NANTHOOR CROSS, KANKANADY POST, MANGALURU - 575 002 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. Y. RAJENDRA PRASAD SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT GANGAMMA AGED MAJOR, 2. SRI THARANATH AGED MAJOR, 3. SMT. MALLIKA AGED MAJOR, 4. SRI HARINAKSHA AGED MAJOR, 5. SRI KAMALAKSHA AGED MAJOR, 6. SRI DAYANANDA AGED MAJOR, 7. SRI VISHWANATHA AGED MAJOR, NO.1 IS THE WIFE AND NO.2 TO 7 ARE THE CHILDREN OF LATE GURUVAPPA ALL ARE RESIDING AT KAMA KARIYA, MANI THOTA, BAJAL VILLAGE AND POST, MANGALURU - 575 007.

…RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.07.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.87/2021 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANGALURU, D.K., DISMISSED THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.03.2021 PASSED IN OS NO.531/2015 ON THE FILE OF IST ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALURU, D.K.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Hear d Sri. Y. Rajendra Prasad Shetty, learned counsel for the appellants.

2. This Court did not deem it fit to issue notice to the respondents having regard to the issue involved in the appeal and substantial questions of law raised in the appeal memorandum.

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

3.1 Appellants being the plaintiffs, filed a suit in O.S.No.531/2015 in respect of the following immovable property (hereinafter referred to as 'suit schedule property' for short):

SCHEDULE Immovable property held on Warg right, situated in Bajal Village of Mangaluru Taluk, D.K. and comprised in Together with improvements, residential buildings and with all mamool and easementary rights appurtenant thereto.

3.2 It is the contention of the appellants that the suit properties were acquired by late B. Babbu as per the Order of the Land Tribunal dated 10.01.1978 in LRC No.1136/1976-77.

3.3 Babbu died leaving behind two sons namely Angara Maistri and Guruvappa.

3.4 Angara Maistri and Guruvappa died leaving behind their respective wives and children. Plaintiffs are the wife and children of Angara Maistri and defendants are the wife and children of Guruvappa. Thus, plaintiffs claim that they are entitle for half share in the suit schedule property.

4. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants entered appearance and engaged a counsel and filed common written statement denying the plaint averments in toto except admitting the relationship.

5. They contended that Babbu was only a name lendor in land reforms proceedings; neither Babbu nor his another son Angara Maistri did not cultivate the land prior to 01.03.1974 and sought for dismissal of the suit. Defendants also made a counterclaim to the effect that the property mentioned in the written statement needs to be divided in two equal shares.

6. In the written statement, following property was included (hereinafter referred to as 'written statement schedule property':

SCHEDULE Immovable property situated at Kadri Village of Mangaluru Taluk, D.K. and comprised in With residential building and with all other mamool and easementary rights of way, watner and improvements appurtenant thereto.

BOUNDARIES:

North : Main Road South : Portion of the same sy.no. West : Portion of the same sy.no. East : Portion of the same sy.no.

7. Plaintiffs filed rejoinder as against the counter claim to the effect that the counter claim is frivolous in nature. Property bearing Sy.No.98/27A meas