IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100984 OF 2018 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SRI. RAMESH S/O. NANDEPPA BIRADAR,

AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC. TREASURE IN BTDA OFFICE,

R/O. VIDYGIRI, TQ. AND DIST. BAGALKOTE-587101.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. M.C. HUKKERI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. PRAVEEN S/O. RAMESH BIRADAR,

AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC. WORKING IN JAMKHANDI SUGARS,

R/O. TEACHERS COLONY JAMKHANDI,

TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587301.

2. SMT. SHIVALEELA W/O. MALLAPPA BALAGAR,

AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,

R/O. KONNUR, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOTE,

NOW RESIDING AT HUNNUR,

TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587301.

3. SMT. SULOCHANA W/O. RAMESH BIRADAR,

YASHAVANT

AGE:50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,

NARAYANKAR

R/O. TEACHERS COLONY, JAMKHANDI,

Digitally signed by TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587301.

YASHAVANT

NARAYANKAR …RESPONDENTS

Date: 2025.12.12

11:50:39 +0530 (BY SRI. KOUJALAGI C.L., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R3;

SRI. S.C.BHUTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC.100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR

THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT & DECREE PASSED IN R.A.NO.155/2017 BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE, SITTING AT JAMAKHANDI, DATED 23.11.2018 AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.61/2010 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JAMKHANDI, DATED 31.10.2017 AND SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF MAY BE DISMISS WITH COST

AND ETC.

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

The respondents have filed I.A.No.1/2025 seeking certain documents from the Chief Engineer, Bagalkot Town Development Authority, Vidyagiri Bagalkot. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents are not pressing I.A.No.1/2025. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2025 is disposed of as not pressed.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondents.

3. This appeal arises out of the concurrent findings in O.S.No.61/2010 dated 31.10.2017 and R.A.No.155/2017 dated 23.11.2018, whereby the plaintiffs were given 1/3^rd share in the suit schedule properties.

4. The factual matrix that may be necessary for the purpose of this appeal is that the plaintiffs are the sons and daughter of defendant Nos.1 and 2. The plaintiffs contended that the suit schedule properties, which are the lands bearing R.S.No.226/1+2 measuring 1 acre 30 guntas and the house bearing CTS No.3007/B/2 both situated at Jamakhandi are the ancestral properties of defendant No.1. It was contended that the plaintiffs and defendants constitute a Hindu joint family and the plaintiffs being co-parceners are having 1/3^rd share in the suit schedule properties and therefore, a partition be effected in the ancestral properties.

5. They contended that an effort was made for the partition, but defendant No.1 refused the request of the plaintiffs, even though an agreement was reached between the parties on 03.08.2006. There were several other litigations which were initiated between the parties and after attainment of majority, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit.

6. The suit was resisted by the defendants contending that defendant No.1 is a government servant having handsome salary and he also had agricultural income from the suit schedule property. It was contended that the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 are living separately and there was a suit filed in O.S.No.37/2000 for partition and injunction, which came to be dismissed and the plaintiffs have not taken steps regarding the said suit. Therefore, the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.

7. Inter alia, they also contended that defendant No.2 had filed O.S.No.101/2010 for maintenance against defendant No.1 and a Crl.Misc.No.19/2008 was also filed seeking maintenance. On the basis of the above conditions, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

“ISSUES i) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of pla