IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.5250 OF 2009 BETWEEN:

BANNIKAL ESHAPPA S/O. HANUMANTAPPA, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAHAJANADA HALLI, TALUKA: HUVINA HADAGALI-583219, DIST. BELLARY-583101.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI A.P.HEGDE AND SRI VIDYASHANKAR G. DALAWAI, ADVOCATES.)

AND:

1. LAKSHMAMMA CALLING HERSELF AS W/O. ERANNA BANNIKAL, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, Digitally signed R/O. MAHAJANADA HALLI, by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH TALUKA: HUVINA HADAGALI-583219, Location: High Court of DIST. BELLARY-583101.

Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

2. BANNIKAL RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O. HANUMANTAPPA, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAHAJANADA HALLI, TALUKA: HUVINA HADAGALI-583219, DIST. BELLARY-583101.

DEAD BY LRS.

2A. SMT. BANNIKAL NAGAMMA W/O. RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. MAHAJANADA HALLI, TALUKA: HUVINA HADAGALI-583219, DIST. BELLARY-583101.

2B. BANNIKAL GANESHAPPA W/O. RAMACHANDRAPPA AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAHAJANADA HALLI, TALUKA: HUVINA HADAGALI-583219, DIST. BELLARY-583101.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI C.S.SHETTAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI HARSH DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

NOTICE TO R2(A AND B) HELD SUFFICIENT)

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

100 OF THE CODE OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.02.2009 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), HOSPET, IN R.A.NO.42/2008 ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.04.2008 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), HADAGALI, IN O.S. NO.50/2006 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)

The regular second appeal is filed by plaintiff challenging the judgment decree dated 16.02.2009 passed in RA No.42/2008, on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC Hospet, Hereinafter referred to as “ first appellate Court”, reversing the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2008 in O.S.No.50/2006 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Hadagali, Hereinafter referred to as “trial Court” thereby suit for partition is dismissed claiming to half share.

2. For the purpose of convenience and easy reference, ranking of the parties is referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are full brothers. They were six children born to their father, namely the plaintiff himself, Ramachandrappa, Hanumanthappa, Eranna, Thotappa, and Banneppa. All the brothers have died except the plaintiff and defendant No.1. There was a family partition among all the brothers and their father about 35 years ago, and thereafter they were residing separately. The suit schedule property was allotted to the share of Eranna, the brother of the plaintiff and defendant No.1.

4. It is further the case of the plaintiff that Eranna died intestate and unmarried on 26.07.2005. Therefore, the plaintiff and defendant No.1, being the Class-I legal heirs of deceased Eranna, are each entitled to half share in the suit schedule properties. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a suit for partition claiming half share in the suit schedule properties belonging to deceased Eranna.

5. Defendant No.1 appeared through counsel and filed a written statement, which was adopted by defendant No.2. It is the case of defendant No.1 that Eranna was the brother of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 is the wife of deceased Eranna. Eranna went to Andhra Pradesh for his livelihood and married defendant No.2, and both lived together as husband and wife. The villagers and society considered them as husband and wife. Therefore, defendant No.2, being the wife of deceased Eranna alone is entitled to succeed to the suit schedule properties. It is thus contended that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are not entitled to any share. D