Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 18909
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2026
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100888 OF 2022 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
SRI. NAGABHUSHANA S/O. LATE K.G. BASAPPA, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. BOMMAGATTA VILLAGE, TQ: SANDUR, DIST: BALLARI-583119.…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SUJATHA D/O. LATE K.G. BASAPPA, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BOMMAGATTA VILLAGE, TQ: SANDUR, DIST: BALLARI-583119.
DbHLHOKDB y o E A i H F I g M cG N R B A i aH t N H CR t a i l A H A o W C ly n T R O A : A sA U D i K Tg R A Hn T , eI d 2. A R T S Q G R /O I : E . . : S H B 3 A A O 9 N L M D E Y M U S EA A H R R G , I S D A S , T I / S O O T T A . C : L C V B A : I A T L A E L L G A L K R A G . I R G E C I , . U - 5 B L 8 A T 3 U S 1 A R 1 P E 9 P , .
3. SMT. NEELAMMA W/O. LATE K.G. BASAPPA, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. BOMMAGATTA VILLAGE, TQ: SANDUR, DIST: BALLARI-583119.
4. SMT. GIRIJAMMA W/O. VIRUPAKSHAPPA, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. RAMADURGA VILLAGE, TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: BALLARI-583119.
5. SMT. CHANNABASAMMA W/O. NAGANNA, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. SELLEPANAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ: SANDUR, DIST: BALLARI-583119.
6. SMT. SHANKARAMMA W/O. SOMANNA, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. THONASIGERE VILLAGE, TQ: SANDUR, DIST: BALLARI-583119.
7. SRI. KOTRESH S/O. LATE K.G. BASAPPA, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. BOMMAGATTA VILLAGE, TQ: SANDUR, DIST: BALLARI-583119.…RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1-R7 ARE SERVED)
ORDER
The appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. is partly allowed by modifying the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2021 in R.A.No.15/2018 by the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Kudligi sitting at Sandur as follows:
i) Plaintiff Nos.1, 2, defendant Nos.1(a), 2, 4, 5 and 6 are entitled for 1/7th share each in suit schedule properties by metes and bounds.
ii) Draw preliminary decree accordingly.
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
SSP CT-MCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 23
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.04.2021 IN R.A. NO. 15/2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, AT KUDLIGI SITTING AT SANDUR, AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.04.2018 IN O.S. NO.110/2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, SANDUR BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL 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 MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
ORAL JUDGMENT
This is the appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., praying for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2021 passed in R.A.No.15/2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Kudligi sitting at Sandur and to confirm the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2018 passed in O.S.No.110/2012 on the file of Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Sandur.
Parties would be referred with their ranks as they were before the trial Court for sake of convenience and clarity.
Plaintiffs have filed the suit for the relief of declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/4th share each in suit schedule properties by metes and bounds; to appoint Court Commissioner to affect survey and to submit report to affect partition and to put plaintiffs in possession of their share in suit ‘B’ schedule properties and such other reliefs.
The case of plaintiffs before trial Court in nutshell is that, plaintiffs are the children of defendant No.1 through his second wife Smt.Neelamma and they have also got another brother called Kotreshi (defendant No.6). Plaintiffs contended that the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties and there is no partition amongst plaintiffs and defendants. Defendant No.1 is the father and defendant Nos.2, 4 and 5 are children of defendant No.1 from his first wife Smt.Nagarathnamma. Plaintiff further contended that, defendant No.3 has purchased Item No.1 of suit schedule properties. The said property was sold to her without any legal necessity or family benefit. Defendant No.1 has not obtained consent of plaintiffs and without their knowledge; he has sold Item No.1 of suit schedule properties to defendant No.3. Defendant No.3 is not bonafide purchaser. Plaintiffs demanded defendant No.1 to effect partition and also issued legal notices dated 16.07.2012 and 23.08.2012 to defendant No.1. He has not given reply and again issued legal notice on 15.11.2012, but defendant No.1 has not given share to plaintiffs and he denied their share. Hence, the suit for appropriate reliefs.
Defendant No.2 filed his written statement wherein he admitted the relationship between parties, but denied all other averments made in the plaint. He further contended that, suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. Already defendant Nos.1 and 2 have affected partition as per partition deed dated 09.05.2001 in presence of elders and as per the partition deed; the properties were fallen to respective sharers. He has given details of those properties and prayed for dismissal of suit with exemplary costs.
Defendant No.1, 4 and 5 have adopted the written statement filed by defendant No.1.
Defendant No.3 filed her written statement, wherein she contended that Item No.1 of suit schedule properties bearing Sy.No.52/1 measuring 9.62 acres situated at Kudureduvu Village, Kudligi Taluk, Ballari District is purchased by defendant No.1 from one Mallanagouda and then, defendant No.3 purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 27.04.1991 by paying valuable sale consideration of ₹.26,000/-. Defendant Nos.2 and 6 are attestors to said sale deed. All the family members are aware about the registration of said sale deed. Defendant No.3 is bonafide purchaser. Hence, prayed for dismissal of suit with exemplary costs.
During pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 died and his legal representative i.e. defendant No.1(a) was bro
