Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 23843
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100426 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
VARDHAMAN S/O. TAVANAPPA LENGADE AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. FORMER KALYANPURKAR HOSPITAL, NEAR CITY CLINIC, DAJIBANPETH, HUBBALLI-580028, DIST: DHARWAD.
… APPELLANT (BY SRI MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SITAL S/O. BHARAMAPPA LENGADE AGE 47 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. PADMA BUILDING, OPP. MOORUSAVIRMATH, D by ig Y it A a S ll H y A si V g A n N ed T HUBBALLI-580028, DIST. DHARWAD.
NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA D BE H N A C R H WAD 2 . ANANTRAJ S/O. TAVANAPPA LENGADE Date:
2 1 0 4 2 :4 6 0 .0 :2 4 8 .2 + 8 0530 SINCE DECEASED HIS LR’S
2(A) PRASHANT S/O ANANTRAJ LENGADE AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. PADMA BUILDING, OPP. MUURUSAVIRMATH, HUBBALLI-580 028, DIST. DHARWAD.
2(B) VIVEK S/O ANANTRAJ LENGADE AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. PADMA BUILDING, OPP. MUURUSAVIRMATH, HUBBALLI-580 028, DIST. DHARWAD.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SURESH S. GUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE IS ISSUED R2(A) AND R2(B) ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO, MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.07.2018 IN O.S.NO.325/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI AND ETC.,.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON PRONOUNCEMENT AND THE SAME HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 12.03.2026, THIS DAY, B. MURALIDHARA PAI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100426 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
VARDHAMAN S/O. TAVANAPPA LENGADE AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. FORMER KALYANPURKAR HOSPITAL, NEAR CITY CLINIC, DAJIBANPETH, HUBBALLI-580028, DIST: DHARWAD.
… APPELLANT (BY SRI MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SITAL S/O. BHARAMAPPA LENGADE AGE 47 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. PADMA BUILDING, OPP. MOORUSAVIRMATH, D by ig Y it A a S ll H y A si V g A n N ed T HUBBALLI-580028, DIST. DHARWAD.
NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA D BE H N A C R H WAD 2 . ANANTRAJ S/O. TAVANAPPA LENGADE Date:
2 1 0 4 2 :4 6 0 .0 :2 4 8 .2 + 8 0530 SINCE DECEASED HIS LR’S
2(A) PRASHANT S/O ANANTRAJ LENGADE AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. PADMA BUILDING, OPP. MUURUSAVIRMATH, HUBBALLI-580 028, DIST. DHARWAD.
2(B) VIVEK S/O ANANTRAJ LENGADE AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. PADMA BUILDING, OPP. MUURUSAVIRMATH, HUBBALLI-580 028, DIST. DHARWAD.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SURESH S. GUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE IS ISSUED R2(A) AND R2(B) ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO, MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.07.2018 IN O.S.NO.325/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI AND ETC.,.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON PRONOUNCEMENT AND THE SAME HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 12.03.2026, THIS DAY, B. MURALIDHARA PAI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
Defendant No.2 in O.S.No.325/2016 on the file of learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi has maintained this regular appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2018 passed therein, praying to modify the judgment and decree by setting aside the judgment and decree passed insofar as business establishment in the name and style of M/s Prashant Metals.
2. The parties to this appeal are hereinafter referred with their original ranking before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:
i) One Sri Tavanappa was the propositus. He was running a business under the name and style of T.B. Lengade, which was a proprietary concern. After his death, the concern was succeeded by his sons, namely - Sri Bharamappa, Sri Anantraj (Defendant No. 1), and Sri Vardhaman (Defendant No. 2). They continued the business jointly under the name M/s T.B. Lengade. Later, Sri Bharamappa and Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 purchased the plot pertaining to Schedule ‘A’ property and constructed a double-storied building on it out of the business income. Sri Bharamappa died on 19.08.1995.
ii) The son of Sri Bharamappa namely Sri Sital instituted the suit in O.S. No.325/2016 on 17.09.2016, praying for partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share in Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties by metes and bounds including mesne profit at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month on the ground that the defendants are not allowing him to participate in the family business and that they have even refused to effect partition and give his legitimate share in the schedule properties.
iii) On service of summons, both Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 appeared before the trial court through their counsel and filed a common written statement. In the said written statement, they admitted that the plot pertaining to Schedule ‘A’ property was purchased and a double-storied building was constructed on it out of the income earned from the business of M/s T.B. Lengade. However, they contended that it was a partnership business of Sri Bharamappa and his brothers. They further stated that the partnership was dissolved on 21.08.1992; thereafter, Defendant No.1 has been running the business exclusively, and Defendant No.2 has been running a business in the name and style of Prashant Metals in the ground-floor portion of the building on Schedule ‘A’ property since 1996. In the above circumstances, the defendants contended that the plaintiff has only a 1/3rd share in Schedule ‘A’ property and prayed for dismissal of the suit insofar as Schedule ‘B’ is concerned i.e., the business run in the name of M/s T.B. Lengade and the prayer for mesne profits.
iv) Based on the pleadings of the parties and the documents available on record, the trial court framed the following issues:
i. Whether plaintiff proves that suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties?
ii. Whether the defendants prove that suit is not maintainable?
iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled the relief as sought for?
iv. What order or decree?
v) In order to prove his case, the plaintiff stepped into witness box and adduced his evidence as PW-1 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P4. On behalf of the defendants, Defendant No.1 adduced the evidence as DW-1, examined two more witnesses and got marked documents as Exs.D1 to D7.
vi) Afterwards, the trial court heard the arguments of both sides, considered the materials available on record and decreed the suit in part holding that the plaintiff, his mother and two sisters are entitled for 1/3rd share in Schedule ‘A’ property and that they together are entitled for half share in the business establishment in the name and style of M/s Prashant Metals. The trial court dismissed the prayer of the plaintiff for a share in the business of M/s T. B. Lengade and mesne profits from both businesses.
vii) Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, Defendant No. 2 has preferred the present appeal on the g
