The

captioned

regular

second

appeal

No.200171/2015 is filed by defendant No.2 in

O.S.No.211/2000 questioning the concurrent findings

of the Courts below in declaring that the plaintiffs are

the absolute owners of the suit land bearing

Sy.No.424/1 measuring 3 acres 37 guntas of Hadagali

village.

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties

are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

6

3.

The short point that needs consideration at

the hands of this Court is as to how defendant No.2,

who has not questioned the judgment and decree

passed in O.S.No.211/2000 can maintain a second

appeal before this Court. As two connected appeals

are filed before this Court, which are intertwined and

therefore, to have clarity about the facts of both the

cases, I deemed it fit to cull out the family tree which

as under:

Rayappa

Kallappa

Dhulappa

Dundawwa

Shantabai

(1^st Wife)

(2^nd Wife)

Tipparaya

Shrishail

(Plaintiff) (Deft.No.1)

7

4.

The plaintiffs in O.S.No.211/2000 have

filed a suit against defendant Nos.1 and 2 namely

Tipparaya and Shrishail claiming title on the basis of

registered sale deed dated 14.04.1967 executed by

one Dhulappa. Defendant No.2 Shrishail is asserting

title by contending that he has inherited the property

as the class-II heir. Defendant No.1 claims that

Dhulappa is his uncle and therefore, claims that since

Dhulappa

died

intestate,

he

has

inherited

the

property, while defendant No.2 has set up a will by

contending that his uncle Dhulappa has bequeathed

three items i.e., Sy.Nos.31/1+2, 424/1 and VPC

No.207.

5.

Defendant No.1 Tipparaya also filed a suit

seeking

relief

of

declaration

and

injunction

in

O.S.No.58/1996.

The

present

defendant

No.2

(Shrishail)

is

arrayed

as

defendant

No.1

in

8

O.S.No.58/1996. Defendant No.2 has set up a will

and is asserting title based on the will.

The plaintiffs' suit in O.S.No.211/2000 is

decreed thereby declaring that the plaintiffs are the

absolute

owners

of

agricultural

land

bearing

Sy.No.424/1. The said judgment and decree passed

in O.S.No.211/2000 was only questioned by defendant

No.1 Tipparaya, who is the plaintiff in connected suit

in

O.S.No.58/1996

in

R.A.No.27/2011,

while

defendant No.2, who is the appellant in the present

second appeal has not chosen to challenge the decree

passed in O.S.No.211/2000. Therefore, the judgment

and decree rendered in O.S.No.211/2000 has attained

finality. Insofar as defendant No.2 is concerned, this

Court is unable to understand as to how he can

maintain a second appeal before this Court. On this

short point, the second appeal filed by defendant No.2

Shrishail is held to be not maintainable.

9

7.

It is also borne out from the records that

defendant No.1 Tipparaya, who has preferred an

appeal in R.A. No.27/2011 has not chosen to question

the judgment and decree passed in R.A. No.27/2011,

wherein the appellate Court has confirmed the

judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.211/2000.

Therefore, the regular second appeal No.200171/2015

is dismissed. No substantial question of law arises for

consideration.

8.

In the connected appeal, which arises out

of O.S.No.58/1996, the plaintiff Tipparaya filed an

appeal in R.A.No.28/2011 feeling aggrieved by the

judgment and decree, where his suit was dismissed

insofar as the land bearing Sy.No.424/1 is concerned.

Defendant No.1 in O.S.No.58/1996 namely Shrishail

filed a cross-objection feeling aggrieved by the finding

on will set up by him in O.S.No.58/1996. The

appellate Court in R.A.No.28/2011 dismissed the

10

appeal filed by the plaintiff ignoring the fact that the

cross-objection was filed by defendant No.1 in

O.S.No.58/1996 feeling aggrieved by the findings on

will i.e., issue No.1 in O.S.No.58/1996.

9.

Both the counsel on record fairly submit

that

the

appellate

Court

while

deciding

R.A.No.28/2011 has not dealt with the cross-objection

filed by defendant No.1 Shrishail in O.S.No.58/1996.

10. Heard the learned counsel appear