Karnataka High Court
Shri Gajendra Alias Gajendranath S/O ... vs Smt Vidya W/O Vittappa Hosamani on 3 September, 2025
Author: S.R. Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R. Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11263-DB
RFA No. 100408 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100408 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ-)
BETWEEN:
SHRI GAJENDRA @ GAJENDRANATH
S/O. GURAPPA AGASIMANI,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BAZAR ROAD, HIRE BAGEWADI,
TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-591109.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. VIDYA
W/O. VITTAPPA HOSAMANI,
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KALLUR, POST: UPPIN-BETAGERI,
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
TQ: AND DIST: DHARWAD-581206.
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD
2. SHRI RAVINDRANATH
S/O. GURAPPA AGASMANI,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. SERVICE,
R/O. PLOT NO.69, SY NO.227/D,
"SHIVALINGESHAR COLONY",
SARATHI NAGAR, VTC BELAGAVI
DOORDHARSHAN NAGAR,
TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-591108.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SOURABH A. SONDUR &
SRI. B.G. INDI, ADVOCATES FOR C/R1)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11263-DB
RFA No. 100408 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH
ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL
BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER AND DECREE DATED 03.07.2025
PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, BELAGAVI IN O.S. NO.301/2024 BY DECREEING THE SUIT
OF THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) The unsuccessful plaintiff in OS No.301/2024 is before this Court, aggrieved by the impugned order on preliminary issue dated 03.07.2025 passed by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Belagavi1, whereby the trial Court held/answered the preliminary issue as against the 1 Hereinafter for short 'trial Court' -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:11263-DB RFA No. 100408 of 2025 HC-KAR appellant-plaintiff and consequently proceeded to dismiss the suit on the ground that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action in favour of the appellant-plaintiff to file and prosecute the suit.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for caveator-respondent No.1. For the order proposed, notice to the remaining respondents is dispensed with since both the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1-caveator submits that the matter can be taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. Both the counsels have produced the records of the trial Court to enable final disposal of the present appeal.
3. The brief facts given raise to the present appeal are as under:
The appellant and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the children of late Gurappa Agasimani and late Smt.Mahadevi.
The respondent No.1-Vidya, instituted a suit in O.S.No.182/2018 against her mother Smt.Mahadevi--4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11263-DB RFA No. 100408 of 2025 HC-KAR defendant No.1, her brother Ravindranath-defendant No.3 and Smt.Mangala wife of the appellant-defendant No.4 (formal party) for partition and separate possession of her legitimate share in the suit schedule properties and for other reliefs.
4. After contest, the trial Court proceeded to pass a judgment and decree dated 21.01.2020 decreeing the suit filed by the respondent No.1-Vidya, thereby declaring that respondent No.1, the appellant, Smt.Ravindranath and Mahadevi (mother) were entitled to their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant herein approached this Court in RFA No.100275/2020 which was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was modified as hereunder:
ORDER The appeal is allowed.
The plaintiff, the first and the second defendants are declared to have 1/3rd undivided share in the total extent measuring 8 acres 20 guntas in Sy Nos -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:11263-DB RFA No. 100408 of 2025 HC-KAR 100/2, Sy. No. 100/B Sy. No.100/K, Sy. No.122/6 and Sy No.460/4+15+13+16/A of Hirebagewadi village. The plaintiffs or the first to third defendants are declared to have 1/4th share in the residential property bearing VPC No.219 measuring 2212 square feet in Hirebagewadı village.
There shall be preliminary decree accordingly.
5. It is the matter of record that the appellant approached the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No.6587/2023 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 25.05.2023, as a result of which the preliminary decree dated 14.09.2022 passed by this Court in RFA No.100275/2020 was confirmed and the same has attained the finality and became conclusive and binding upon all the parties.
6. Subsequent to disposal of RFA No.100275/2020 on 14.09.2022, the respondent No.1-Smt.Vidya alleged that her mother Smt.Mahadevi executed registered release deed dated 30.09.2022 releasing/relinquishing her undivided share in the suit schedule properties in favour of respondent -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:11263-DB RFA No. 100408 of 2025 HC-KAR No.1-Smt.Vidya and her brother respondent No.2- Sri.Ravindranath, pursuant to which they became entitled to the undivided share of Smt.Mahadevi in the suit schedule properties. Thereafter, Smt.Mahadevi expired on 15.12.2022 and on 01.02.2023, the respondent No.1 herein filed FDP No.06/2023 to enforce and implement the preliminary decree passed by this Court and also putting forth the claim in relation to the undivided share of Smt.Mahadevi by placing reliance upon the registered release/relinquishment deed dated 30.09.2022 alleged to have been executed by Smt.Mahadevi in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2.
7. During the pendency of the aforesaid final decree proceeding in FDP No.06/2023 which was filed on 01.02.2023, the appellant herein filed the instant suit in OS No.1180/2023 dated 21.09.2023 for declaration that the release/relinquishment deed dated 30.09.2022 was illegal, invalid, null and void document and not binding upon the appellant and for declaration that the appellant was entitled -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:11263-DB RFA No. 100408 of 2025 HC-KAR to 1/3rd share in the legitimate share of Smt. Mahadevi in the suit schedule properties, for permanent injunction and for other reliefs.
8. It is a matter of record that the aforesaid suit in O.S.No.1180/2023 filed on 21.09.2023 was re-numbered as OS No.301/2024, which is the subject matter of the present appeal. During the pendency of the suit, in addition to filing of the written statement and contesting the suit, the respondent-defendant also contended that in view of pendency of final decree proceedings in which the legality, validity and correctness of the relinquishment/release deed, dated 30.09.2022 was seized by the final decree Court, inter alia contending that in view of the pendency of the final decree proceedings, between the same parties, there was no cause of action for the present suit and the same was liable to be dismissed.
9. Upon completion of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed seven issues, among which issue No.5 -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:11263-DB RFA No. 100408 of 2025 HC-KAR related to whether there was any cause of action for filing the suit and the same was treated as a preliminary issue. After hearing the parties, the trial court proceeded to answer preliminary issue against the appellant by holding that there was no cause of action for the suit and consequently proceeded to pass the impugned order dismissing the suit on the ground that there was no cause of action on account of pendency of final decree proceedings. While arriving at the said conclusion, the trial Court held as under:
REASONS
12. Points No.1 : The advocate for plaintiff has vehemently argued as per the plaint avernment and further submitted that, during pendency of FDP No.6/2023 the undivided share of his mother has been got transferred by the defendants illegally through their mother. His mother was forcibly taken by the defendants from his house and when she was in ICU in the hospital she has no stable mental condition at that time without the permission of the doctor the defendants took her in Ambulance on stretcher to the office of sub-registrar and got executed relinquishment deed on 30/09/2022. There is no doctor certificate so the said document is not valid therefore he has filed private complaint against the defendants, doctor -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:11263-DB RFA No. 100408 of 2025 HC-KAR and also on the sub-registrar. The plaintiff is also having legitimate share in the share allotted to his mother, therefore he has genuine cause of action and the suit is very much maintainable. Therefore he prays to discard the objection and contention of the defendants.
13. On the other hand the advocate for defendant No.1 has also argued that without any cause of action the plaintiff has filed the suit. The plaintiff in the first page of the plaint he has mentioned as suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction, but in the prayer column he sought for partition. But already the partition has been took place in O.S.No.182/2018 and FDP No.6/2023 is pending. The plaintiff has also filed application in the FDP 6/2023 to stay the proceedings until disposal of O.S.No.1180/2023., The said application has been rejected by the court against which the plaintiff has filed W.P.No.101149/2024 before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad Bench, the said W.P. has been dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The Plaintiff has filed another application in O.S.No.1180/2023 to stay the proceedings of FDP No.6/2023 but the said application was also dismissed by the learned IV Addl C.J and JMFC Belagavi. Later the learned IV Addl C.J and JMFC has returned the plaint in O.S.No.1180/2023 on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction. Thereafter the plaintiff has submitted the plaint before this court and again he has filed another application to stay the proceedings of FDP No.6/2023 but the said application was dismissed by this court, against which he has filed W.P.No.100489/2025
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11263-DB RFA No. 100408 of 2025 HC-KAR before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the said W.P. was also dismissed. So the plaintiff by filing one or the other suit or proceedings he harassing the defendants without any cause of action therefore prays to dismiss the suit with cost.
14. The advocate for defendant No.2 has also filed written argument in detail and he also prays to dismiss the suit.
15. On perusal of the averments of plaint, written statements, materials available on record the following are the admitted facts.
1. Filing of O.S.No.356/2002 by the father of the plaintiff and defendants.
2. Filing of FDP .No.23/2006 and E.P.7/2009 by the father of the plaintiff and defendants.
3. Filing of O.S.No.182/2018 by the defendant No.1.
4. Filing of RFA No.100275/2020 by the present plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree O.S.No.182/2018. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has allowed the RFA and modified the judgment and decree and ordered that "the plaintiff, first and second defendants are declared to have 1/3rd undivided share in the total extent measuring 8 acre 20 guntas in Sy.No.100/2, Sy.No.100/B, Sy.No.100/K, Sy.No.122/6 and Sy.No.460/4+15+13+16/A of Hirebagewadi village. The plaintiffs for the first to 3rd defendants are declared to have 1/4th share in the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11263-DB RFA No. 100408 of 2025 HC-KAR residential property bearing VPC No.219 measuring 2212 sq.ft in Hirebagewadi. There shall be preliminary decree accordingly". The RFA was preferred by present plaintiff who was defendant No.3 in O.S.No.182/2018 Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has referred the parties as per the ranks before the trial court. The present defendant No.1 was the plaintiff, her mother was defendant No.1 and present defendant No.2 was defendant No.2 in O.S.No.182/2018.
16. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in RFA the present plaintiff has filed SLP No.011803/2023 before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which was also dismissed on 25/05/2023.
17. After disposal of the RFA, the mother of plaintiff and defendants Smt. Mahadevi alleged to be executed relinquishment deed on 30/09/2022 which is disputed by the plaintiff. When the O.S.No.182/2018 which was filed present defendant No.1 for partition and separate possession which was decreed on 21/01/2020 and against which the present plaintiff has filed RFA and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnatak has modified the judgment and decree of O.S.No.182/2018 in respect of the present suit properties along with other properties and the said decree is confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. When there is already partition in respect of the suit properties, there is no question joint family properties as on the date of present suit. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has awarded 1/3rd share to the mother of plaintiff and
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11263-DB RFA No. 100408 of 2025 HC-KAR defendants in agricultural land and 1/4th share in house property, so she became absolute owner of her share. After disposal of RFA the said mother of plaintiff and defendants alleged to be relinquished her share in favour of the present defendants by way of registered document on 30/09/2022. Thereafter the present defendant No.1 has filed FDP No.6/2023 to draw final decree. The present plaintiff has appeared and he has filed objection in FDP No.6/2023. Further the present plaintiff has filed O.S.No.1180/2023 before IV Addl C.J and JMFC for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction. In the said suit the present plaintiff has challenged alleged relinquishment deed executed by his mother in favour of defendants. The present plaintiff has filed I.A.No.5 in FDP No.6/2023 to stay the proceedings of FDP until disposal of O.S.No.1180/2023 but the said application rejected by this court on 05/01/2024. Aggrieved by the said order the present plaintiff filed W.P No.101149/2024 (GM-CPC) before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad Bench and the said W.P has been rejected by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka on 23/02/2024.
18. Thereafter the present plaintiff has filed I.A.No.3 Under Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.1180/2023 to stay the proceedings of FDP No.6/2023 which was rejected by the IV Addl CJ and JMFC and returned the plaint in O.S.No.1180/2023 on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction. Thereafter the plaintiff has submitted the plaint before this court and again he has filed another application to stay the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11263-DB RFA No. 100408 of 2025 HC-KAR proceedings of FDP No.6/2023, the said application has been rejected by this court. Aggrieved by the said order the present plaintiff has filed W.P.No.100489/2025 (GM- CPC) before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the said W.P was also dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and in page No.6 in para No.6 and 8 the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held as under
Para No.6 "Having perused the documents, it is seen that the petitioner having failed in the SLP, has subsequently filed O.S.No.301/2024. The relinquishment deed was is a registered document executed by his mother. Now, the FDP proceedings sought to be stayed by the petitioner in the disposal of O.S.No.301/2024, which in my considered opinion is only to protract the proceedings and delay the implementation of the final decree.
Para No.8 " For the reason stated by the trial court, as also for the reasons given herein above, the FDP court would have to go ahead with the FDP No.6/2023 and conclude the proceedings at the earliest."
19. The plaintiff has also filed P.C.No.28/2023 before the Prl Civil Judge and JMFC for the offences punishable Under Section 418,420, 464, 465, 468, 471 R/w 149 of IPC against the present defendants and other persons. The present defendants have filed Criminal petition No.102702/2023 before Hon'ble High Court of Karantaka
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11263-DB RFA No. 100408 of 2025 HC-KAR to quash the proceedings, Hon'ble High Court of Karantaka has stayed the investigation of the said case.
20. When the FDP No.6/2023 is pending in respect of the same suit schedule properties filed by present defendant No.1, the present plaintiff who is respondent No.3 in the said FDP has raised contention and also seriously disputed the alleged relinquishment deed executed by deceased Mahadevi. The validity of the alleged relinquishment deed has to determined and decided only in the said FDP, because FDP is continuation of O.S.No.182/2018. If at all the present plaintiff has aggrieved by the alleged relinquishment deed executed by his mother he has to raise his objection only in FDP case. But on the other hand the present plaintiff has filed separate suit i.e., O.S.no1180/2023 before IV ADDL CJ and JMFC, Belagavi by challenging relinquishment deed. The said court has returned the plaint and then he has presented the said plaint before this court which was registered as O.S.No,301/2024 (present case) so the plaintiff has no locos-standy to file separate proceedings by challenging relinquishment deed. He has to prove his contention only in the FDP No.6/2023.
21. The FDP No. 6/2023 is pending on the file of this court so to come just decision, this court has perused the order sheet of FDP No.6/2023 and the records, on 05/08/2024, it is ordered that "Before proceedings further the plaintiff submitted relinquishment deed executed by defendant No.1 in her favour pertaining to agricultural
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11263-DB RFA No. 100408 of 2025 HC-KAR land. Hence an enquiry has to be conducted pertaining to relinquishment deed dated 30/09/2022 and thereafter steps to be taken pertaining to VPC No.219 situated at Hirebagwadi. For enquiry on relinquishment deed" Further it also show that present defendant No.1 was examined as P.W.1 in the said case and the advocate for present plaintiff has made marathon cross examination of P.W.1 in the said case on the alleged relinquishment deed. The present plaintiff has also filed I.A.No.7 in the said FDP to issue witness summons to one of the attesting witness to the alleged relinquishment deed with intention to cross examination. So the present plaintiff has raised all possible defence, objections and contentions about the disputed document in the said FDP. Therefore, without deciding the validity and authenticity of alleged relinquishment deed executed by deceased Mahadevi FDP No.6/2023. Therefore, the plaintiff has no separate cause of action for filing the present suit. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in I. AIR 1977 SC 2421 (T. Arivindam V/s K.V Satayapal and another) wherein it is held that, " when on meaningful reading of the plaint, it does not disclose a clear right to sue and if the trial court is satisfied that the litigation was inspired by the vexatious motives, the plaint has to be rejected". It is further held that "the plaint has to be read meaningfully and not formally and if the clear drafting has created the illusion of the cause of action, the court has to nip it in the bud."
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11263-DB RFA No. 100408 of 2025 HC-KAR
10. As could be seen from the findings recorded by the trial Court in the impugned judgment and decree, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the appellant- plaintiff has to seek re-dressal of his grievances and prove his contentions in the pending FDP No.06/2023 and not by way of a separate suit and consequently there was no cause of action for the suit which was filed after institution and during the pendency of the final decree proceedings in FDP No.06/2023.
11. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree, the impugned order passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit for want of cause of action, the appellant-plaintiff is before this Court by way of the present appeal.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to the impugned order passed by the trial Court in order to contend that as on the date of institution of the suit, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11263-DB RFA No. 100408 of 2025 HC-KAR legality, validity and correctness of the alleged relinquishment/release deed dated 30.09.2022 propounded by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 is seriously disputed and denied by the appellant would give raise to disputed questions of law and fact, which would necessarily have to be decided only after a full-fledged trial and consequently, the question of dismissal of the suit, as there being no cause of action, was erroneous and the interim judgment and decree and dismissal of the suit deserves to be set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 invited our attention to the order dated 05.08.2024 passed in FDP No.6/2023, wherein the trial Court (FDP Court), has specifically and categorically stated that all questions relating to relinquishment deed dated 30.09.2022 were kept open and an enquiry in this regard was directed to be conducted by the trial Court and the trial Court which has not so far passed any orders on
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11263-DB RFA No. 100408 of 2025 HC-KAR the said issue pertaining to the release deed / relinquishment deed dated 30.09.2022 and in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and prevent conflicting orders, it was necessary to relegate the parties to agitate all their issues including the issue as to the release deed in the final decree proceedings and not by way of a separate suit and consequently the trial Court was fully justified in dismissing the suit as having no cause of action by passing the impugned order, which does not warrant interference by this court in the present appeal.
14. The only point that arises for consideration is "Whether the trial Court committed an error in dismissing the suit on the ground that there was no cause of action, in the light of the issue and controversy involved in the suit, being subject matter of the final decree proceedings in FDP No.06/2023 pending between the parties?"
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11263-DB RFA No. 100408 of 2025 HC-KAR
15. The aforesaid facts and circumstances narrated above are not in dispute and they would clearly indicate that insofar as the preliminary decree dated 14.09.2022 passed by this Court in RFA No.100275/2020 declaring that the appellant, respondent No.1, respondent No.2 and their mother Mahadevi being entitled to their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties has attained finality and become conclusive and binding between the parties. The main question to be decided in the final decree proceedings, apart from issues relating to demarcation, bifurcation, division, partition, drawing up a final decree, etc., is as regards to the legality, validity, correctness, etc., of the alleged release deed dated 30.09.2022 said to have been executed by Smt.Mahadevi in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2.
16. In this context, it is relevant to state that while the alleged release deed dated 30.09.2022 is propounded by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 who contend that Smt.Mahadevi had executed the said release deed during
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11263-DB RFA No. 100408 of 2025 HC-KAR her lifetime and before her demise on 15.12.2022, the execution genuineness, authenticity, legality, validity and correctness of the alleged release/relinquishment deed is seriously disputed and denied by the appellant, who contends that the same was not binding upon his right to inherit/succeed to the share of Smt.Mahadevi upon her demise on 15.12.2022. In fact the appellant-plaintiff specifically contend that the said release deed/relinquishment deed has obtained illegally by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 by practicing fraud, undue influence and coercion upon Smt.Mahadevi and consequently respondents would not be entitled to rely upon the said document.
17. The aforesaid registered release deed was produced by the parties before the FDP Court in FDP No.6/2023 and taken into account by the trial Court while passing order on the Commissioners Report and after noticing that there is serious dispute in this regard, the trial
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11263-DB RFA No. 100408 of 2025 HC-KAR Court passed an order directing enquiry into the said alleged release deed by holding as under:
"ORDERS ON COMMISSIONER REPORT The Petitioner/Plaintiff filed this FDP to execute and allocate the share modified in RFA No.100275/2020. In RFA No.100275/2020 vide order dated 14/09/2020 it is order that "The appeal is allowed. The plaintiff, the first and the second defendants are declared to have 1/3rd undivided share in the total extent measuring 8 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.100/2, Sy.No.100/B, Sy.No.100/K, Sy.No.122/6 and Sy.No.460/4+15+13+16/A of Hirebagewadi village. The plaintiffs or the first to third defendants are declared to have 1/4th share in the residential property bearing VPC No. 219 measuring 2212 Square feet in Hirebagewadi village. There shall be preliminary decree accordingly. As per order of Hon'ble High Court of Karanataka in RFA No. 100275/2020 this court issued court commissioner warrant by appointing ADLR Belagavi as to submit commissioner report pertaining to agricultural land and the PDO Hirebagewadi is appointed as court commissioner to execute commissioner work pertaining to house property. The plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and 2 have submitted no objection to commissioner report pertaining to agricultural property bearing R.S.No. 100/1B, 100/1C, 100/2 and 122/6. The petitioner and respondent filed objection to court commissioner report submitted by PDO.
2. The defendant No. 3 and 4 filed objection by contending that the court commissioner instead of effecting partition of house property in VPC No. 219 deviated himself from the instruction furnished to him evaluated property in monitory terms by furnishing the reason that house property is not safe for in habitation. The defendant No. 3 and 4 contended that the house property measuring 112 ft in length and 19.6 width. The court commissioner valued the suit property for Rs. 36,00,000/- without any basis. It is admitted by defendant No. 3 and 4 that house property is in a dilapidated condition and not safe for human dwelling. It
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11263-DB RFA No. 100408 of 2025 HC-KAR is contended that PDO is not authorized to value the house property. Hence prays to reject the commissioner report pertaining to house property.
3. Pertaining to agricultural land defendant No. 3 and 4 filed their objection by contending that P.T. sheet prepared by court commissioner is more favoring the plaintiff rather then equalizing as per the decreed passed by Hon'ble Court. The court commissioner by colluding drawn the PT Sheet which is not according to actual partition. Hence defendant No. 3 and 4 prays to reject the court commissioner.
4. The respondent No.2 filed objection by contending that court commissioner not submitted the report by demarcating the schedule property. The court commissioner not submitted the report pertaining to measurement and boundaries of suit property. Hence prays to reject the commissioner report.
5. The plaintiff filed objection pertaining to court commissioner report of house property by contended that court commissioner has not prepaid hand sketch map with measurement. Further it is contended court commissioner is not mentioned specific area or portion allotted to plaintiff and defendants hence prays to reject the court commissioner report.
6. As per the direction of this court ADLR Belagavi submitted the commissioner report on 29/02/2024 along with the P.T. Sheet and photographs. The PDO of Hirebagewadi submitted report on 26/03/2024 by stating that the house property in VPC No. 219 is not safe for human habitation. Court commissioner submitted the report by evaluating the value of house property as 36,00,000/- Further the court commissioner submitted the report that the plaintiff and defendant are entitled for 1/3rd share each measuring 6.6 ftX12 ft i.e., 739.2 Sq.ft.
7. This court vide Judgment and decree dated 21/01/2020 ordered that plaintiff and defendant No. 1 to 3 are entitled for their legitimate shares in the suit property. Aggrieved by the Judgment the defendant
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11263-DB RFA No. 100408 of 2025 HC-KAR No.3 preferred an appeal in RFA No.100275/2020 wherein vide order dated 14/09/2022. Hon'ble High Court of Karanataka confirmed that the share allotted to defendant No.3 landed property to an extent of 2 acre 31 guntas and modified the order allotted 1/3rd share in agricultural land properties in Sy.No. 100/2, 100/B, 100/K and 122/6 46/4+15+13+16+A measuring 8 acre 20 guntas to the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and 2. In the house property the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 to 3 are allotted 1/4th share. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff produced the relinquishment deed dated 30/09/2022 executed by defendant No.1 Smt. Mahadevi Gurappa Agasimani in favour of plaintiff pertaining to agricultural properties. The defendant No.3 contended that the relinquishment deed is executed by taking the defendant No.1 from the Hospital and he challenged the said relinquishment deed in O.S.No.1277/2023. Execution of relinquishment deed is subsequent to order passed in RFA No.100275/2020.
8. The Court commissioners in this case ought to have carryout commissioner work in accordance with order passed in RFA No.100275/2020. The PDO allotted 1/3rd share without there being any specific order of this court regarding Relinquishment deed. The ADLR Belagavi submitted the report by allotting share to plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and 2 in the landed properties. As per commissioner report defendant No. 3 and 4 were present at the time of surveying land and preparing the PT sheet. The plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and 2 have submitted no objection to commissioner report pertaining to agricultural land. But the defendant No.3 contended that the survey and preparation of PT sheet and shares shown in the PT sheet is more favouring to plaintiffs rather than equalizing order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karanataka. It is not the contention of defendant No.3 that his share is reduced and more share is allotted to plaintiff and defendant No.1 beyond 8 acres 20 guntas. The defendant No.3 not explained in what way the commissioner report pertaining to agricultural land is prejudised. On perusal of of court commissioner report pertaining to landed property this court do not find any ground for rejection. So as to commissioner report submitted by PDO Hirebagewadi
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11263-DB RFA No. 100408 of 2025 HC-KAR not in accordance with the order of Hon'ble High Court of Karanataka in RFA No. 100275/2023. Hence this court proceed to pass following:-
ORDER The court commissioner submitted by ADLR pertaining to RS No. 100/2,100/B, 100/C, 122/6 and 460/4+15+13+16A is accepted.
The commissioner report submitted by PDO Hirebagewadi pertaining to VPC No. 219 is hereby rejected.
Before proceeding further the plaintiff submitted relinquishment deed executed by defendant No.1 in her favour pertaining to agricultural land. Hence an enquiry has to be conducted pertaining to relinquishment deed dated 30/09/2022 and thereafter steps to be taken pertaining to VPC No 219 situated at Hirebagewadi.
For enquiry on relinquishment deed 30/09/2022.
Call on: 30/08/2024.
Sd/-
IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi."
18. A perusal of the aforesaid order passed by the trial Court is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the trial Court has deemed it just and proper to direct an enquiry to be conducted on the said reasoning by providing an opportunity to all parties in this regard and all issues/questions in relation to the said release deed has been kept open and no finding has been recorded by the trial Court on the said document.
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11263-DB RFA No. 100408 of 2025 HC-KAR
19. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 having regard to the fact that the core issue involved in the instant suit in OS No.301/2024 vis-à- vis the release deed dated 30.09.2024 is already the subject matter of the enquiry before the FDP Court in FDP No.06/2023. In order to prevent the multiplicity of the proceedings and to avoid conflicting orders, we are of the view that interest of justice would be met and the rights of the parties would be adequately safeguarded by not interfering with the impugned order and by issuing certain directions to the trial Court for disposal of final decree proceedings on all aspects of the matter and by conducting a full-fledged enquiry on the alleged release deed dated 30.09.2024 before proceeding further in the matter.
20. Though the learned counsel for the appellants would point out that as on the date of filing the suit, on 21.09.2023, the FDP Court had not directed enquiry to be conducted in relation to the alleged release deed dated 30.09.2022 and the trial Court could not have dismissed the
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11263-DB RFA No. 100408 of 2025 HC-KAR suit on the ground of want of cause of action, having regard to the fact that all questions/issues relating to the release deed are seized and are at large before the Final Decree Court to be decided after a full-fledged trial in FDP No.06/2023, as directed by the Final Decree Court vide aforesaid order dated 05.08.2024, the said contention urged on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted particularly when his alleged right, title, interest, possession, share, etc., in the undivided share of Smt.Mahadevi would necessarily have to be decided by the Final Decree Court and no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the appellant whose interest can be safeguarded by issuing necessary directions in this regard to the final decree Court.
21. Under these circumstances, the contention urged on behalf of the appellant for the purpose of assailing the impugned order cannot be accepted. Accordingly, aforesaid point is answered by holding that the impugned order passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit does not
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11263-DB RFA No. 100408 of 2025 HC-KAR warrant interference by this Court in the present appeal which deserves to be disposed of by issuing certain directions to the trial Court to dispose of FDP No.6/2023 in accordance with law.
22. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order.
ii) The Final Decree Court before whom FDP No.06/2023 is pending, is directed to conduct a full-
fledged enquiry as regards legality, validity, correctness, genuineness, authenticity etc., of the alleged release deed dated 30.09.2022 alleged to have been executed by Smt. Mahadevi in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and pass a detailed/speaking order in this regard, after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to both parties.
iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the parties to file necessary pleadings and also adduce oral and
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11263-DB RFA No. 100408 of 2025 HC-KAR documentary evidence in support of their respective claims.
iv) The Final Decree Court shall in the first instance conduct a full-fledged enquiry on the release deed and a record of finding on the same by a detailed speaking order and thereafter proceed further in the matter.
v) All aspects of the matter including the release deed are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions.
Sd/-
(S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE HMB CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17