Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ramappa S/O Durugapap ... vs Maruti A/S Bheemappa Maradiganavar on 3 September, 2025
-1- RSA NO.100123 OF 2023
Reserved on : 21.08.2025
Pronounced on : 03.09.2025
IN THE HIGH CCOURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
Digitally signed
by
MALLIKARJUN BEFORE
RUDRAYYA
KALMATH
Location: HIGH
COURT OF THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2025.09.04
12:46:41 +0530
REUGLAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100123 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAMAPPA S/O. DURUGAPPA
KARIYAMMANAVAR @ MADAR
AGE: 57 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KARUR, TALUK: RANEBENNUR
DISTRICT: HAVERI 581 115.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI N.P. VIVEK MEHTA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MARUTI @ BHEEMAPPA MARADIGANAVAR
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: MAGOD,
TALUK: RANEBENNUR
DISTRICT: HAVERI 581 115
SMT. HALAVVA W/O. BHEEMAPPA
MARADIGANAVAR
(DIED DURING TRIAL APPELLANT NO.1 CAME
ON RECORD AS HER L.R.)
...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECRE DATED 19.09.2022 PASSED IN
RA NO.48/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RANEBENNUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL
AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
29.01.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.447 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE
-2- RSA NO.100123 OF 2023
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, RANEBENNUR DECREEING THE SUIT
FOR PARTITION.
IN THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED ON 21.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS", THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) This appeal by the appellant is against the Judgment and decree dated 29th January, 2018 passed in OS No.447 of 2010 by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Ranebennur, which is confirmed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC Ranebennur in RA No.48 of 2018 dated 19th September, 2022.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per the rank before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts, leading to this second appeal are that one Kenchavva is the daughter of Durgappa who was a devadasi and she had two daughters viz. Durgavva and Fakkiramma. Durgavva and Fakkiramma were also Devdasis. The said Kenchavva died in the year 1954 leaving behind Durgavva and Fakkiramma. After the death of Kenchavva, the names of her daughters, viz. Durgavva and Fakkiramma have been mutated in the Records of Rights of suit property vide ME No.2132. The said Durgavva died
-3- RSA NO.100123 OF 2023 issueless. Therefore, the name of Fakkiramma has been mutated in the name of revenue records under ME No.3538. The deceased plaintiff No.1-Smt. Halavva and Sri Durgappa, the father of defendant are the children of Fakkiramma. It is further averred in the plaint, that defendant, in order to defeat the right of the plaintiff No.1-Smt. Halavva, got created the document styled as 'Partition deed' by misrepresenting her. Thereafter, deceased plaintiff No.1-Halavva came to know about the bogus document through the brother of her adapted son. It is further contended in the plaint that plaintiff No.1 Smt. Halavva with the consent of her husband adopted Maruti plaintiff No.1(a), during the lifetime of her husband, in the year 1993 as per Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and the same was registered in the year 2010. The defendant, in order to dupe the suit property, created the document on 5th August, 2010 by misrepresenting her and hence the same is liable to be cancelled. On all these grounds, the deceased plaintiff No.1-Smt. Halavva filed suit before the trial Court seeking the relief of declaration to declare that the partition deed dated 5th August, 2010 is a created one and to cancel the same and for possession of her half share in the suit property.
4. The defendant appeared through their Counsel and filed written statement denying the allegations made against him.
-4- RSA NO.100123 OF 2023 Apart from denial, the defendant specifically contended that the deceased plaintiff No.1-Smt. Halavva, has received an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from him on 5th August, 2010 in the presence of witnesses and executed partition deed and the same is registered before the Sub-Registrar on 06th August, 2010 as per law. The defendant in order to preserve and retain the property in the family itself, got arranged the money by raising loan from his friends and by pledging the property and gave Rs.1,00,000/- to the deceased plaintiff No.1-Halavva. It is further contended that the document executed by deceased plaintiff No.1-Halavva is a registered document and it is valid and legal.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellant Shri N.P. Vivek Mehta, would contend that both the Courts have failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective. With regard to registered partition deed dated 5th August, 2010, it is stated that in lieu of her share, Smt. Halavva received an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and has relinquished her share. The adoption deed created on 17th September, 2010, and the suit is filed on 16th November, 2010. It is the case of the defendant that Smt. Halavva has not fixed her LTM on the plaint and affidavit and that her LTM is a created one. Smt. Halavva had no intention to file suit. The plaintiffs have failed to prove essential ingredients of
-5- RSA NO.100123 OF 2023 giving and taking to prove the adoption. Mere registration of adoption deed does not mean that adoption is proved. Maruti plaintiff 1(a) has filed objections to the revenue authorities to mutate the revenue records on the basis of registered partition deed. When the Revenue authorities raised an objection that there is no adoption deed, then only the adoption deed was registered. The same is not considered by both the Courts below, and accordingly, it is sought to admit the appeal by formulating substantial question of law.
6. Having given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant, I have examined the materials placed before me. The defendants have not denied the flow of title of suit property to them and deceased plaintiff No.1. The plaintiff No.1 has filed the suit for cancellation of registered partition deed dated 5th August, 2010. The plaintiff has filed suit on 16th November, 2010, within 3 months 11 days from the date of registered partition deed. The plaintiff has filed suit for cancellation of partition deed contending that she has not received consideration amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as stated in the partition deed. The defendant has created the partition deed by playing fraud and misrepresentation and accordingly, has sought for cancellation of the partition deed.
-6- RSA NO.100123 OF 2023
7. The defendants have not placed any material to show that he has paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash to Smt. Halavva. The trial Court has clearly observed in paragraph 22 of the Judgment that during the course of cross-examination of the defendant, he has deposed that he has earned the money on his own and given to Smt. Halavva. Whereas, in the affidavit filed by him in lieu of examination-in-chief, he has stated that he has borrowed the amount from his friends and Dalali merchants to pay to Smt. Halavva. In the written statement, he has stated that he has raised loan from his friends and pledged their property and Rs.1,00,000/- to Smt. Halavva. In the year 2010, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was a huge amount. Both Courts have properly appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and have come to the conclusion that the registered partition deed dated 5th August, 2010 is liable to be set aside. The same cannot be found fault with.
8. With regard to the deed of adoption in favour of plaintiff No.1(a) is concerned, both the Courts have properly appreciated the evidence and record and also the provisions of Section 10 and 16 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and have held that the plaintiff No.1(a) is entitled for a half share in the suit schedule property. The appellant has not placed any materials to
-7- RSA NO.100123 OF 2023 show that Smt. Halavva has not affixed her LTM in the plaint and the affidavit and the LTM is a created one. Even in the written statement, the defendants have not pleaded anything in this regard. Only, for the first time before this Court, it is argued that defendant Smt. Halavva has not affixed her LTM in the plaint or in the affidavit. Hence, the same cannot be accepted.
9. On a careful exam examination of the entire material and record, I am of the considered opinion that no substantial question of law arises. The Judgments and decree ended by the Courts below are based on legal evidence let in by both the parties. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed at the stage of admission itself;
ii) In view of the dismissal of the main appeal, pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn CT-CMU