Karnataka High Court
Dr Basavaraj Shivappa Meti vs Smt Premabai W/O Kanakasingh Jamadar on 11 April, 2023
-1-
RFA No. 1925 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 1928 of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1925 OF 2006 (PAR/POS-)
C/W
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1928 OF 2006
IN RFA NO. 1925/2006
BETWEEN:
1. DR. BASAVARAJ SHIVAPPA METI,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
OCC: MEDICAL PRACTITIONER,
R/O: MAIN BAZAR, MUDARGI,
TALUQ MUDARGI, DISTRICT GADAG.
PINCODE-582118.
2.
SRI. KARABASAPPA VEERABHADRAPPA HANCHINAL,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: CLASS I
CONTRACTOR, R/O: NEAR TALUQ PANCHAYATH
OFFICE, MUDARGI, TALUQ MUDARGI,
DISTRICT GADAG, PINCODE-582118.
SAROJA ...APPELLANTS
HANGARAKI
(BY SRI. S. S. YADRAMI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. GIRISH V BHAT.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by SAROJA
HANGARAKI AND:
Date: 2023.04.25
13:21:44 -0700
1. SMT. PREMABAI W/O. KANAKASINGH JAMADAR,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O: UMATAR, TALUQ RAMADURG,
DISTRICT BELGAUM. PINCODE-584148.
2. SMT. JAYASHREE
W/O. BASAVANTSINGH RAJPUT,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O: JAMAKHANDI, BADAGER GALLI,
-2-
RFA No. 1925 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 1928 of 2006
TALUQ JAMAKHANDI, DISTRICT BAGALKOT,
PINCODE-583101.
3. SRI. RAJENDRASINGH KANAKASINGH JAMADAR,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: UMATAR TALUQ RAMADURG,
PINCODE-584148.
4. SIR. MAHENDRASINGH KANAKASINGH JAMADAR,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: UMATAR TALUQ RAMADURG,
PINCODE-584148.
5. SRI. CHANDURSINGH KANAKASINGH JAMADAR,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O UMATAR TALUQ RAMADURG.
PINCODE-584148.
6. SIR. KANAKASINGH GOVINDASINGH JAMADAR,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED GOVERNMENT SERVANT,
R/O: GADAG. PINCODE-582101.
(DEAD SINCE DECEASED L.RS PLAINTIFFS
NO. 1 TO 5).
7. SRI. RAGHUNATHSINGH GOVINDASINGH JAMADAR,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED GOVERNMET SERVANT,
R/O: SILVER PARK, PLOT NO. 1
DEVANGPETH ROAD,GOPANAKOPPA,
HUBLI-580023.
8. SRI. HANAMANTSINGH RAGHUNATHSINGH
JAMADAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: SILVER PARK,
PLOT NO.1 DEVANGPETH ROAD,
GOPANAKOPPA HUBLI-580023.
9. SRI. VENKATESHSINGH RAGHUNATHSINGH
JAMADAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: SILVER PARK,
PLOT NO. 1 DEVANGPETH ROAD,
-3-
RFA No. 1925 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 1928 of 2006
GOPANAKOPPA HUBLI-580023.
10. SRI. SUBHASINGH RAGHUNATHSINGH
JAMADAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT, R/O: SILVER PARK, PLOT NO. 1,
DEVANGPETH ROAD, GOPANAKOPPA,
HUBLI-580023.
11. SRI. UMESHAGOUDA BASANAGOUDA HIREGOUDAR,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURAL,
R/O: BARADUR, TALUQ MUDARGI.
PIN CODE-582118.
12. SRI. PARWATAGOUDA BASANAGOUDA HIREGOUDAR,
AGED 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURAL,
R/O: BARADUR, TALUQ MUDARGI.
PIN CODE-582118.
13. SRI. RAMAPPA HANAMAPPA DASAKANAKAPPANAVAR,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: CLASS 'I'
CONTRACTOR, R/O: MUNDARGI , NEAR TALUQ
PANCHAYATH OFFICE, TALUQ MUNDARGI.
PIN CODE-582118.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C. S. SHETTAR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. G. K. HIREGOUDAR ADVOCATE FOR R1-R5.,)
(R7 ABATED), (NOTICE TO R6, R8-13 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF
CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DT. 03.08.2006
PASSED IN O.S.NO.247/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.CIVIL
JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND CJM., GADAG, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
IN RFA 1928/2006
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. UMESHAGOUDA BASANAGOUDA HIREGOUDAR,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: BARADUR, TALUQ MUDARGI,
-4-
RFA No. 1925 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 1928 of 2006
DIST: GADAG. PIN-582118.
2. SRI. PARAWATAGOUDA BASANAGOUDA
HIREGOUDAR,
AGE: 36, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BARADUR, TALUQ: MUDARGI,
DISTI: GADAG. PIN-582118.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S. S. YADRAMI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. GIRISH V BHAT.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. PREMABAI
W/O. KANAKASINGH JAMADAR,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: UMATAR, TALUQ: RAMADURG,
DISTRICT: BELGAUM. PIN-584148.
2. SMT. JAYASHREE
W/O. BASAVANATSINGH RAJPUT,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: JAMAKHANDI, BADAGER GALLI,
TALUQ JAMAKHANDI,
DISTRICT BAGALKOT. PIN-582218.
3. SRI. RAJENDRASINGH KANAKASINGH JAMADAR,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: UMATAR TALUQ RAMADURGA.
PIN-584148.
4. SIR. MAHENDRASINGH KANAKASINGH JAMADAR,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O UMATAR, TALUQ RAMADURG. PIN-584148.
5. SRI. CHANDURSINGH KANAKSINGH JAMADAR,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: UMATAR, TALUQ RAMADURG. PIN-584148.
-5-
RFA No. 1925 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 1928 of 2006
6. SRI. KANAKASINGH GOVINDASINGH JAMADAR,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED
GOVERNMENT SERVANT, R/O: GADAG
(DEAD SINCE DECEASED L.RS PLAINTIFFS NO.
1 TO 5) PIN-582101.
7. SRI. RAGHUNATHSINGH GOVINDASINGH JAMADAR,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS OCC: RETIRED
GOVERNMENT SERVANT, R/O: SILVER PARK ,
PLOT NO. 1 DEVANGPETH ROAD, GOPANAKOPPA,
HUBL- 580023.
8. SRI. HANAMANTSINGH RAGHUNATHSINGH JAMADAR
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O: SILVAR PARK, PLOT NO. 1 DEVANGPETH ROAD,
GOPANAKOPPA HUBLI-580023.
9. SRI VENKATESHSINGH RAGHUNATHSINGH
JAMADAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YRS,OCC PRIVATE
SERVICE, R/O SILVARPARK PLOT NO 1,
DEVANGPETH ROADGOPANAKOPPA, HUBLI 23.
10. SRI. SUBHASINGH RAGHUNATHSINGH JAMADAR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: SILVER PARK, PLOT NO. 1 DEVANGPETH ROAD,
GOPANAKOPPA, HUBLI-580023.
11. DR. BASAVARAJ SHIVAPPA METI,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
OCC: MEDICAL PRACTITIONER,
R/O: MAIN BAZAAR, MUDARGI,
TALUQ MUDARGI,
DISTRICT GADAG-580023.
12. SRI. KARABASAPPA VEERABHADRAPPA HANCHINAL,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC CLASS 1CONTRACTOR,
-6-
RFA No. 1925 of 2006
C/W RFA No. 1928 of 2006
R/O: NEAR TALUQ PANCHAYATH OFFICE,
MUDARGI,TALUQ MURDARGI,
DISTRICT GADAG-582118.
13. SRI. RAMAPPA HANAMAPPA DASAKANAKAPPANAVAR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: CLASS
'I' CONTRACTOR, R/O: MUNDARGI,
NEAR TALUQ PANCHAYATH OFFICE,
TALUQ: MUNDARGI. PIN-582118.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C. S. SHETTAR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. G. K. HIREGOUDAR ADVOCATE FOR R1-R5.,)
(R7 ABATED)
(NOTICE TO R6, R8-13 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF
CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT. 03.08.2006
PASSED IN O.S.NO. 247/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND CJM., GADAG, DECREEING THE
SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The suit in O.S.No.247/2000 is filed for the relief of partition and separate possession. There are five properties described in the plaint. Four are agricultural lands and one is the residential house. The suit is filed by the wife and children of late Kanaksingh. The relationship is not in dispute. The genealogy is as under:
-7-RFA No. 1925 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 1928 of 2006
GOVINDASINGH (DIED ON 27-05-1972)
BHAVANIBAI (DEAD)
RAGHUNATHSINGH(DEFT.NO. 2) KANAKASINGH
(DEFT. NO.1)
ANASUIYABAI
PREMABAI
(PLFF.NO.1)
HANAMANTASINGH VENKATESHSINGH SUBHASSINGH
(DEFT.NO.3) (DEFT.NO.4) (DEFT.NO.5)
SMT. JAYASHREE RAJENDRASINGH MAHENDRASINGH CHANDRUSINGH (PLFF.NO.2) (PLFF.NO.3) (PLFF.4) (PLFF.5)
2. One Govind Singh was the propositus. He died in 1972. After his demise, the properties were inherited by his wife Smt.Bhavani Bai, two sons i.e. Kanaksingh and Raghunath Singh and two daughters i.e., Smt Padma Bai and Smt Ambu Bai. The admitted facts would reveal that after the demise of Govind Singh, wife of Govind Singh and his two -8- RFA No. 1925 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 1928 of 2006 daughters did not make any claim in respect of the properties. The properties were mutated jointly in the names of two sons viz., Raghunath Singh and Kanak Singh. It appears that Raghunath Singh transferred his share in the properties in favour of his three sons in respect of one of the suit properties namely the property bearing Sy No.233. Later some of the properties were sold in favour of defendants 6 to 10. The sale transactions have taken place in respect of the following suit schedule properties in the following manner:
(a) Kanaksingh and three sons of Raghunathsingh have sold property bearing Sy.No.233 measuring 3 acres 4 guntas in favour of defendant No.6 vide sale deed dated 16.05.1995.
(b) Kanaksingh and three sons of Raghunathsingh have sold property bearing Sy.No.233 measuring 4 acres 20 guntas in favour of defendant No.7 vide sale deed dated 16.05.1995.
(c) Kanaksingh executed registered sale deed in respect of Sy.No.109 measuring 2 acres 28 guntas in favour of defendants 8 and 9 vide registered sale deed dated 23.10.2000.
3. The wife and children of Kanaksingh have filed a suit for partition claiming share in the suit schedule properties on the premise that the properties in the hands of Kanaksingh are the ancestral properties and Kanaksingh could not have sold the properties in favour of defendants 6 to 10. The suit -9- RFA No. 1925 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 1928 of 2006 was contested by the purchasers. Raghunathsingh - the brother of Kanaksingh filed written statement opposing the claim.
4. The trial Court has held that the properties could not have been sold and has granted a decree for partition in respect of properties declaring 5/6th share in the suit properties and has held that the alienation made by Kanaksingh in favour of defendants 6 to 10 are not binding on the plaintiffs.
5. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed.
6. Sri S S Yadrami, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the properties in the hands of Kanaksingh were the properties inherited under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short, the 'Act') as such, he was the absolute owner of the properties and he had every right to alienate the properties and there are no restrictions what-so-ever under any provision of law on Kanaksingh from alienating the properties. He would further submit that the trial Court erred in granting the decree for
- 10 -
RFA No. 1925 of 2006C/W RFA No. 1928 of 2006 partition on the premise that the properties are ancestral properties in the hands of Kanaksingh. In support of his contention, he would rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of COMMERCIAL OF WEALTH TAX vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW (1986)3 SCC 567.
7. Sri Deepak S Shettar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents justifying the judgment and decree would submit that the property in the hands of Kanaksingh though were inherited under Section 8 of the Act, after the death of his father Govind Singh in the year 1972, the properties acquired the characteristics of ancestral co-parcenery properties because of the partition between Kanaksingh and Raghunath Singh and children of Kanaksingh did acquire right in the property by birth in the family and as the children of Kanaksingh acquired right in the properties by birth, Kanaksingh's share in the properties diminished. He would further submit that once the suit for partition is filed by the children against the father, the mother of the children (father's wife) is also entitled to a share in the family properties applying the provisions of Mithakshara Law in Bombay-
- 11 -
RFA No. 1925 of 2006C/W RFA No. 1928 of 2006 Karnataka Province and as such, would submit that the trial Court is justified in granting decree for partition. In support of his contentions, he would reply on the following judgments:
(1) SHYAM NARAYAN PRASAD vs KRISHNA PRASAD AND OTHERS (2018)7 SCC 646 (2) K R RAMASWAMY RAO vs PREMA BAI (1987 ILR Kar.1751)
8. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar an also perused the judgment and decree and also considered the judgments relied upon by the learned Senior counsel S S Yadrami appearing for the appellants as well as the learned counsel Sri Deepak Shettar appearing for the respondents.
9. The following point would arise for consideration:
"(i) Whether the property inherited under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, acquires the characteristic of a co-paracenery property subsequent to the division of properties between two brothers vis-à-vis sons of the parties to the partition?"
- 12 -
RFA No. 1925 of 2006C/W RFA No. 1928 of 2006
10. In this case the Court has to consider the implication of Section 4 and Section 8 of the Act. Admittedly, the properties in the hands of Govindasingh were the self acquired properties. This fact is also established by producing the copy of ME.No.792 of Bardur village, Mundargi taluk in respect of Sy.No.233 and ME.No.1404 in respect of property bearing Sy.Nos.109 and 114/2 of Bardur village, Mundargi taluk.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents have not disputed the fact that Govindasingh held the properties exclusively. Admittedly, Govindasingh died in 1972. On his death, his properties would devolve under Section 8 of the Act as the properties in his hands were the self acquired properties. Thus, the properties would devolve upon his wife, his two sons Kanaksingh & Raghunatsingh and two daughters. Since wife and two daughters have not claimed right over the properties, the sons of Govindasingh namely Kanaksingh and Raghunathsingh held the properties jointly.
12. It is also forthcoming from the record that Raghunathsingh transferred some of the properties in the
- 13 -
RFA No. 1925 of 2006C/W RFA No. 1928 of 2006 name of his children namely defendants No.3 to 5 during his life time. This document is not preceded by any registered document. However, there is no dispute over the fact that the children of Raghunathsingh were enjoying the properties by reason of arrangement made by their father Raghunathsingh. Thereafter, the properties are sold by Kanaksingh under registered sale deeds as indicated above.
13. Now the suit if filed by the children of Kanaksingh and wife of Kanaksingh on the premise that they have acquired right in the properties by birth in the family. The question is whether they acquire right in the properties by birth in the family in the event the properties being inherited by their father under Section 8 of the Act. The position in this regard is well settled. Under Section 8 of the Act, the properties would devolve upon the heirs specified therein. The heirs specified under the schedule are the wife, mother, sons, daughters and children of pre-deceased sons and pre deceased daughters. The schedule does not recognise the children of living sons and living daughters as the heirs under the schedule. That being the position, the grand children do not acquire right over the property by reason of birth in the family.
- 14 -
RFA No. 1925 of 2006C/W RFA No. 1928 of 2006 The position in this regard is well settled and the Supreme Court has reiterated this position ever since the declaration of law in the case of COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, KANPUR AND OTHERS Vs. CHANDER SEN AND OTHERS reported in (1986) 3 SCC 567 and subsequent judgments followed the ratio laid down in the aforementioned case. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the properties acquired by Kanaksingh after the demise of his father Govindasingh are the properties which were acquired exclusively along with his brother Raghunathsingh.
14. The next point for consideration is whether the partition between Kanaksingh and Raghunathsingh could change the characteristics of the properties as contented by Sri. Deepak S.Shetter, learned counsel for the respondents. In support of his contention, he would refer to the following two judgments;
15. (i) K.R.RAMASWAMY RAO Vs. PREMA BAI reported in (1987 ILR Kar.1751)
(ii) SHYAM NARAYAN PRASAD Vs. KRISHNA PRASAD AND OTHERS reported in (2018) 7 SCC 646
- 15 -
RFA No. 1925 of 2006C/W RFA No. 1928 of 2006
16. This Court has perused the said judgments. It can be noticed from the judgment in the case of SHYAM NARAYAN (supra), the partition has taken place in the family of Gopalji who was the propositus and the partition took place among Gopalji and his 5 sons and in that case the Apex Court has held that when the coparcenary properties are divided between the father and his children, the properties in the hands of sons of the children who acquired right in the properties through partitions are also the corparcenary properties. However, in this case it is to be noticed that Kanaksingh did not acquire the right over the properties from his father through partition. Kanaksingh acquired the properties under succession opened under Section 8 of the Act. That being the case, the ratio laid down in the case of SHYAM NARAYAN PRASAD (supra) referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents is not applicable as the properties in this case are not the coparcenary properties, and the properties involved in this case are inherited under succession under Section 8 of the Act.
17. As far as the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court referred to by the counsel for the respondents is
- 16 -
RFA No. 1925 of 2006C/W RFA No. 1928 of 2006 concerned, it is again to be noticed that in the said case the Court was dealing with the question relating to the characteristic of the property which is bequeathed under a Will. It is to be noticed that in the said case, the Division Bench of this Court has referred to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of C.N.ARUNACHALA MUDALIAR Vs. C A.MURUGANATHA MUDALIAR & ANR.. Again it is to be noticed that the law in the case of C.N.ARUNACHALA (supra) was declared before the commencement of the Act. So the ratio laid down in the said case is not applicable.
18. It is required to be noticed that the Act is watershed movement when it comes to succession among Hindus. The Act deals with both testamentary as well as non-testamentary succession both in respect of coparcenary properties as well as self acquired properties. In addition to that, Section 4 of the Act has a far reaching consequence as the said provision has an overriding effect in respect of all matters for which the provision is made in the Act. As far as succession is concerned, there is no dispute that Sections 6, 8, 15 and 19 of the Act are the provisions governing the succession to the properties of a Hindu. From reading of these provisions, it is abundantly
- 17 -
RFA No. 1925 of 2006C/W RFA No. 1928 of 2006 clear that the parliament in its wisdom wanted to do away with the concept of the birth right in respect of properties governed under Section 8 of the Act. This being the position, this Court is of the view that merely because Kanaksingh and Raghunathsingh effected a partition between themselves in respect of the properties which they inherited under Section 8 of the Act, the character of the property will not change. The nature of the property has to be determined with reference to the nature of acquisition after the demise of the holder of the property. If the holder of the property dies leaving behind the self acquired property, then the property would devolve under Section 8 of the Act. If the holder dies leaving behind his share in the coparcenary property, then Section 6 of the Act would come into picture provided other circumstances enumerated in Section 6 of the Act are met with.
19. In the case on hand, admittedly, properties in the hands of Govindasingh were his self acquired properties and on his death, Section 8 of the Act gets triggered and the properties would devolve on his Class-I heirs exclusively. This being the position, subsequent act of partition if at all has taken place between his heirs, does not change the nature and
- 18 -
RFA No. 1925 of 2006C/W RFA No. 1928 of 2006 the characteristics of the properties into coparcenary properties.
20. It is well settled principle of Hindu Law that coparcenary is a creature of the statue and it cannot be created by way of an agreement. That being the position, the conduct of the parties will not change the characteristics of the property. For this reason, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court was in error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs on the premise that the plaintiffs had right in the properties of Kanaksingh, by reason of birth in the family. Accordingly, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court have to be set aside.
21. It is also required to be noticed that this appeal is filed by only the purchasers of the properties who purchased the properties from Kanaksingh and children of Raghunathsingh. As far as the remaining portion of the decree passed by the Trial Court is concerned, it is not challenged by the remaining defendants. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the challenge has to be accepted only to the extent of challenge made before this Court and accordingly, the judgment and decree in respect of Item Nos.1, 3 and 4
- 19 -
RFA No. 1925 of 2006C/W RFA No. 1928 of 2006 [i.e. Item No.1 - Sy.No.109/1 measuring 2 acres 28 guntas, Item No. 3 - 233/1 measuring 7 acres 14 guntas and Item No.4 - 2332 measuring 10 acres 20 guntas] are set aside and judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in respect of the remaining properties are not disturbed as it is not challenged.
22. Since the appeal is in respect of the properties purchased by the appellants and not in respect of other schedule properties which are not purchased by the appellants, the notice to respondents No.8, 9 and 10 was dispensed with as respondents No.8, 9 and 10 did not question the sale transaction and did not claim any right over the properties purchased by appellants. In fact, they supported the case of the appellants before the Trial Court. As far as appeal against respondent No.7 is concerned, it was dismissed as abated. It is also required to be noticed that respondent No.7 did not contest the claim of the plaintiffs and supported the case of the appellants. The respondents No.8, 9 and 10 are the heirs of deceased respondent No.7. Hence, the appeal does not abate as against the contesting respondents.
- 20 -
RFA No. 1925 of 2006C/W RFA No. 1928 of 2006
23. Hence the following:
ORDER Appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and decree dated 03.08.2006 passed in O.S.247/2000 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Gadag are set-aside in part. Suit of the plaintiffs in respect of item No.1, 3 and 4 is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE BRN/RH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45