Karnataka High Court
Shri. Vinayak S/O Raghunathrao ... vs Smt. Sunita W/Oo Dr. Shirish Sonawane on 3 September, 2025
Author: S.R. Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R. Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11312-DB
RFA No. 100100 of 2018
C/W RFA No. 100125 of 2018
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. 100100 OF 2018 (PAR/POS-)
C/W
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100125 OF 2018
IN
IN RFA NO.100100/2018 (PAR/POS-)
BETWEEN:
SHRI VINAYAK
S/O. RAGHUNATHRAO NANDGERIKAR,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/AT: BHUSPET, AKKIHONDA,
HUBBALLI-580020.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIJAYENDRA BHIMAKKANAVAR, ADVOCATE)
YASHAVANT AND:
NARAYANKAR
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT
1. SMT. SUNITA
NARAYANKAR
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
W/O. DR. SHIRISH SONAWANE,
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. AT C.303 WINGS DREAM CASTLE,
WAGH MALA, MAKHAMALABAD ROAD, PANCHVATI,
NASIK-422003, (MAHARASHTRA STATE).
2. SMT. SANGEETA
W/O. KIRAN CHANDWADKAR,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11312-DB
RFA No. 100100 of 2018
C/W RFA No. 100125 of 2018
HC-KAR
R/O: AT NO.12, KRISHNAKAMAL,
OPP: HORIZONE ACADEMY SCHOOL,
SAHADEVNAGAR, GANGAPUR ROAD,
NASIK-422001, (MAHARASHTRA STATE).
3. SMT. SMITA @ SHARADDHA
W/O. RAJENDRA MAHADIK,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: AT NO.06, AMEYA KRIPA,
CHS, LBS MARG JONDHAL BUG,
MAKHMAIL LAKE, THANE WEST,
THANE-400601, (MAHARASHTRA STATE).
4. SMT. SUJATA
W/O. RAJENDRA GHODKE,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: AT A/5, KOHINOOR RESIDENCY,
WADA ROAD, RAJGURUNAGAR,
PUNE-410505, (MAHARASHTRA STATE).
5. VINOD
S/O. RAGHUNATHRAO NANDGERIKAR,
(SINCE DECEASED) BY HIS LRS,
5A. SMT. CHAITRA
W/O. VINOD NANDGERIKAR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: AT BHUSPETH, AKKIHONDA,
HUBBALLI-580028.
5B. KUMARI GOURI
D/O. VINOD NANDGERIKAR,
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: AT BHUSPETH, AKKIHONDA,
HUBBALLI-580028.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11312-DB
RFA No. 100100 of 2018
C/W RFA No. 100125 of 2018
HC-KAR
5C. DAIWIK
S/O. VINOD NANDGERIKAR,
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: AT BHUSPETH, AKKIHONDA,
HUBBALLI-580028.
(RESPONDENT NO.5, (B) AND (C) BEING MINORS,
REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER
NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.5(A)).
6. SMT. SOLOCHANA
W/O. RAGHUNATHRAO NANDGERIKAR,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: AT BHUSPETH, AKKIHONDA,
HUBBALLI-580020.
7. PRABHAKAR
S/O. BALAKRISHNA NANDAGERIKAR,
AGE: ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: P.B. ROAD, ANNAPURNA FLOOR MILL,
BANKAPUR CHOWK, HUBBALLI-580028.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR,
ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R4;
SRI. RAGHAVENDRA A. PUROHIT, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3;
SRI. S.M. CHANDRASHEKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. M.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R7;
NOTICE TO R5(A) AND R6-SERVED;
R5(B), R5(C) ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R5(A))
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., PRAYING
TO CALL THE ENTIRE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF LEARNED
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT HUBBALLI, IN
O.S.NO.379/2013; ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL AND SET-
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.11.2017 PASSED
IN O.S.NO.379/2013 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11312-DB
RFA No. 100100 of 2018
C/W RFA No. 100125 of 2018
HC-KAR
JUDGE, AT HUBBALLI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
IN RFA NO.100125/2018 (PAR/POS-)
BETWEEN:
SHRI PRABHAKAR
S/O. BALAKRISHNA NANDAGERIKAR,
AGE ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. P.B. ROAD, ANNAPURNA FLOOR MILL,
BANKAPUR CHOWK, HUBLI-580028.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.M. CHANDRASHEKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. M.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SUNITA
W/O. DR. SHIRISH SONAWANE,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. AT C.303 WINGS DREAM CASTLE,
WAGH MALA, MAKHAMALABAD ROAD, PANCHVATI,
NASIK-422003, (MAHARASHTRA STATE).
2. SMT. SANGEETA
W/O. KIRAN CHANDWADKAR,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: AT NO.12, KRISHNAKAMAL,
OPP: HORIZONE ACADEMY SCHOOL,
SAHADEVNAGAR, GANGAPUR ROAD,
NASIK-422001, (MAHARASHTRA STATE).
3. SMT. SMITA @ SHARADDHA
W/O. RAJENDRA MAHADIK,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: AT NO.06, AMEYA KRIPA,
CHS, LBS MARG JONDHAL BUG,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11312-DB
RFA No. 100100 of 2018
C/W RFA No. 100125 of 2018
HC-KAR
MAKHMAIL LAKE, THANE WEST,
THANE-400601, (MAHARASHTRA STATE).
4. SMT. SUJATA
W/O. RAJENDRA GHODKE,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: AT A/5, KOHINOOR RESIDENCY,
WADA ROAD, RAJGURUNAGAR,
PUNE-410505, (MAHARASHTRA STATE).
5. SHRI VINAYAK
S/O. RAGHUNATHRAO NANDGERIKAR,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/AT: BHUSPET, AKKIHONDA,
HUBBALLI-580020.
6. VINOD
S/O. RAGHUNATHRAO NANDGERIKAR,
(SINCE DECEASED) BY HIS LRS,
6A. SMT. CHAITRA
W/O. VINOD NANDGERIKAR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: AT BHUSPETH, AKKIHONDA,
HUBBALLI-580028.
6B. KUMARI GOURI
D/O. VINOD NANDGERIKAR,
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: AT BHUSPETH, AKKIHONDA,
HUBBALLI-580028.
6C. DAIWIK
S/O. VINOD NANDGERIKAR,
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11312-DB
RFA No. 100100 of 2018
C/W RFA No. 100125 of 2018
HC-KAR
R/O: AT BHUSPETH, AKKIHONDA,
HUBBALLI-580028.
(RESPONDENT NO.6, (B) AND (C) BEING MINORS,
REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER
NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.6(A)).
7. SMT. SOLOCHANA
W/O. RAGHUNATHRAO NANDGERIKAR,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: AT BHUSPETH, AKKIHONDA,
HUBBALLI-580020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.D. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. RAGHAVENDRA A. PUROHIT, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3;
SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. VIJAYENDRA BHIMAKKANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, PRAYING
TO CALL THE ENTIRE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF LEARNED
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT HUBBALLI, IN
O.S.NO.379/2013; ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL AND SET-
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.11.2017 IN
O.S.NO.379/2013 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, AT HUBBALLI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING 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
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11312-DB
RFA No. 100100 of 2018
C/W RFA No. 100125 of 2018
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) Both these appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.11.2017 passed in O.S.No.379/2013 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi1.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:
(a) One Kashinath, who expired in the year 1946, was the original propositus and he had two sons viz., Balakrishna, who expired in the year 1972 and Raghunath, who expired in the year 1977. The aforesaid Balakrishna left behind Prabhakar as his only son, while Raghunath who was married to Smt.Sulochana left behind two sons and four daughters as his heirs and legal representatives.
(b) The four daughters of Raghunathrao and Sulochana instituted the aforesaid suit in O.S.No.379/2013 for partition and separate possession of the alleged share in the suit schedule properties. In the said suit, Vinayak and Vinod, the brothers of 1 Hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court"-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11312-DB RFA No. 100100 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100125 of 2018 HC-KAR the plaintiffs were arrayed as defendant Nos.1 and 2 and their mother-Sulochana as defendant No.3, so also Prabhakar S/o.Balakrishan Nandagerikar as defendant No.4. The plaintiffs contended that the suit schedule properties were joint family properties and they were entitled to their legitimate share in the same. 100035/2022
(c) It is matter of record that while the defendant Nos.1 to 3 i.e., the sons and wife of late Raghunathrao did not file their written statement or contest the suit, the aforesaid defendant No.4-Prabhakar S/o.Balakrishna (brother of Raghunathrao) filed his written statement and contested the suit. Apart from disputing and denying the claim of the plaintiffs on merits, the defendant No.4 also took up specific contention that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and that various properties standing in the name of late Raghunathrao had not been included in the suit and consequently the suit for partial partition without including all parties and properties was not maintainable and the same was liable to be dismissed.
3. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues and additional issue: -9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11312-DB RFA No. 100100 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100125 of 2018 HC-KAR ISSUES
1. Do the plaintiffs prove that suit properties are the ancestral joint family properties of plaintiffs and the defendants?
2. Do the plaintiffs prove that they have legitimate share in all the suit properties as per amended Hindu Succession Act 2005?
3. Do the plaintiffs prove that the defendants have without consent of the plaintiffs, created the registered partition deed dated:21-11-2011 illegally and it is not binding on the plaintiffs?
4. Do the defendants prove that the suit schedule 'A' properties fallen to the share of defendant No. 4 and he is in actual possession of 'A' schedule properties as contended in his para No. 7 of the written statement?
5. Do the defendants prove that the partition deed is fair and acted upon with the consent of the plaintiffs?
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11312-DB RFA No. 100100 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100125 of 2018 HC-KAR
6. Do the defendant No. 4 proves that he has sold the suit properties bearing CTS Ward No.1. CTS No. 2441+2442+2443+2444 of Hubli city measuring 210 sq. yards to the third parties and thereby the suit is not maintainable ?
7. Do the defendants prove that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit?
8. Do the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs sought for?
9. To what reliefs the parties are entitled to?
10. What order or decree.
ADDITIONAL ISSUE :
1. Do the defendant No. 4 proves that suit schedule 'A' Sl. No. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 items are self acquired properties of his father and plaintiffs are not entitle for share as contended in amended written statement?
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11312-DB RFA No. 100100 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100125 of 2018 HC-KAR
4. As can be seen from the aforesaid issues and additional issue framed by the Trial Court a specific issue as regards suit for partial partition without including all parties and without encompassing all the properties was maintainable or not was not framed by the Trial Court.
5. The plaintiffs examined plaintiff No.4 as PW1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P45 were marked by way of documentary evidence. The defendant No.4 examined himself as DW1 and one witness as DW2. Ex.D1 to Ex.34 were marked on their behalf. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs and by declaring that they are entitled to 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties and that the partition deed dated 22.11.2011 was illegal, null and void and not binding on the share of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the defendant No.4-Prabhakar S/o.Balakrishna has preferred RFA No.100125/2018 while defendant No.1-Vinayak has preferred RFA No.100100/2018.
6. Heard Sri.S.M.Chandrashekhar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in RFA No.100125/2018 and learned
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11312-DB RFA No. 100100 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100125 of 2018 HC-KAR counsel for the appellant in RFA No.100100/2018 as well as learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs and other learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would reiterate the various contentions urged in the appeal and point out that though specific pleadings had been put forth by the defendant No.4, inter alia, contending that the suit for partial partition without impleading all co-sharers i.e., sisters of defendant No.4/Prabhakar was not maintainable and the properties standing in the name of Raghunathrao had not been included among the suit schedule properties, the Trial Court failed to consider and appreciate the same and did not frame any specific issue in this regard and as such, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside. He would invite our attention to the finding recorded by the Trial Court at paragraph 25 to 27 in order to contend that the said finding recorded by the Trial Court that the suit for partial partition was maintainable without including the properties of Ranganathrao is erroneous inasmuch as without the said properties being shown among the suit schedule properties and
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11312-DB RFA No. 100100 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100125 of 2018 HC-KAR an opportunity in this regard being not granted in favour of the parties, the Trial Court committed an error in rejecting the said claim of the appellant.
8. In this context, it was submitted that the appellant in RFA No.100125/2018 has filed an application, I.A.No.1, for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19082 dated 16.07.2024 enclosing a copy of the revenue record in relation to Survey No.797/2-P1 measuring 1 Acre 17 guntas standing in the name of Raghunathrao and that the said document would clearly indicate that all the properties were alleged joint family properties including the properties standing in the name of Raghunathrao had not been included among the suit schedule properties and as such, the said documents were relevant and necessary for disposal of the present appeal. It was therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh.
2 Hereinafter referred to as 'CPC'
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11312-DB RFA No. 100100 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100125 of 2018 HC-KAR
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff No.1 would support the impugned judgment and decree and submit that in the light of the provisions contained under Order I Rule 13 of CPC and absence of plea regarding non-joinder of necessary parties and properties in the written statement, the Trial Court was fully justified in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs and as such, there is no material in the appeal and same is liable to be dismissed.
10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff No.1 would also oppose the application, I.A.No.1/2024, filed by the appellant for production of additional evidence and submit that application is liable to be dismissed.
11. We have given our careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The following points would arise for our consideration in the present appeal.
i) Whether the application, I.A.No.1/2024 filed by the appellant in RFA No.100125/2018 deserves to be allowed?
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11312-DB RFA No. 100100 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100125 of 2018 HC-KAR
ii) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside?
Reg.Point No.(i):
12. As stated supra, in the written statement, the appellant/defendant No.4 took up specific contention that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; though the details of the persons, who were not made parties are not forthcoming in the written statement, it is seen from the evidence on record that the appellant/Prabhakar has five sisters viz., Mangala, Latha, Annapurna, Vanita and Jyoti, all of whom undisputedly have not been made parties to the suit. This fact is spoken to by DW1 during the course of his evidence. It is also relevant to state that no explanation is offered by the plaintiffs as to why while Prabhakar S/o. Balakrishnarao was impleaded as a party, his sisters have not been arrayed as parties to the suit. In fact, in the documentary evidence on record at Exs.P-27, 28, 30 to 43 and 45 the names of aforesaid sisters of Prabhakar are shown in relation to the suit schedule properties. Under these
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11312-DB RFA No. 100100 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100125 of 2018 HC-KAR circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that non- impleadment of the sisters of Prabhakar would constitute non- joinder of necessary parties and the impugned judgment and decree deserves to be set aside on this ground alone so as to provide an opportunity to the plaintiffs to implead other family members who are the sisters of Prabhakar as additional defendants to the suit.
13. It is well settled that a suit for partial partition without impleading all co-sharers and all properties is not maintainable in the absence of any explanation being offered by the plaintiffs as to why all co-sharers and all properties are not included in the array of parties and among the suit schedule properties. In the case of Kenchegouda v. Siddegowda Alias Motegowda3 the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"16. Therefore, what has been held is that the property had not been allotted in favour of the first defendant in the partition. That is very different from holding that the case of partition had not been accepted by the first appellate court. This being so, 3 (1994) 4 SCC 294
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11312-DB RFA No. 100100 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100125 of 2018 HC-KAR a decree for partition could not have been passed on a mere application for amendment. In fact, as rightly urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the causes of action are different and the reliefs are also different. To hold that the relief of declaration and injunction are larger reliefs and smaller relief for partition could be granted is incorrect. Even otherwise, a suit for partial partition in the absence of the inclusion of other joint family properties and the impleadment of the other co- sharers was not warranted in law. Thus, we find no difficulty in allowing these appeals which are accordingly allowed. The judgment and decree of the trial court as affirmed by the first appellate court are restored. However, there shall be no order as to costs."
(emphasis supplied)
14. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Niroop D.J. v. D.A.Jayaramegouda4 held as under:
"18. In a suit for partition, all the necessary parties and also all the joint family properties have tobe brought in for effecting the partition by metes and bounds. The Trial Court is required to determine the property given to the plaintiff after his marriage and whether the joint family is in existence or not and what are the self-acquired properties of the plaintiff 4 HCR 2024 Kant 21
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11312-DB RFA No. 100100 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100125 of 2018 HC-KAR and also defendant No.1. Unless these properties are included and also D.T.Goutham is arrayed as one of the defendants, the evidence on record is incomplete and not sufficient to adjudicate the dispute between the parties effectively.
19. In a suit for partition, when the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has omitted certain properties, which could have been specifically mentioned in the written statement, it ought to have deferred the judgment and directed the plaintiff to include those properties and also array D.T.Goutham as party and then decide the case on merits. The material on record does not point out that the Trial Court has given such an opportunity to implead necessary parties and include the properties before pronouncing the judgment. Hence, the impugned judgment is incomplete and it is not decided on merits.
20. In the light of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the parties must be directed to include all the properties and implead D.T.Goutham as a party in the suit with a direction to the Trial Court to complete the pleadings, frame proper issues and to decide the case on merits without reference to any of the observations made hereinabove. Hence, the appeal merits consideration."
(emphasis supplied)
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11312-DB RFA No. 100100 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100125 of 2018 HC-KAR
15. As can be seen from the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was set aside and the mater remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law with a direction to allow the parties to bring in all properties and implead one more person as one of the defendants and to complete pleadings, produce additional evidence and the Trial Court to decide the case on merits in accordance with law.
16. I.A.No.1/2024 is filed by the appellant in RFA No.100125/2018 along with revenue records pertaining to one of the properties standing in the name of late Raghunathrao. It is contended that apart from the said property shown in the document produced along with the application for additional evidence, there were other properties standing in the name of Raghunathrao and the appellant would obtain the details of the said properties and amend his pleadings appropriately in this regard and hence, the impugned judgment and decree is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11312-DB RFA No. 100100 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100125 of 2018 HC-KAR reconsideration afresh, the appellant would amend the pleadings and bring to the notice of the Trial Court additional properties, if any, standing in the name of Ranganathrao.
17. A perusal of the aforesaid document produced along with the application, I.A.No.1/2024 will clearly indicate that the said property stands in the name of Raghunathrao, who is undisputedly the brother of Balakrishna (the father of appellant/Prabhakar) and that the said Raghunathrao is the father of the plaintiffs. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the aforesaid document produced by way of additional evidence is essential to effectively adjudicate upon the issues involved in controversy in the present appeal and the explanation offered by the appellant that he could not produce the same despite exercise of due diligence during the trial deserves to be accepted in view of the averments in this regard made in the affidavit in support of the application. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2024 is hereby allowed. Accordingly, point No.(i) is answered in favour of the appellant.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11312-DB RFA No. 100100 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100125 of 2018 HC-KAR Reg.Point No.(ii):
18. The next question that arises for consideration is the course to be adopted for disposal of the appeal pursuant to allowing of I.A.No.1/2024 for production of additional evidence. While dealing with point No.(i), we have come to the conclusion that the suit instituted was one for partial partition without including alleged joint family properties standing in the name of Raghunthrao and without including the sisters of Prabhakar and consequently, it would be necessary to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remit the matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law by directing the plaintiffs to include/array/implead the sisters of Prabhakar as additional defendants to the suit and also include all the properties standing in the name of Raghunathrao as additional suit schedule properties. Under these circumstances, the point No.(ii) is answered by holding that the impugned judgment and decree deserves to be set aside and the matter remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law by issuing certain directions.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11312-DB RFA No. 100100 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100125 of 2018 HC-KAR
19. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) Both the appeals are hereby allowed.
(ii) I.A.No.1/2024 in RFA No.100125/2018 is hereby allowed and the document produced by way of additional evidence is received on record.
(iii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 30.11.2017 in O.S.No.379/2013 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law by issuing certain directions.
(iv) The parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 13.10.2025 without waiting for further notice from the Trial Court.
(v) Registry is directed to transmit I.A.No.1/2024 and the document produced with the said application
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11312-DB RFA No. 100100 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100125 of 2018 HC-KAR to the concerned Trial Court forthwith without any delay.
(vi) The plaintiffs are directed to implead the sisters of Prabhakar i.e., Mangala, Latha, Annapurna, Vanita and Jyoti as additional defendants to the suit by carrying out necessary amendment to the plaint.
(vii) The plaintiffs are also directed to seek inclusion of properties standing in the name of Raghunath as additional properties to the suit.
(viii) The Trial Court shall dispose of the suit afresh in accordance with law.
(ix) All rival contentions of the parties on all aspects of the matter are kept open without expressing any merits/demerits of the rival contentions.
(x) The Trial Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and at any within a period of eight months from the date 13.10.2025.
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11312-DB RFA No. 100100 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100125 of 2018 HC-KAR
(xi) The parties are directed to co-operate with the Trial Court for speedy disposal of the suit as stated supra.
Sd/-
(S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE YAN CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23