Karnataka High Court
Sri Chandrachari vs Smt Sharadamma on 12 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:37697
RFA No. 1033 of 2004
C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004
RFA No. 560 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1033 OF 2004 (PAR)
C/W
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1034 OF 2004 (PAR)
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 560 OF 2021 (PAR)
IN RFA No. 1033/2004
BETWEEN:
1. KUM NAGARATNA
D/O LATE MAHESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/O HARALAHALLI VILLAGE
HARIHAR TQ, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.B. HALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
1. AMRUTHACHARI
by CHAITHRA A S/O LATE NAGA
Location: HIGH SINCE DEAD BY LRS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1(A) SMT. SHARADAMMA
W/O LATE AMRUTACHARI
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/O YALODAHALLI VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TQ, DIST-DAVANGERE
1(B) BASAVACHARI
S/O LATE AMRUTACHARI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:37697
RFA No. 1033 of 2004
C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004
RFA No. 560 of 2021
1(C) MOUNESHACHARI
S/O LATE AMRUTACHARI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R1(A) TO R1(C) ARE
R/O YALODAHALLI VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TQ, DIST-DAVANGERE
1(D) INDRAMMA
W/O MOUNESHCHARI
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/O MALLAPURA, CHANNAGIRI TQ
DIST-DAVANGERE
1(E) SHANTAMMA
W/O MOUNESHCHARI
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/O MALLIGENAHALLI, HONNALI TQ
DIST-DAVANAGERE
2. BRAHMACHARI
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
2(A) MOUNESHACHARI
S/O LATE BRAHAMACHARI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
2(B) NAGARAJACHARI
S/O LATE BRAHAMACHARI
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/O NANDIGUDI VILLAGE
DAVANAGERE - DIST AND TQ.
2(C) SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O MOUNESHACHARI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/O SURAHONNE NYAMATHI
HONNALI-TQ, DAVANAGERE-DIST.
2(D) SMT. ANNAPOORNAMMA
W/O GADYAGACHARI
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:37697
RFA No. 1033 of 2004
C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004
RFA No. 560 of 2021
R/O ELAKKI LAVANGABEEDI
SHIKARIPURA TQ, SHIVAMOGGA DIST.
2(E) SMT. UMA @ MALLAMMA
W/O VEERANNACHARI
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/O NADITAVARE, HARAIHAR TQ
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
3. NIRANJANAMURTHY
DEAD BY LRS
3(A) KAMALAMMA
W/O LATE NIRANJANAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
3(B) NAGENDRACHARI
S/O LATE NIRANJANAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
3(C) LAXMAVVA
D/O LATE NIRANJANAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
3(D) PUTRAMMA
D/O LATE NIRANJANAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O HIREKABBAR VILLAGE
HIREKERUR TALUK
HAVERI DISTRICT.
4. YOGESHAPPA
S/O LATE MANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
OCC. CARPENTER
R/O KOGGANUR VILLAGE
DAVANGERE DISTRICT
5. DODDAVEERAPPA
S/O LATE MANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:37697
RFA No. 1033 of 2004
C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004
RFA No. 560 of 2021
OCC. PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER
CHATTAKAMBA VILLAGE
CHALLAKERE TQ, CHITRADURGA DIST.
6. HANUMANTHACHARI
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
6(A) HONNACHARI
S/O HANUMANTHACHARI
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
6(B) SMT. VRUNDAMMA
W/O JAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
6(C) SMT. RUDRAMMA
W/O VEERACHARI
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R6(A) TO R6(C) ARE R/O
MALLANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE
HARIHAR TALUK.
6(D) SUVARNAMMA
W/O VARPUTRACHARI
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/O UJJANI, KUNIGAL TALUK
BALLARI DISTRICT.
7. MAHESHWARAPPA
DEAD BY LRS
7(A) LAXMIDEVI
W/O LATE MAHESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
7(B) CHANDRACHARI
S/O LATE MAHESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
7(C) ANANDACHARI
S/O LATE MAHESHWARAPPA
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:37697
RFA No. 1033 of 2004
C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004
RFA No. 560 of 2021
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
7(D) THIPPESHCHARI
S/O LATE MAHESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
7(E) THEERTHACHARI
W/O LATE MAHESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
7(F) PUSHPAVATI
W/O LATE NEELAKANTACHARI
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
7(A) TO 7(F) ARE R/O
HARALAHALLI VILLAGE
HARIHAR TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
7(G) PARAIJATHA
W/O MOUNESHWARACHARI
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/O CHIKKABASRUR VILLAGE
BYADAGI TALUK
8. RANGAPPA
S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
9. YOGESHAPPA
S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
10. BHEEMAPPA
S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R8 TO R10 ARE R/O
GULEDAHALLI VILLAGE
HARIHAR TALUK
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:37697
RFA No. 1033 of 2004
C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004
RFA No. 560 of 2021
11. MALLIKARJUN
S/O LATE RUDRACHARI
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/O GULEDAHALLI VILLAGE
HARIHAR TALUK
12. MALLESHAPPA
S/O LATE RUDRACHARI
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/O YALODAHALLI VILLAGE
DAGINAKATTI POST
CHANNAGIRI TQ
13. RINDAMMA
W/O NINGACHARI
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/O BAMBOO BAZAR
DAVANAGERE.
14. KANTHAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRs
14(A) RANGACHARI
S/O NAGENDRACHARI
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
14(B) HANUMANTHACHARI
S/O RANGACHARI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
14(C) LALITHAMMA
W/O MOUNESHCHARI
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
14(D) MANJUNATHACHARI
S/O RANGACHARI
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
14(E) SHIVARAJACHARI
S/O RANGACHARI
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:37697
RFA No. 1033 of 2004
C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004
RFA No. 560 of 2021
ALL ARE R/O K.R. BHADAVANE
NEAR GANESH TEMPLE
DAVANAGERE
15. PADMAMMA
DEAD BY HER LRS
15(A) MYLARAPPA
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
15(B) CHANDRASHEKHARACHARI
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
15(C) SARVAMANGALAMMA
D/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R15(A) TO R15(C) ARE AGRICULTURIST
R/O GULADAHALLI VILLAGE
HARIHAR TQ.
16. SMT. SUBHADRAMMA
W/O NAGENDRACHARI
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
H.K. ROAD, NEAR GANESH TEMPLE
NITTUVALLI ROAD, DAVANGERE
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. GOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A-E), R2(A-E),
R3(A-D), R4 AND R5;
V/O DATED 08.07.2013 APPEAL AGAINST R2 STANDS
ABATED;
R6 DECEASED, R6(A, B, C AND D) ARE SERVED;
R7(A, B, C, D, E, F, G), R8, R9, R10(B, C, D AND E),
R11, R12, R13, R14(A, B, C, D, E), R15( A, B, C) AND
R16 ARE SERVED;
V/O DATED 25.06.2024 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R10(A)
IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:37697
RFA No. 1033 of 2004
C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004
RFA No. 560 of 2021
THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC 96 R/W O 41 OF CPC AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:03.08.2004 PASSED IN
OS.NO.374/02, ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.),
HARIHAR, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED BY RESPONDENT NOS.
1 TO 5 FOR PARTITION AND SEPERATE POSSESSION AND FOR
MESNE PROFITS.
IN RFA NO. 1034/2004
BETWEEN:
1. MAHESHWARAPPA
DEAD BY HIS LRS
1(A) LAXMI DEVI
W/O LATE MAHESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
1(B) CHANDRACHARI
S/O LATE MAHESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
1(C) ANANDACHARI
S/O LATE MAHESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
1(D) THIPPESHACHARI
S/O LATE MAHESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
1(E) THEERTHACHARI
S/O LATE MAHESHWARAPPA
AGED ABPIT 22 YEARS
1(F) PUSHPAVATI
W/O LATE NEELAKANTACHARI
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
APPELLANTS 1(A) TO 1(F) ARE
R/O HARALAHALLI VILLAGE
HARIHAR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DIST.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:37697
RFA No. 1033 of 2004
C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004
RFA No. 560 of 2021
1(G) PARIJATHA
W/O MOUNESHWARACHARI
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/O CHIKKABASRUR VILLAGE
BYADGI TALUK.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.B. HALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. AMRUTHACHARI
S/O LATE NAGA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
1(A) SMT. SHARADAMMA
W/O LATE AMRUTACHARI
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/O YALODAHALLI VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TQ, DIST-DAVANGERE
1(B) BASAVACHARI
S/O LATE AMRUTACHARI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/O YALODAHALLI VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TQ, DIST-DAVANGERE
1(C) MOUNESHACHARI
S/O LATE AMRUTACHARI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/O YALODAHALLI VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TQ, DIST-DAVANGERE
1(D) INDRAMMA
W/O MOUNESHACHARI
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/O MALLAPURA, CHANNAGIRI TQ
DIST-DAVANGERE
1(E) SHANTAMMA
W/O MOUNESHACHARI
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37697
RFA No. 1033 of 2004
C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004
RFA No. 560 of 2021
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/O MALLIGENAHALLI, HONNALI TQ
DIST-DAVANAGERE
2. BRAHMACHARI
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
2(A) MOUNESHACHARI
S/O LATE BRAHAMACHARI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
2(B) NAGARAJACHARI
S/O LATE BRAHAMACHARI
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/O NANDIGUDI VILLAGE
DAVANAGERE - DIST AND TQ.
2(C) SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O MOUNESHACHARI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/O SURAHONNE NYAMATHI
HONNALI-TQ, DAVANAGERE-DIST.
2(D) SMT. ANNAPOORNAMMA
W/O GADYAGACHARI
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/O ELAKKI LAVANGABEEDI
SHIKARIPURA TQ, SHIVAMOGGA DIST.
2(E) SMT. UMA @ MALLAMMA
W/O VEERANNACHARI
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/O NADITAVARE, HARAIHAR TQ
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
3. NIRANJANAMURTHY
DEAD BY LRS
3(A) KAMALAMMA
W/O LATE NIRANJANAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37697
RFA No. 1033 of 2004
C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004
RFA No. 560 of 2021
3(B) NAGENDRACHARI
S/O LATE NIRANJANAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
3(C) LAXMAVVA
D/O LATE NIRANJANAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
3(D) PUTRAMMA
D/O LATE NIRANJANAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O HIREKABBAR VILLAGE
HIREKERUR TALUK
HAVERI DISTRICT.
4. YOGESHAPPA
S/O LATE MANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
OCC. CARPENTER
R/O KOGGANUR VILLAGE
DAVANGERE DISTRICT
5. DODDAVEERAPPA
S/O LATE MANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
OCC. PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER
CHATTAKAMBA VILLAGE
CHALLAKERE TQ, CHITRADURGA DIST.
6. HANUMANTHACHARI
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
6(A) HONNACHARI
S/O HANUMANTHACHARI
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
6(B) SMT. VRUNDAMMA
W/O JAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37697
RFA No. 1033 of 2004
C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004
RFA No. 560 of 2021
6(C) SMT. RUDRAMMA
W/O VEERACHARI
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R6(A) TO R6(C) ARE R/O
MALLANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE
HARIHAR TALUK.
6(D) SUVARNAMMA
W/O VARPUTRACHARI
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/O UJJANI, KUNIGAL TALUK
BALLARI DISTRICT.
7. RANGAPPA
S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
8. YOGESHAPPA
S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
9. BHEEMAPPA
S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
9(A) NAGARAJACHARI
S/O LATE BHIMACHARI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
9(B) BRAMCHARI
S/O LATE BHIMACHARI
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
9(C) GANGADHARACHARI
S/O LATE BHIMACHARI
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
9(D) SMT. SUNDAMMA
W/O SHEKARAPPACHARI
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37697
RFA No. 1033 of 2004
C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004
RFA No. 560 of 2021
9(E) SMT. VASANTHAMMA
W/O NINGACHARI
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R7 TO R8 AND R9(A) TO R9(E) ARE
R/O GULLADAHALLI VILLAGE
HARIHAR TALUK
10. MALLIKARJUN
S/O LATE RUDRACHARI
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/O GULEDAHALLI VILLAGE
HARIHAR TALUK
11. MALLESHAPPA
S/O LATE RUDRACHARI
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/O YALODAHALLI VILLAGE
DAGINAKATTI POST
CHANNAGIRI TQ
12. RINDAMMA
W/O NINGACHARI
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/O BAMBOO BAZAR
DAVANAGERE.
13. KANTHAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRs
13(A) RANGACHARI
S/O NAGENDRACHARI
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
13(B) HANUMANTHACHARI
S/O RANGACHARI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
13(C) LALITHAMMA
W/O MOUNESHCHARI
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37697
RFA No. 1033 of 2004
C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004
RFA No. 560 of 2021
13(D) MANJUNATHACHARI
S/O RANGACHARI
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
13(E) SHIVARAJACHARI
S/O RANGACHARI
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O K.R. BHADAVANE
NEAR GANESH TEMPLE
DAVANAGERE
14. PADMAMMA
DEAD BY HER LRS
14(A) MYLARAPPA
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
14(B) CHANDRASHEKHARACHARI
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
14(C) SARVAMANGALAMMA
D/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R14(A) TO R14(C) ARE AGRICULTURIST
R/O GULADAHALLI VILLAGE
HARIHAR TQ.
15. SMT. SUBHADRAMMA
W/O NAGENDRACHARI
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
H.K. ROAD, NEAR GANESH TEMPLE
NITTUVALLI ROAD, DAVANGERE
16. NAGARATNA
W/O LATE MAHESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/O HARALAHALLI VILLAGE
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37697
RFA No. 1033 of 2004
C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004
RFA No. 560 of 2021
HARIHAR TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. GOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A TO E), R2(A TO E),
R3(A TO D), R4 AND R5;
SRI. D.P. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R13;
SRI. B.T. KOLLER, ADVOCATE FOR R16;
R6(A, B, C), R7, R8, R10, R11, R12, R14(A, B, C),
R15, R9(A TO E) ARE SERVED)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC 96 R/W O 41 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:3.8.04
PASSED IN OS.NO.374/02, ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE
(SR.DN.), HARIHAR, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION
AND SEPERATE POSSESSION AND FOR MESNE PROFITS.
IN RFA NO. 560/2021
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. CHANDRACHARI
S/O LATE MAHESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
2. SRI. ANANDACHARI
S/O LATE MAHESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
3. SRI. THIPPESHACHARI
S/O LATE MAHESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
4. SRI. THIRTHACHARI
S/O LATE MAHESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
5. SMT. PUSHPAMMA
S/O LATE MAHESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37697
RFA No. 1033 of 2004
C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004
RFA No. 560 of 2021
APPELLANTS NO. 1 TO 5 ARE
R/AT HARALAHALLI VILLAGE
HARIHARA TALUK
DAVANGERE (D) - 577 601.
6. SMT. PARIJATHA
W/O MOUNESHWAR ACHARI
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT CHIKKABASARURU VILLAGE
BYADAGI - 581 106.
7. SRI. RANGAPPA
S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
8. SRI. YOGESHAPPA
S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
APPELLANTS NO. 7 AND 8 ARE
R/AT GULADAHALLI VILLAGE
HARIHARA TALUK
DAVANGERE (D) - 577 601.
9. SMT. NAGARTHANA
D/O LATE MAHESHWARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
HARALAHALLI VILLAGE
HARIAHARA (T) DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.B. HALLI, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS
NO. 1 TO 7 AND 9)
AND:
1. SMT. SHARADAMMA
W/O LATE AMRUTHACHARI
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37697
RFA No. 1033 of 2004
C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004
RFA No. 560 of 2021
2. SMT. BASAVANTHACHARI
S/O LATE AMRUTHACHARI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
3. SMT. MOUNESHACHARI
S/O LATE AMRUTHACHARI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R1 TO R3 ARE R/AT
YALODAHALLI VILLAGE
DAGINIKATTE POST, CHANNAGIRI (T)
DAVANAGERE (D) - 577 213
4. SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O LATE MOUNESHACHARI
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
5. SMT. ANNAPURNAMMA
W/O LATE GADDIGACHARI
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
6. SMT. GIRIJAMMA
W/O LATE THIPPESHACHARI
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
7. SRI. H.T. MALLESHI
S/O LATE H.B. THIPPESHACHARI
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
8. SMT. H.T. MANJULA
D/O LATE H.B. THIPPESHACHARI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
9. SRI. H.B. MOUNESHWARACHARI
S/O LATE H.B. BRAMACHACHARI
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
10. SRI. H.B. NAGARAJACHARI
S/O LATE H.B. BRAMACHACHARI
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37697
RFA No. 1033 of 2004
C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004
RFA No. 560 of 2021
11. SMT. UMA
W/O LATE VEERACHARI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R4 TP R11 ARE R/AT
NANDIGUDI VILLAGE
HARIHARA TALUK
DAVANAGERE (D) - 577 601.
12. SMT. KAMALAMMA
W/O LATE NIRANJANAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
13. SMT. NAGENDRACHARI
S/O LATE NIRANJANAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
14. SMT. LAKSHMAVVA
D/O LATE NIRANJANAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
15. SMT. PUTRAMMA
D/O LATE NIRANJANAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R12 TO R15 ARE R/AT
NANDAGUDI VILLAGE
HIREKERURU TALUK
HAVERI (D) - 581 111.
16. SMT. YOGESHAPPA
S/O LATE MANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
KOGGANURU VILLAGE
ANEGODU VILLAGE
DAVANGERE - 577 001.
17. SMT. DODDAVEERAPPA
S/O LATE MANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER
CHATTAKAM VILLAGE
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37697
RFA No. 1033 of 2004
C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004
RFA No. 560 of 2021
CHALLAKERE (T)
CHITRADURGA - 577 522.
HANUMANTHACHARI
DECEASED REP BY LRS
R18 TO R21
18. SRI. HONNACHARI
S/O LATE HANUMANTHACHARI
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
19. SMT. RINDAMMA
D/O LATE HANUMANTHACHARI
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
20. SMT. RUDRAMMA
D/O LATE HANUMANTHACHARI
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
21. SMT. SUVARNAMMA
D/O LATE HANUMANTHACHARI
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
R18 TO R21 ARE R/O
MALLANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE
HARIHARA TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001
BHEEMAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
22. SMT. SUNANDAMMA
W/O CHANDRASHEKARACHARI BADIGER
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
R/O GULADAHALLI, HARIHARA TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 601.
23. SRI. NAGARAJACHARI
S/O LATE BHEEMAPPA
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
C/O SHESHACHALA D. KULKARNI
R/O MARUTHINAGAR 1ST MAIN
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37697
RFA No. 1033 of 2004
C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004
RFA No. 560 of 2021
1ST CROSS, MAJJAGI FLAT
RANEBENNUR - 581 115.
24. H.B. BRAMHACHARI
S/O LATE BHEEMAPPA
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
R/O NO. 2281/556
CHIKKAMMANI DEVARAJA URS LAYOUT
DAVANAGERE - 577 601.
25. SRI. GANGADHARACHARI .H.M
S/O LATE BHEEMAPPA
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
R/O NO. 1853/127, CHIKKAMANI LAYOUT
DEVARAJA LAYOUT, 2ND MAIN, 3RD CROSS
DAVANAGERE - 577 604.
26. SMT. VASANTHAMMA
D/O LATE BHEEMAPPA
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
R/O C/O K.T. SINGACHARI
HOUSE NO. 426/269 A
BEHIND ESI HOSPITAL
3RD MAIN, 2ND CROSS
NITTUVALLI, DAVANAGERE - 577 601.
MALLIKARJUNA
S/O LATE RUDRACHARI
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
27. SMT. SHAKUNTHALAMMA
W/O LATE MALLIKARJUNA
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
R/O GULADAHALLI, HARIHARA TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 601
28. SRI. MALLESHACHARI
(WRONGLY MENTIONED AS MALLIKARUJNA IN FDP)
S/O LATE RUDRACHARI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/O GULADAHALLI, HARIHARA TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 601.
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37697
RFA No. 1033 of 2004
C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004
RFA No. 560 of 2021
29. SMT. RINDAMMA
W/O NINGACHARI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
HOUSEWIFE
JAMBOO BAJAR
DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
SMT. KANTHAMMA
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS
30. SRI. RANGACHAR
S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
31. SRI. HANUMANTHACHAR
S/O RANGACHAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
32. SMT. LALITHAMMA
W/O MOUNESHACHARI
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
33. SRI. MANJUNATHACHARI
S/O RANGANATHACHAR
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
34. SRI. SHIVARAJCHARI
S/O RANGANATHACHAR
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDENT OF
K.R. BADAVANE
NEAR GANESH TEMPLE
DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
35. SRI. MYLARAPPA
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT GULADAHALLI VILLAGE
HARIHARA TALUK
DAVANGERE (D) - 577 601.
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37697
RFA No. 1033 of 2004
C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004
RFA No. 560 of 2021
36. SRI. CHANDRASHEKARACHARI
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
37. SMT. SARVAMANGALAMMA
D/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO. 11 AND 13 ARE ALL
R/AT GULADAHALLI VILLAGE
HARIHARA TALUK
DAVANAGERE - 577 601.
SMT. SUBHADRAMMA
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS
38. SRI. RANGACHARI
S/O NAGENDRACHARI
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
SAMRUDDI NILYA, NO. 607/24
LENINA NAGAR
39. SRI. KALACHARI
S/O NAGENDRACHARI
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
40. SMT. PAPAKKA
W/O CHANDRAPPA BADAGERE
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
41. SRI. KRISHNACHARI
S/O NAGENDRACHARI
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
42. SRI. RAJENDRACHAR
S/O NAGENDRACHARI
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
43. SRI. BRAMHACHARI
S/O NAGENDRACHARI
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37697
RFA No. 1033 of 2004
C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004
RFA No. 560 of 2021
44. SRI. SHANKARACHARI
S/O NAGENDRACHARI
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
45. SMT. SHIRASAVVA
D/O NAGENDRACHARI
AGED ABOUT MAJOR
R38 TO R45 ARE ALL R/O
3RD CROSS, MOUNESHWAR LAYOUT
NITTUVALLI ROAD, DAVANAGERE - 577 601.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. GOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5, R7 TO R17;
R18, R19, R20, R22, R23, R24, R25, R27, R28, R29, R35,
R36, R37, R39, R44, R45 ARE SERVED;
R26 IS EXPIRED;
V/O DATED 18.01.2024 NOTICE TO R43 IS HELD
SUFFICIENT;
V/O DATED 22.08.2024 NOTICE TO R21, R26, R30 TO
R34, R38 AND R40 TO R42 ARE SERVED BY WAY OF
PAPER PUBLICATION)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE
ORDER DATED 24.06.2019 PASSED IN FDP.NO.1/2005 ON
THE FILE FO SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., COURT
HARIHARA, ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER
SECTION 54 AND ORDER 20 RULE 18 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.,
FOR DRAWING FINAL DECREE.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37697
RFA No. 1033 of 2004
C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004
RFA No. 560 of 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
RFA.No.1033/2004 is filed by defendant No.12 assailing the preliminary decree drawn in O.S.No.374/2002. RFA.No.1034/2004 is filed by the brother of defendant No.12 who is arrayed as defendant No.2 represented by his legal representatives i.e., defendant Nos.2(a) to 2(g). RFA.No.560/2021 is filed by defendant Nos.2(a) to 2(g) questioning the final decree in FDP.No.1/2005.
2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
3. The family tree is as under:
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37697 RFA No. 1033 of 2004 C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004 RFA No. 560 of 2021 HANUMAPPA (DIED) ___________________________________|___________________________________ | | | | | BHEEMANNA NAGA CHANNABASAPPA ESHWARAPPA MAHADEVAPPA (DIED) (DIED) (DIED) (DIED) (DIED) | | ST | 1 BRANCH | _______________|____________________________________ | | | | | | MANAPPA P1 AMRUTHACHARI P2 BHRAMACHARI P3 NIRANJANAMURTHY | (DEAD) | | | | | P4 YOGESHAPPA | P5 DODDAVEERAPPA | | | | __________________________________________________________________|____ | | | | | | | | D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 | HANUMANTHACHARI KRISHNACHARI RUDRACHARI MAHESHWARAPPA RANGAPPA YOGESHAPPA BHEEMAPPA | (DIED) (DIED) | | | | | ____________________________ | | | | | | | | | D6 D7 _________ | | | PADMAMMA SUBHADRAMMA | | | D8 RINDAMMA D10 MALLIKARJUNA SINCE DEAD BY DEFENDENTS 1(a) TO (g) D9 KANTHAMMA D11 MALLESHAPPA AND DEFENDANT No. 12 - APPELLANTS
4. Plaintiffs who are the legal heirs of one Naga have instituted a suit seeking relief of partition and separate possession against the defendants. Plaintiffs have specifically contended that the suit schedule properties are joint family ancestral properties and plaintiffs and defendants thereby constitute undivided
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37697 RFA No. 1033 of 2004 C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004 RFA No. 560 of 2021 Joint Hindu Family and they are in joint possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties. Plaintiffs have further contended that their father Naga and Bheemanna predeceased Mahadevappa and thereafter Mahadevappa continued to act as the Kartha of the family and was managing the suit schedule properties and distributed the yield to all the family members. After the demise of Mahadevappa, defendant No.2/Maheshwarappa applied for re-grant as suit lands were service Inam lands and the authority has accordingly re-granted in favour of defendant No.2. Plaintiff therefore contended that the suit schedule properties being joint family ancestral properties and defendant No.2 having blindly refused to share the yield generated in the suit land is compelled to file the present suit for partition.
5. On receipt of summons, defendant No.2/Maheshwarappa contested the proceedings. Pending suit, he died and his children namely defendant Nos.2(a) to 2(g) appeared and filed written statement and
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37697 RFA No. 1033 of 2004 C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004 RFA No. 560 of 2021 contested the suit. Defendant Nos.5 to 11 who are the brothers and sisters and grandchildren also contested the suit by filing written statement.
6. Plaintiffs to substantiate their right in the suit schedule properties let in oral and documentary evidence. Defendant Nos.2(a) to 2(g) who are the legal heirs of defendant No.2 inspite of sufficient opportunity granted by the Court failed to cross-examine the plaintiffs. An application was filed after seeking thirteen adjournments by defendant Nos.2(a) to 2(g) seeking leave of the Court to cross-examine the plaintiff. Said application was rejected. Several adjournments were sought and the contesting defendants namely defendant Nos.2(a) to 2(g) failed to lead evidence in support of their contention.
7. At this juncture, it appears that defendant No.12 who was left out filed impleading application and sought leave to come on record. The impleading application was allowed. Defendant No.12 sought adjournment to file written statement. Defendant No.12
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37697 RFA No. 1033 of 2004 C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004 RFA No. 560 of 2021 failed to file written statement and therefore, learned Judge passed an order indicating that written statement is not filed on 19.03.2004. Defendant No.12 filed application seeking leave of the Court to file written statement. Said application was rejected and defendant No.12 challenged the order by filing writ petition in W.P.No.30808/2004.
8. The trial Court having appreciated the oral and documentary evidence decreed the suit by holding that suit schedule properties are joint family ancestral properties. Accordingly, allotted half share to the plaintiffs branch.
9. Defendant No.12 assailing the judgment and decree has preferred an appeal in RFA.No.1033/2004. Defendants 2 (a-g), who are the brothers of defendant No.12, who failed to contest the suit, have filed an appeal in RFA.No.1034/2004. The connected RFA.No.560/2021 is filed by defendants 2(b-g), defendants 3, 4 and 12 in OS.No.374/2002 challenging the final decree drawn in FDP.No.1/2005.
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37697 RFA No. 1033 of 2004 C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004 RFA No. 560 of 2021
10. In support of his case, the learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the judgments rendered in J. Balaji Singh .vs. Diwakar Cole and others1 and Zolba .vs. Keshao and others2.
11. Heard the learned counsel appearing for defendant No.12, defendants 2(a-g) and the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. Perused the records.
12. The following points would arise for consideration:
(1) Whether the trial Court erred in rejecting the application filed in I.A.No.13 by defendant No.12 seeking leave to file the written statement?
(2) Whether the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court suffers from infirmities and therefore, warrants interference at the hands of this Court?
(3) Whether the decree drawn in the FDP warrants interference at the hands of this Court?" 1
AIR 2017 SC 2402 2 (2008) 11 SCC 769
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37697 RFA No. 1033 of 2004 C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004 RFA No. 560 of 2021
13. Finding on Point No.1:
In this case, defendants 2(a-g) initially failed to cross-examine the plaintiffs despite being granted numerous opportunities by the trial court. Consequently, the trial court recorded that there was no cross- examination on behalf of defendants 2(a-g). Subsequently, defendant No.5 provided evidence that supported the plaintiffs' claim, affirming their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties.
14. It is noteworthy that when the matter was listed for the evidence of D.W.5, defendant No.12, the daughter of defendant No.2 and the sister of defendants 2(a-g), filed an impleading application through the same counsel, D.P. Basavaraj, who was representing defendants 2(a-g). The trial court allowed the impleading application, permitting defendant No.12 to contest the suit. However, her application for leave to file a written statement was rejected by the trial court, which prompted her to challenge the order by filing a writ petition. This Court
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37697 RFA No. 1033 of 2004 C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004 RFA No. 560 of 2021 allowed her writ petition, but since no stay was granted, the trial court proceeded to decree the suit, granting the plaintiffs half of the suit schedule properties. Importantly, this Court allowed defendant No.12 to raise all grounds in the appeal.
15. Upon review of the appeal, this Court observed that the grounds challenging the rejection of her application to file a written statement were not clearly elaborated in the appeal memo. Despite this, the written statement of defendant No.12 is on record, and this Court has closely scrutinized it. It is pertinent to note that while defendant No.12 seeks to rely on registered documents that are claimed to be in safe custody, this Court cannot take cognizance of these documents unless they are officially brought on record.
16. In reviewing the conduct of the defendants, it is evident that defendants 2(a-g) failed to contest the suit appropriately by not cross-examining the plaintiffs. Instead, they appear to have set up their sister, defendant
- 32 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37697 RFA No. 1033 of 2004 C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004 RFA No. 560 of 2021 No.12, in an attempt to prolong the litigation. This conduct, along with the fact that the same counsel, D.P. Basavaraj, represents both defendants 2(a-g) and defendant No.12, raises questions about the bona fides of defendant No.12's claims. Even before this Court, the same lawyer has filed appeals on behalf of both defendants 2(a-g) and defendant No.12, which further corroborates the inference that defendant No.12 is being used to continue the litigation after defendants 2(a-g)'s failure to contest the suit properly.
17. Defendant No.12 seeks a remand primarily based on documents that are neither relevant nor decisive to the current suit. Specifically, she relies on a sale deed executed by Lingachari in favor of the defendants' father, Maheshwarappa, which pertains to property not claimed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have made no assertion regarding their rights in one acre purchased by defendant No.2, making this document irrelevant to the dispute over the suit schedule properties, which include Survey
- 33 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37697 RFA No. 1033 of 2004 C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004 RFA No. 560 of 2021 No.24/1P and Survey No.24/2P. Furthermore, defendant No.12's counsel argues that the plaintiffs relinquished their share, but when pressed by this Court, it was revealed that the alleged relinquishment deed is not even a registered document, thus lacking the legal validity required to substantiate such a claim. Given these circumstances, defendant No.12's attempt to seek a remand on the basis of unregistered and irrelevant documents appears to be an attempt to prolong the litigation without any substantive grounds.
18. Several judgments reinforce the principle that Courts must not allow parties to prolong litigation unnecessarily, particularly when it is evident that certain parties are being used as proxies to continue the dispute. The Supreme Court, in K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi 3 held that a litigant cannot be allowed to file frivolous suits or applications with the intent of delaying the proceedings or re-litigating the same issues. Similarly, in 3 [(1998) 3 SCC 573]
- 34 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37697 RFA No. 1033 of 2004 C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004 RFA No. 560 of 2021 V. Chandrasekaran & Anr. v. Administrative Officer & Ors.4, the Court emphasized that legal proceedings must not be misused for achieving a collateral purpose, and a party cannot be allowed to harass the other party by endless litigation.
19. The conduct of defendants 2(a-g) and defendant No.12 in this case fits within the ambit of such principles. Despite the significant delay caused by their actions, plaintiffs have been unable to enjoy the fruits of the preliminary and final decrees due to the ongoing litigation. Accordingly, it is clear that the claims raised by defendant No.12 are without merit and are aimed solely at delaying the proceedings, thereby wasting the time and resources of both the plaintiffs and the court.
20. Based on the above reasonings and the precedents cited, this Court finds that there is no ground for remand or for allowing defendant No.12 to lead further 4 [(2012) 12 SCC 133]
- 35 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37697 RFA No. 1033 of 2004 C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004 RFA No. 560 of 2021 evidence. Consequently, point No.1 is answered in the negative.
21. My findings on Point No.2:
On independent assessment of the pleadings and oral and documentary evidence, this Court needs to take cognizance of the conduct of defendants in the present case on hand. Defendant No.2(b) and defendant No.5 filed separate written statements. Defendant No.2(b) in his written statement while contesting the suit has raised a specific defence that these lands being admittedly inam lands are regranted to defendant No.2. Therefore, defendant No.2(b) asserts that these properties are the self acquired properties of Maheshwarappa and therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled for any share in the suit schedule properties.
22. Plaintiffs to substantiate that these lands were originally held by Bheemanna and their father Naga have
- 36 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37697 RFA No. 1033 of 2004 C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004 RFA No. 560 of 2021 placed reliance on Exs.P2 to 8. Exs.P3 to 5 are the RTC extracts indicating that Survey Nos.24/1 and 24/2 were originally standing in the name of Bheemanna and Naga respectively. Exs.P8 is the index of land relating to Survey Nos.24/1, 24/2 and 24/3. In the said index of lands, the land in question are notified as Badagi service inam lands and the names of Bheemanna and Naga and one Malla S/o. Bheemanna are indicated therein. Ex.P7 is also the index of land relating to Survey No.24/5, which is not the subject-matter of the suit.
23. The records unequivocally demonstrate that the plaintiffs' father, Naga, and his brother, Bheemanna, were the legitimate holders of the inam lands in question. This fact is substantiated by the evidence presented, particularly through the index of lands, identified as Exhibit P8, which relates to Survey Nos. 24/1, 24/2, and 24/3. In this index, the lands are classified as Badagi service inam lands, and it clearly lists the names of
- 37 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37697 RFA No. 1033 of 2004 C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004 RFA No. 560 of 2021 Bheemanna, Naga, and one Malla, son of Bheemanna, as the recognized holders.
24. Additionally, Exhibit P7 contains the index of land concerning Survey No. 24/5, although this particular land is not directly relevant to the current suit. Nevertheless, the collective examination of these documents reinforces the assertion that the suit lands were indeed inam lands and confirms the historical ownership of Bheemanna and Naga.
25. The status of the lands as inam properties is significant, particularly in light of the re-grant process initiated by defendant No.2(b) following the death of Naga and Bheemanna. The attempt to seek re-grant is indicative of an acknowledgment of their previous ownership, however, it does not extinguish the rightful claims of their heirs, namely the plaintiffs. The law recognizes that inam lands, historically associated with the joint family, retain
- 38 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37697 RFA No. 1033 of 2004 C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004 RFA No. 560 of 2021 their character as family property despite the re-grant process. This understanding aligns with the principle that properties originally held by joint family members remain within the collective domain of the family unless explicitly severed through lawful means. Thus, the examination of these documents not only confirms the plaintiffs' claim to the inam lands but also emphasizes the continued entitlement of all heirs to their rightful shares in the joint family property.
26. On independent assessment of the pleadings and the oral and documentary evidence, it is crucial to note that the re-grant of inam lands serves the benefit of the entire joint family rather than an individual member. In this case, defendant No.2(b) contends that the lands in question were re-granted to him, thus characterizing them as self-acquired properties of Maheshwarappa. However, the legal principle established in
- 39 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37697 RFA No. 1033 of 2004 C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004 RFA No. 560 of 2021 K.K. Verma v. State of U.P.5 clarifies that a re-grant of property, particularly in the context of inam lands, does not convert the property into personal ownership but instead acknowledges the collective rights of the family members. This principle emphasizes that the benefits arising from re-grant are intended for the entire joint family, as the original holders, Bheemanna and Naga, were joint owners. Consequently, the assertion that the properties belong solely to Maheshwarappa contradicts the intent of the re-grant, which inherently recognizes the joint family's entitlement to the benefits derived from such lands. Hence, the plaintiffs, as heirs of Bheemanna and Naga, retain a legitimate claim to their share in the suit properties.
27. If these significant details are looked into, this Court is of the view that in fact plaintiffs alone are entitled to succeed to these inam lands as their father along with Bheemanna were original holders. However, plaintiffs 5 (AIR 1954 SC 391)
- 40 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37697 RFA No. 1033 of 2004 C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004 RFA No. 560 of 2021 have fairly acknowledged and admitted that lands which were re-granted in the name of Maheshwarappa are admittedly ancestral lands and therefore, they have sought share in the suit schedule properties. If plaintiffs' father Naga was the holder as an Inamdhar, merely because defendant No.2(b) having sought for re-grant, he cannot assert that it is his self acquired properties. The fact that Naga was holder of all these lands and the re- grant order was passed in favour of defendant No.2 will definitely enure to the benefit of the plaintiffs and they are entitled for half share in the suit schedule properties. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered in the Negative.
28. Findings on Point No.3:
The final decree drawn by the FDP Court in FDP.No.1/2005 is challenged primarily on the ground that when the regular first appeals are pending consideration, the FDP Court has no jurisdiction. From the records, it is gathered that the Commissioner's report is not contested by defendant No.2(a-g). In a final decree proceedings,
- 41 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37697 RFA No. 1033 of 2004 C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004 RFA No. 560 of 2021 the scope of review by the appellate Court is very limited. The FDP Court is required to examine the equities and whether the feasibility report submitted by the Commissioner is reasonable and adverts to the interest of the joint family members. On reading the grounds urged in the appeal memo filed in RFA.No.560/2021, no specific grounds are raised indicating as to how the feasibility report submitted by the Commissioner would warrant interference at the hands of this Court. The fact that defendants 2(a-g) have not chosen to file objections to the Commissioner's report, they would obviously lose the locus to challenge the final decree drawn in FDP.No.1/2005. Therefore, no grounds are made out. Accordingly, point No.3 is answered in the negative.
29. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the judgments rendered in J. Balaji Singh .vs. Diwakar Cole and others and Zolba .vs. Keshao and others (supra) are not applicable to the present case on hand.
- 42 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37697 RFA No. 1033 of 2004 C/W RFA No. 1034 of 2004 RFA No. 560 of 2021
30. For the reasons stated supra, all the three appeals are devoid of merits and accordingly, stand dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the appeals, all pending I.As,. do not survive for consideration and are accordingly, disposed of.
SD/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA/ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18