Karnataka High Court
Smt. Jayadevi W/O Siddelingayya ... vs Smt. Mallavva S/O Sanganabasayya ... on 12 February, 2026
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2246-DB
RFA No. 100192 of 2021
C/W RFA No. 100293 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100192 OF 2021 (DEC/POS)
C/W
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100293 OF 2025
IN RFA No. 100192/2021
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.JAYADEVI
W/O. SIDDLINGAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O.BATAKURKI, TQ. RAMDURG,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591123.
2. KUMARI NEELAMMA
VIJAYALAKSHMI D/O.SIDDALINGAYYA HIREMATH,
M KANKUPPI
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
Digitally signed by
VIJAYALAKSHMI M
R/O.BATAKURKI, TQ. RAMDURG,
KANKUPPI
Location: HIGHCOURT OF
DIST. BELAGAVI-591123.
KARNATAKA DHARWAD
BENCH DHARWAD
3. KUMARI GANGAVVA @ GANGA
D/O.SIDDALINGAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O.BATAKURKI, TQ. RAMDURG,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591123.
4. KUMARI POOJA
D/O.SIDDALINGAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O.BATAKURKI, TQ. RAMDURG,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2246-DB
RFA No. 100192 of 2021
C/W RFA No. 100293 of 2025
HC-KAR
DIST. BELAGAVI-591123.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P.MUDHOL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. MALLAVVA
W/O. SANGANBASAYYA HIREMATH,
SINCE DECEASED,
LRS ARE ALREADY ON RECORD AS R2 AND R3
2. SMT. MURIGEVVA
W/O. GURUNATH HIREMATH,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O.BATAKURKI, TQ. RAMADURG,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591123.
3. SMT. ANNAKKA
W/O.SIDDALINGAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O.DEVRAJ URS COLONY, KOPPAL,
TQ. KOPPAL, DIST. KOPPAL-582114.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SOURABH MIRGE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R3-NOTICE SERVED;
R1-DECEASED (R2 AND R3 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF R1)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC.,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.01.2021 IN
O.S.NO.11/2013 AND TO DISMISS THE SUIT FILED BY THE
RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2246-DB
RFA No. 100192 of 2021
C/W RFA No. 100293 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN RFA NO. 100293/2025
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.JAYADEVI
W/O. SIDDALINGAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BATAKURKI, TQ. RAMADURGA,
DIST. BELAGAVI. PIN-591123.
2. NEELAMMA
D/O. SIDDALINGAYYA HIREMATH.
AGE: 31 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULURE AND HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BATAKURKI, TQ. RAMADURGA,
DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-591123.
3. GANGAVVA
D/O. SIDDALINGAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: 29 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BATAKURKI, TQ. RAMADURGA,
DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-591123.
4. POOJA
D/O. SIDDALINGAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: 27 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BATAKURKI, TQ. RAMADURGA,
DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-591123.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT.MALLAWWA
W/O. SANGANBASAYYA HIREMATH,
SINCE DIED REPRESENTED BY HER LRS.
1. SMT.MURIGEVVA
W/O. GURUNATH HIREMATH,
AGE: 60 YEARS,
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2246-DB
RFA No. 100192 of 2021
C/W RFA No. 100293 of 2025
HC-KAR
OCC. AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BATAKURKI, TQ. RAMADURGA,
DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-591123.
2. SMT. ANNAKKA
W/O. SIDDALINGAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. DEVARAJ ARAS COLONY,
KOPPAL, TQ. KOPPAL,
DIST. KOPPAL, PIN-583231.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SOURAB MIRGE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2-NOTICE SERVED)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC.,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE FINAL
DECREE DATED 22.11.2023 IN FDP NO 09/2015 PASSED BY
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE RAMDURGA AND TO DISMISSED THE
FDP FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 BY ALLOWING
THIS APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2246-DB
RFA No. 100192 of 2021
C/W RFA No. 100293 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.) Even though the appeals are listed for admission, with the consent of both sides, heard the appeals on merits. IN RFA NO.100192/2021
2. This is the appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure(C.P.C) praying for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 02.01.2021 in O.S.No.11/2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Ramadurg by defendant Nos.2 to 5.
3. Parties would be referred with their ranks as they were before trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.
4. Plaintiffs have filed the suit before trial court for the relief of partition and separate possession of their share in suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties by metes and bounds; for court costs and such other reliefs. -6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2246-DB RFA No. 100192 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100293 of 2025 HC-KAR
5. The case of plaintiffs before trial Court in nutshell is as follows.
6. The genealogical tree produced in the plaint is as follows:
Sanganabasayya A/F Ayyappayya Hiremath (expired 24.11.1996) Mallavva- wife Plaintiff No.1 Murigevva Annakka Siddalingayya (Plaintiff No.2) Defendant No.1 (expired on 29.05.1997) Jayadevi-wife Defendant No.2 Neelamma Gangavva Pooja Defendant No.3 Defendant No.4 Defendant No.5
7. Plaintiffs contended that plaintiffs and defendants are in lawful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties. Now, it is difficult to enjoy the suit schedule properties jointly. Hence, they have requested defendant No.2 to affect the partition. However, defendant No.2 contended that already suit schedule properties are mutated -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2246-DB RFA No. 100192 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100293 of 2025 HC-KAR into the names of defendant Nos.3 to 5; plaintiffs and defendant No.1 have got no right, title and interest in or over suit schedule properties. Then plaintiffs verified the revenue records and came to know that revenue records are mutated into the names of defendant Nos.3 to 5 asserting that plaintiffs and defendant No.1 have relinquished their rights. However, plaintiffs have not relinquished their rights. They are in joint possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties. Hence, the suit is filed for appropriate reliefs.
8. Defendant No.2 filed her written statement, wherein she admitted the relationship between parties but contended that suit is not maintainable in law as the suit schedule properties are not properly described in the plaint. The boundaries of suit schedule properties are not furnished. The complete genealogical tree is not furnished in the plaint. However, defendant Nos.2 to 5 admit that the original propositus Sanganabasayya was given in adoption to one Ayyappaya Hiremath as per the adoption deed dated 22.10.1942. She denied other averments made in the plaint and further contended that item No.1 of suit 'A' schedule -8- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2246-DB RFA No. 100192 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100293 of 2025 HC-KAR property bearing Sy.No.253/1B is the self-acquired property of the husband of defendant No.2 having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 11.11.1987 from one Bhimappa Krishnappa Desai for a sum of ₹.10,000/- and thus, it is the absolute properties of defendant Nos.3 to 5. Defendant No.2 further contended that after death of original propositus on 24.11.1996, the husband of defendant No.2- Siddalingayya died on 29.05.1997. At the time of entering mutation, plaintiffs and defendant No.1 have relinquished their rights in favour of defendant Nos.3 to 5 in respect of suit 'A' and 'B' suit schedule properties and thus, names of defendant Nos.3 to 5 entered in revenue records. Hence, plaintiffs cannot claim any share in suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. She further contended that in VPC No.577, Matha and vacant property is situated. Defendant Nos.3 to 5 are residing in the house bearing VPC No.579. The Matha and Gadduge in VPC No.577 is the Gadduge of Pattadevara and said Gadduge is there, since from their predecessors. The public functions are being done in that property i.e., Punyatithi, Jatre, etc. Public are visiting Gadduge every day. -9-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2246-DB RFA No. 100192 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100293 of 2025 HC-KAR Hence, public interest is involved in this property. Furthermore, in re-survey No.269/1, 269/2, measuring 2 acres of property is being used as burial ground for Veerashaiva Lingayat Community and thus, this property is also having public interest. Plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 have sworn to an affidavit dated 08.03.2000 before notary and relinquished their rights in suit schedule properties in favour of defendant Nos.3 to 5 by receiving a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each in lieu of their share in presence of elders. Hence, prayed for dismissal of suit with costs.
9. After completion of pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues and additional issues.
ISSUES "1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit 'A and B' schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants?
2) Whether the plaintiffs further prove that no partition has taken place in the family of plaintiffs and defendants?
3) Whether the plaintiffs further prove that they are entitled for half share in the suit schedule properties?
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2246-DB RFA No. 100192 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100293 of 2025 HC-KAR
4) Whether the plaintiffs further prove that they are entitled for partition and separate possession as prayed for?
5) What order or decree?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES:
1) Whether the defendant No.2 proves that the suit property bearing Sy.No.253/1B of Batakurki village is the self-acquired property of the father of defendants No.3 to 5 as contended in para-11 of the W.S?
2) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
3) Whether the suit is bad for non-inclusion of all the joint family properties in the hotch-pot?
4) Whether the defendant No.2 proves that the public interest is involved in VPC No.577 and Sy.No.269/1 & 269/2 of Batakurki village to the extent of 2 Acres?
5) Whether the defendant No.2 further proves that the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 have relinquished their shares over the suit properties on 08.03.2000 by accepting Rs.1,00,000/- each in lieu of their share as contended in para-18 of the W.S?"
10. On behalf of plaintiffs, plaintiff No.2 was examined as P.W.1, examined a witness as P.W.2, got marked Exs.P1 to 12 and closed their side before trial Court. On behalf of defendant Nos.2 to 5, defendant No.2 was examined as D.W.1, examined two witnesses as D.W.2 and
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2246-DB RFA No. 100192 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100293 of 2025 HC-KAR D.W.3, got marked Exs.D1 to 15 and closed their side before trial Court.
11. Initially, the suit was decreed by granting 1/4th share each to plaintiffs by passing judgment and decree dated 22.07.2015. Against said judgment and decree, R.A.No.470/2015 was preferred before Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi by defendant Nos.2 to 5 and it was allowed by passing judgment and decree dated 11.09.2019 and matter was remanded back to trial Court for fresh trial.
12. After remand, leading evidence and recording evidence afresh, again the suit of plaintiffs was decreed by granting half share each to plaintiffs in suit schedule properties by metes and bounds. . It is further declared that defendant No.1 is entitled for 1/4th share and defendant Nos.2 to 5 together entitled for 1/4th share in suit schedule properties by metes and bounds. However, granting half share each to plaintiffs in the operative portion, is a typographical mistake because in paragraph No.45, the learned trial judge has held that all the plaintiffs and
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2246-DB RFA No. 100192 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100293 of 2025 HC-KAR defendant No.1, defendant Nos.2 to 5 are entitled for equal share i.e., 1/4th share each.
13. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant Nos.2 to 5 have preferred the present appeal.
14. Heard arguments of both sides.
15. Learned counsel for appellants Sri Shivaraj P. Mudhol would submit that defendant Nos.2 to 5 have taken specific contention that item No.1 of suit 'A' schedule property is the self-acquired property of husband of defendant No.2, as he purchased it under registered sale deed dated 11.11.1987 and it was purchased during lifetime of his father-Karta and thus, presumption is that it is the self-acquired property of husband of defendant No.2. Further, defendant No.2 has produced Ex.D.14 to show that it was purchased in the name of husband of defendant No.2. Furthermore, plaintiffs and defendant No.1 by relinquishing their rights in suit schedule properties, have given consent to mutate them in the name of defendant Nos.3 to 5 and they have also sworn to an affidavit in that regard by receiving
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2246-DB RFA No. 100192 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100293 of 2025 HC-KAR ₹.1,00,000/- each. Under these circumstances, granting of decree by trial Court in respect of all the suit schedule properties is incorrect. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal and to dismiss the suit in entirety.
16. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 Sri Sourabh Mirage for learned counsel Sri Shivaraj S. Ballolli would submit that there is no relinquishment by plaintiffs and even if it is admitted that they have executed such a document, it is hit by provisions of Indian Registration Act, 1908 and thus, it will not create any right to defendant Nos.3 to 5. He would further submit that the husband of defendant No.2 was not having any independent avocation and not having independent source of income to purchase item No.1 of 'A' schedule properties. On the other hand, there was surplus nucleus in the joint family because item Nos.2 & 3 of 'A' schedule properties were giving good yields and plaintiffs and defendant No.1 along with husband of defendant No.2 were residing together in the same house along with their father at the time of the purchase and there is no material produced by defendant Nos.2 to 5 to show that husband of
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2246-DB RFA No. 100192 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100293 of 2025 HC-KAR defendant No.2 was having source of income to purchase said property. Hence, considering these aspects, rightly the trial Court has decreed the suit. It requires no interference.
17. Both learned counsels for appellants and respondents would submit that during pendency of this appeal, plaintiff No.1 - the mother of plaintiff No.2, defendant No.1 and mother-in-law of defendant No.2 died on 10.08.2024 and her share is to be equally divided amongst her legal heirs. Hence, share is to be moulded.
18. Having heard the arguments of both sides and verifying the appeal papers along with the trial Court records, the points that arise for consideration are:
i. Whether appellants/defendant Nos.2 to 5 establish that item No.1 of suit 'A' schedule property was the self-acquired property of husband of defendant No.1? ii. Whether appellants/defendant Nos.2 to 5 establish that plaintiffs and defendant No.1 have relinquished their rights in suit schedule properties in favour of defendant
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2246-DB
RFA No. 100192 of 2021
C/W RFA No. 100293 of 2025
HC-KAR
Nos.3 to 5 by receiving a sum of
₹.1,00,000/- each?
19. Our finding on the above points is in NEGATIVE for the following reasons.
20. The genealogy produced in the plaint is admitted by both sides. It reveals that one Sanganabasayya is the adopted son of one Ayyappa Hiremath and he succeeded to item Nos.2 and 3 of suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. The said Sanganabasayya died on 24.11.1996 leaving behind his wife, two daughters and a son. The son of Sanganabasayya i.e. Siddalingayya died on 29.05.1997 leaving behind his wife, children and mother i.e., defendant No.2 to 5 and plaintiff No.1 as his legal heirs.
21. Item Nos.2 & 3 of suit 'A' schedule properties and suit 'B' schedule properties i.e., house properties were the ancestral properties of plaintiffs and Siddalingayya is not in dispute. In this regard, RTCs produced by the plaintiffs as per Ex.P2 & P3 reveals that these properties were mutated
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2246-DB RFA No. 100192 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100293 of 2025 HC-KAR into the name of defendant Nos.3 to 5 as per M.E.Nos.1711 and 5371.
22. However, said M.E.No.1711 and 5371 are not produced in this case. On the other hand, defendants have produced the affidavit sworn by plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 and also the mutation extract as per Exs.D.4, D.5 and D.7 to show that the plaintiffs have given their consent to mutate these properties into the names of defendants No.3 to 5. In this affidavit and also in mutation extract, item No.1 of suit 'A' schedule property is also included. Thus, defendants No.2 to 5 even though contended that Item No.1 of suit 'A' schedule property is the self-acquired property of deceased Siddalingayya, they themselves have conceded this property on par with other admitted joint family properties. Hence, the contention of defendants that Item No.1 of suit 'A' schedule property is the self-acquired property of husband of defendant No.2 cannot be accepted.
23. This is more so because at the time of purchase of this property as per the original sale deed at Ex.D.14
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2246-DB RFA No. 100192 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100293 of 2025 HC-KAR dated 11.11.1987, the husband of defendant No.1 was aged only 21 years and his occupation was shown as agriculture. There is no specific pleading in the written statement that how defendant No.2 was having separate independent income to acquire this property in the year 1987 for a sum of ₹.10,000/- and same is not pleaded and not proved.
24. In this regard, in the cross-examination D.W.1 tries to improve her case by saying that her parents have given ₹.4,000/- for purchase of this property which cannot be accepted because admittedly this property was purchased much earlier to the marriage of defendant No.2 with deceased Siddalingayya.
25. Siddalingayya was an agriculturist. The family properties were about 13 acres 25 guntas; thus, at that time it can be said that the family was having sufficient nucleus to purchase this property in the name of husband of defendant No.2. Considering these aspects, rightly, the Trial Court held that defendants No.2 to 5 failed to establish that Item No.1 of suit 'A' schedule property is the self-acquired property of
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2246-DB RFA No. 100192 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100293 of 2025 HC-KAR husband of defendant No.2 and defendants No.2 to 5 alone have no right to succeed.
26. One more contention taken by defendants is that some of the joint family properties are not included in the suit. In this regard, Exs.P.10 and P.9 are the RTCs. of those two properties alleged by defendants in their written statement i.e. Sy.No.180/1+2+3A and Sy.No.268 were standing in the name of some third parties and not in the name of deceased Sangabasayya or Siddalingayya. Even though there is an entry in the mutation regarding these two properties in Ex.D.1, these two properties were not standing in the name of any of the members of joint family at the time filing of suit. Hence, they cannot be considered as joint family properties.
27. The one more contention taken by defendants No.2 to 5 is that plaintiffs and defendant No.1 have executed relinquishment deed and relinquished their rights in favour of defendants No.3 to 5. In this regard, defendants have produced Ex.D.4, the affidavit said to be sworn by plaintiffs,
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2246-DB RFA No. 100192 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100293 of 2025 HC-KAR defendants No.1 and 2 and mutation entry as per Exs.D.5 and D.7.
28. In these documents, there is a specific recital that they have no objection to delete the name of their father, Sangabasayya and to include the names of defendants No.3 to 5 in the revenue documents. It does not mean that they have relinquished their rights in these properties. Always relinquishment in an immovable property worth more than ₹.100/- is to be only through registered document as per Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. Admittedly, no registered relinquishment deed is produced in the present case. Hence, the contention of defendants No.2 to 5 that plaintiffs have relinquished their rights in Item Nos.2 and 3 of suit 'A' schedule properties and suit 'B' schedule properties cannot be accepted.
29. Considering all these aspects, rightly the learned Trial Judge has decreed the suit. Even though in para No.45, the learned Trial Judge has stated that plaintiffs are entitled for 1/4th shares each, as a typographical mistake in the
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2246-DB RFA No. 100192 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100293 of 2025 HC-KAR operative portion of the judgment, it is stated that plaintiffs are entitled for half share each. It is only a typographical mistake and could have been rectified.
30. As it is, presently plaintiff No.1, who is the mother of plaintiff No.2, defendant No.1 and mother-in-law of defendant No.2 died during pendency of this appeal. Hence, her share is to be divided amongst plaintiff, defendant No.1 and defendants No.2 to 5 together. Hence, her share is merged with other sharers. Hence, as it is plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.1 are entitled for 1/3rd shares each and defendants No.2 to 5 together are entitled for 1/3rd share in suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. Only this modification is to be made because of changed circumstances in the appeal. In all other respect, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is intact. IN RFA NO.100293/2025
31. This is the appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC praying for setting aside the orders passed in FDP No.9/2015.
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2246-DB RFA No. 100192 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100293 of 2025 HC-KAR
32. There is modification of shares as ordered in RFA No.100192/2021. Hence, shares of each sharer i.e. plaintiff No.2, defendant No.1, defendants No.2 to 5 is enlarged to 1/3rd instead of 1/4th. Hence, the final decree is to be reframed.
33. Under those circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that drawing up of final decree in FDP No.9/2015 is to be set aside and the matter is to be remanded back to Trial Court for fresh disposal of FDP No.9/2015 by fixing the boundaries and extent of properties to each sharers as 1/3rd instead of 1/4th.
34. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that without hearing the appellants, the final decree was drawn in FDP No.9/2015.
35. After remanding the matter, the learned Trial Judge shall appoint Court Commissioner and to fix the measurements and extent of properties of each sharer and after receipt of Court Commissioner's report, an opportunity
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2246-DB RFA No. 100192 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100293 of 2025 HC-KAR shall be given to both sides to submit their arguments on that report before accepting it.
36. In view of the above discussion, we proceed to the pass the following:
ORDER
1. Accordingly, RFA No.100192/2021 is allowed in part.
2. The share of plaintiff No.2, defendants No.1; and defendant No.2 to 5 together, is declared as 1/3rd each instead of 1/4th by modifying the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.11/2013 dated 02.01.2021 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Ramdurg.
3. RFA No.100293/2025 is allowed.
4. The order dated 22.11.2023 passed in FDP No.9/2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Ramdurg is hereby set aside.
5. FDP No.9/2015 is remanded back to Trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2246-DB RFA No. 100192 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 100293 of 2025 HC-KAR
6. Parties shall appear before Trial Court on 17.03.2026 without Court notice.
7. After such appearance, parties are hereby directed to co-operate with the Trial Court for disposal of FDP No.9/2015 as early as possible.
8. In view of disposal of main appeals, I.A.Nos.2/2021 and 2/2025 are disposed of.
SD/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE SD/-
(GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE RKM-para 1 to 21 SH para 22 to end CT:PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11