SHANKARAPPA A/F BHARAMAPPA MAVINTOP vs PRABHU BASAVANNEPPA MAVINTOP

- 1 -
C/W RSA No. 5854 of 2013


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

th
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE


REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 5854 OF 2013


BETWEEN:

SHANKARAPPA A/F BHARAMAPPA MAVINATOP
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. CHIKKAYADACHI, TALUK: HIREKERUR,
DIST. HAVERI-580041.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. PRABHU BASAVANNEPPA MAVINATOP
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. CHIKKAYADACHI, TALUK: HIREKERUR,
DIST. HAVERI-580041.

2. SHIVARAJA BASAVANNEPPA MAVINATOP
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

2A) SMT. LILAVATHI W/O SHIVARAJA MAVINATOP
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. CHIKKAYADACHI VILLAGE,
TALUK: RATTIHALLI, DIST. HAVERI.

2B) SIDDANAGOUDA S/O SHIVARAJ MAVINATOP
AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O. CHIKKAYADACHI VILLAGE,
TALUK: RATTIHALLI, DIST. HAVERI.

SINCE MINOR R/BY MINOR GUARDIAN NATURAL MOTHER
SMT. LEELAVATHI W/O SHIVARAJA MAVINTOP
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.G. KADADAKATTI, ADVOCATE)















ROHAN
HADIMANI
T
Digitally signed by ROHAN
HADIMANI T
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2026.11.06 16:05:15
+0530

- 2 -
C/W RSA No. 5854 of 2013


THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED
31.07.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.21/2006, ON THE FILE OF THE
II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, AT HAVERI
(SITTING AT RANEBENNUR), DISMISSING THE APPEAL, FILED
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.02.2006
AND THE DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.53/1998, ON THE FILE
OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) PRINCIPAL JMFC, AT
RANEBENNUR.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 16.09.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE

CAV JUDGMENT
The plaintiff namely Shankrappa, adopted son of
Bharamappa, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment
and decree dated 21.02.2006, passed in O.S.No.53/1998,
by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and Principal JMFC,
Ranebennur, (for short trial court) dismissing his suit filed
for declaration and injunction, which is confirmed by the II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, sitting at
Ranebennur,(for short First Appellate court) in
R.A.No.21/2006, by judgment dated 31.07.2013,
preferred the present second appeal.

- 3 -
C/W RSA No. 5854 of 2013


2. For the convenience reference, the parties are
referred to as ‘the plaintiff’ and ‘the defendants’ as per
their ranking before the trial Court.
3. Facts of the case in brief is that,
The plaintiff filed the suit seeking the relief of,
a. Declaration declaring that the suit properties
are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff,
b. Consequential relief of injunction,
c. To declare that M.E.No.2798 entered in respect
of the land bearing Survey No.34/2, 36/1+2 and the
defendant’s name entered in khata No.138 is illegal.
3.1 The contention of the plaintiff is that the land
bearing Sy.No.34/2 measuring 10 guntas, R.S.No.36/1+2
measuring 01 acre 06 guntas, situated at Chikkayadachi
Village in Hirekerur Taluk (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit
properties’) are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff. He
is the owner and in possession of the suit properties. The
defendants are his own brothers. They are the sons of

- 4 -
C/W RSA No. 5854 of 2013


Basavanneppa the younger brother of the adopted father
of the plaintiff Bharamappa. The defendants have no
manner of right, title or interest over the suit properties.
3.2 The original propositus Gaviyappa has 03 sons
by name Bharamappa, Gurusiddappa and Basavanneppa
and all the three sons have effected oral partition on
10.04.1965 in respect of the suit properties. As per the
partition, they are enjoying their properties as exclusive
owners and possessor of the said properties. They gave
joint wardi to the revenue authorities on 09.04.1973.
Accordingly M.E.No.1994 was effected and it was certified
on 04.07.1973.
3.3 As per the partition, the land bearing
Sy.No.50/2+1 measuring 17 guntas, R.S.No.48/2
measuring 22 guntas, Sy.No.36/1+2 measuring 01 acre
12 guntas, R.S.No.34/2 measuring 10 guntas, R.S.No.112
measuring 01 acre 22 guntas, R.S.No.113 measuring 21
guntas, were fallen to the share of said Bharamappa who
was the adopted father of the plaintiff herein. Accordingly
in all 08 acres 01 gunta was fallen to the share of

- 5 -
C/W RSA No. 5854 of 2013


Gurusiddappa and 08 acres 21 guntas was fallen to the
share of Basavanneppa, who was the father of the
defendants.
3.4 Said Gurusiddappa and Basavanneppa gave less
lands to Bharamappa, who was the adopted father of the
plaintiff, which are not fertile lands and they are
rd
fragmented lands. The said Bharamappa having 2/3
share in land bearing Sy.No.175 and R.S.No.178, situated
at Chikkayadachi Village and said Basavanneppa having
rd
1/3 share, the Plot No.23 situated at Chikkayadachi
Village and R.S.Nos.175 and 178 were kept in joint
possession of the said Bharamappa and his two brothers
Gurusiddappa and Basavanneppa. In M.E.No.1994 in the
year 1973 it was clearly mentioned and it was also
mentioned in the deed of partition i.e., Vatni Tippani.
Accordingly all of them got mutated their properties in
their names vide order dated 09.04.1973 as per oral
partition and it was certified on 04.07.1973 as per
M.E.No.1994.

- 6 -
C/W RSA No. 5854 of 2013


3.5 It is further contended by the plaintiff that, the
father of the defendants namely Basavanneppa in order to
grab the properties of Bharamappa, filed the suit in
O.S.No.8/1995 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.),
Ranebennur, in respect of land bearing Sy.No.112 and
113. Further the defendants have also concocted another
deed of partition behind the back of the plaintiff colluding
with the revenue authorities and got mutated their names
and concocted M.E.No.2798 of Chikkayadachi Village in
Hirekerur Taluk, illegally. Thereby, the said mutation entry
No.2798 is illegal, null and wide. Though the plaintiff filed
the objection before the revenue authority in respect of
the said mutation entry No.2798, it was rejected by the
revenue authorities as the defendants got rejected the
objection of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed revision petition
in ARTS-RA-SR-1/96-97. It was also dismissed on
02.08.1997 directing the plaintiff to approach Civil Court.
Therefore, the plaintiff constrained to file the suit seeking
declaration and injunction.

- 7 -
C/W RSA No. 5854 of 2013


4. In response to the summons issued, defendants
No.1 and 2 appeared and filed the written statement,
wherein they have denied all the allegations made by the
plaintiff in the plaint. The defendants admitted the
relationship of the plaintiff and the defendants. However,
the defendants contended that the propositus Gaviyappa
apart from having 03 sons namely Bharamappa,
Gurusiddappa, Basavanneppa, has another two sons,
namely Siddappa and Hanumantappa. The plaintiff is the
son of Siddappa.
4.1 The adopted father of the plaintiff, namely
Bharamappa sold the land in Sy.No.172/1+2A+B/2,
measuring 04 acres 12 guntas. The plaintiff has not
included the said property in the present suit. There is a
Well in the land bearing Sy.No.112 and there are plants in
land bearing Sy.No.113. There is a pump set loan on the
land bearing Sy.No.112 and 113. The adopted father of
the plaintiff and his two brothers jointly enjoying the land
bearing Sy.No.112 and 113. But unfortunately in the
partition of the year 1973, the land bearing Sy.No.112 and

- 8 -
C/W RSA No. 5854 of 2013


113 were wrongly entered in the name of the adopted
father of the plaintiff.
4.2 Since the plaintiff denied the rights of the father
of the defendants herein, he filed the suit in
O.S.No.8/1995 and the said suit was compromised on
31.01.1995. As per the compromise decree, northern
portion of 26 guntas in land bearing Sy.No.112 was fallen
to the share of the father of the defendant and 10 guntas
in R.S.No.34/1+2 and 01 acre 12 guntas in R.S.No.8 in
Sy.No.36/2 was fallen to the share of the father of the
defendants. Therefore the plaintiff is not the absolute
owner and in possession of the suit schedule properties.
The suit schedule properties are in possession of the
defendants. On these grounds the defendants prayed for
dismissal of the suit.
5. Out of the above pleadings, the trial Court has
framed the following:
ISSUES
1) Whether the plaintiff proves, he is
absolute owner of suit properties by virtue
of private partition dated 10.04.1965

- 9 -
C/W RSA No. 5854 of 2013


which is effected in revenue records on
09.04.1973 as contended?
2) Does the plaintiff further prove, he is
exclusively making wahiwat of suit
property as on the date of suit?
3) Whether defendants prove, in revised
private partition dated 31.01.1995, 0-26
guntas out of R.S.No.112, 0-10 guntas
out of R.S.No.34/1+2 and R.S.No.36/2
are given to father of defendants as
contended in para 14 of W.S?
4) What relief the parties are entitled?
5) What decree or order?

6. The plaintiff in order to prove his case, got
examined himself as PW1 and two witnesses were
examined as PW2 and PW3 and got marked the
documents Ex.P1 to P26.
On behalf of the defendants, defendant No.1 was
examined as DW1 and three witnesses are examined as
DW2 to DW4 and got marked the documents Ex.D1 to D8
and the document Ex.C1 was marked.
7. The trial Court after appreciation of the
evidence on record proceeded to dismiss the suit of the

- 10 -
C/W RSA No. 5854 of 2013


plaintiff, vide the judgment dated 21.02.2006. The plaintiff
being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, has preferred
appeal before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.21/2006.
The First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the
evidence, dismissed the suit confirming the impugned
judgment of the trial Court dismissing the suit of the
plaintiff, vide judgment dated 31.07.2013.
8. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of
both the Courts, the plaintiff/appellant has preferred the
present second appeal on the following grounds:
a) Both the Courts have not appreciated
the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence
in right perspective.
b) Both the Courts erred in dismissing
the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that there
was partition between the plaintiff and the
defendant on 10.04.1965, which is not proved
by the plaintiff.
c) The defendants themselves admitted
in their written statement about the partition of
the year 1965, but they subsequently stated
that on 31.01.1995 there was compromise
between the plaintiff and the father of the
defendant, which is not proved by the
defendant and the said partition dated
31.01.1995 is an unregistered document.

- 11 -
C/W RSA No. 5854 of 2013


d) Both the Courts ought not to have
considered that subsequent revised partition
dated 31.01.1995 and it cannot be considered
when the defendants have admitted that there
was earlier partition in the year 1965.
e) Both the Courts have committed an
error without assigning the proper reasons to
dismiss the suit of the plaintiff and based on
the mutation entry in M.E.No.2798 which is
misconceived.
On these grounds the appellant prayed for setting
aside the impugned judgments by allowing this appeal and
to decree the suit of the plaintiff.
9. In response to the notice issued, the
respondents appeared and resisted the appeal.
10. Trial court records secured.
11. Heard the arguments of Smt.Girija S. Hiremath,
learned counsel for the appellant and the arguments of Sri
S.G.Kadadakatti, learned counsel for the respondents.
12. Perused the records.
13. At the time of admitting the present appeal, the
following substantial question of law was framed by this
Court.

- 12 -
C/W RSA No. 5854 of 2013


Whether both the Courts below have erred
in relying on the revised partition dated
31.01.1995 to hold that the plaintiff/appellant
has given up his share to the defendant?
14. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that,
along with this second appeal, another appeal in RSA.
No.2393/2006 is pending between these parties and the
said RSA.No.2393/2006 heard along with this appeal and
taken up disposal. In the said appeal, the subject matter of
the suit properties is as under.
i. R.S. No.112 measuring 1 acre 22 guntas
ii. R.S.No.113 measuring 21 guntas

15. The aforesaid two properties are also the
subject matter of this appeal in RSA. No.5854/2013 along
with other properties.

16.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that,
the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit
schedule properties. The three brothers Bharamappa,
Gurusiddappa and Basavanneppa affected the oral

- 13 -
C/W RSA No. 5854 of 2013


partition in their family, as per the partition they are
enjoying their properties as exclusive owner.
17. It is further argued that, all the three brothers
gave joint varadi to the revenue authorities on 09.04.1973
and accordingly mutation was effected in M.E.No.1994 and
it was certified on 04.07.1973.

18. The plaintiff’s further contention is that, as per
the partition, land bearing R.S.No.112 measuring 1 acre
22 guntas, land bearing R.S.No.113 measuring 21 guntas
along with the other 4 properties as described in the
schedule to the plaint herein, fallen to the share of
Bharamappa who was adopted father of the plaintiff.

19. The plaintiff’s further contention is that, the
defendants father namely Basavanneppa in order to grab
the properties ie., land bearing Sy.No.112 and 113, had
filed the suit in OS.No.8/1995 (subject matter of appeal in
RSA.No.2393/2006) seeking partition and separate
rd
possession of his 1/3 share.

- 14 -
C/W RSA No. 5854 of 2013


20. The plaintiff’s further contention is that, the
said suit in O.S.No.8/1995 is a frivolous suit filed by the
defendants father though he was not entitled for any
rights in the said two properties knowingly that, the
plaintiff is in enjoyment of the said two properties along
with other properties as exclusive owner and the
defendants concocted the mutation entry in M.E.No.2798
illegally.

21. The plaintiff’s further contended that, the
defendants behind the back of the plaintiff created a
partition deed dated 10.11.1995 and on the basis of the
said partition deed, the mutation entry in M.E.No.2798
came to be entered in the revenue records. The plaintiff
approached the revenue court by filing revision petition in
ARTS-RA/SR 1/96-97, which was dismissed directing the
plaintiff for seeking redressal in the Civil Court. Therefore,
the plaintiff contended that, he filed the suit.

22. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff
argued that, the defendants herein in their written

- 15 -
C/W RSA No. 5854 of 2013


statement admitted about the partition of the year 1965
but subsequently, they contended that there was revised
partition dated 31.01.1995 and though that there is the
said revised partition, but it was an un registered
document, it ought not to have considered, however both
the courts considering the said un registered partition
deed dated 31.01.1995, held that the plaintiff has failed to
prove his case that he is the owner of the schedule
properties including the properties which are Sy.No.112
and 113 subject matter of the appeal in
RSA.No.2393/2006.

23. In this appeal, substantial question of law is
that, whether both the courts erred in relying on the
revised partition deed dated 31.01.1995 dismissed the suit
of the plaintiff.

24. On the contrary, learned counsel for the
respondents/defendants argued that, they have filed the
suit in O.S.No.8/1995 seeking partition and separate
possession in respect of the suit land R.S.No.112 and 113.

- 16 -
C/W RSA No. 5854 of 2013


They contended that, after they filed the suit, there was
panchayath in the presence of the elders of the village,
and as per the settlement of held, the settlement was
reduced to writing evidentiary the factum of partition in
the form of document dated 31.01.1995 prepared and as
per the said partition deed, the plaintiff herein agreed to
give up 26 guntas in R.S.No.112 and in R.S.No.34-1+2 an
extent of 10 guntas and R.S.No.36/2 an extent of 1 acre
12 guntas to the father of these defendants namely
Basavanneppa.

25. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents
argued that, both the courts after going through the said
document ie., dated 31.01.1995 marked as Ex.D1 before
the trial court, rightly appreciated and dismissed the suit
of the plaintiff.

26. Learned counsel for the
respondents/defendants further argued that, on the basis
of the said memorandum of partition as per Ex.D1,
mutation is also entered as per Ex.D3 in M.E.No.2798.

- 17 -
C/W RSA No. 5854 of 2013


Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants
argued that, both the courts have rightly appreciated the
said document and dismissed the suit, and this appeal
deserves to be dismissed.

27. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that,
another appeal in RSA.No.2393/2006 also heard along
with this appeal, and this court in the said RSA.2393/2006
has come to the conclusion that, the plaintiffs in the said
appeal have proved that, they are entitled for partition in
rd
the properties R.S.No.112 and R.S.No.113 of their 1/3
share.

28. On perusal of the reasons assigned by the both
courts in the suit O.S.No.53/1995 and in the appeal in
R.A.No.21/2006, both the courts have rightly appreciated
the document ie., revised partition dated 31.01.1995 has
come to the conclusion that the plaintiff in the said suit
failed to prove that he is the absolute owner of the suit
schedule properties.

- 18 -
C/W RSA No. 5854 of 2013


29. In this appeal, the appellants have failed to
substantiate the grounds urged in this appeal and thereby
the appeal is devoid of merits. Hence, the substantial
question of law answered against the appellant/plaintiff.
30. Accordingly, this court proceeds to pass the
following,
ORDER
The appeal in RSA.No.5854/2013 is dismissed.
The impugned judgments passed by both the courts
in O.S.No.53/1998 dated 21.02.2006, on the file of Civil
Judge(Sr Div), Ranebennur, and in R.A.No.21/2006 dated
31.07.2013 on the file of II Addl. District and Sessions
Judge, Haveri, sitting at Ranebennur are confirmed.
Under the facts and circumstances, parties are
directed to bear their own costs.
Send back the trial court records along with copy of
this judgment.



Sd/-
(RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE)
JUDGE
MRK
CT-CMU