BHIMAPPA S/O MUKAPPA JYOTEPPANAVAR vs THE STATE REPRESENTED BY

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16299
RSA No. 100726 of 2018


CNR: KAHC020132522018



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI


REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100726 OF 2018 (DEC-)

BETWEEN:

1. BHIMAPPA S/O. MUKAPPA JYOTEPPANAVAR,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.,



1A.




1B.

SMT. GANGAMMA W/O. BHIMAPPA JYOTEPPANAVAR,
AGE: 79 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. HALLIGERI ONI, MORAB VILLAGE-580112,
TQ. NAVALGUND, DIST. DHARWAD.

SHRI MUKHAPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA JYOTEPPANAVAR,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HALLIGERI ONI, MORAB VILLAGE-580112,
TQ. NAVALGUND, DIST. DHARWAD.






1C. SMT. KASTURI W/O. MADIVALAPPA VITTHOJI,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. NEAR ISHWAR TEMPLE,
AMMINBHAVI VILLAGE-581201.

ROHAN
HADIMANI
T

Digitally signed by
ROHAN HADIMANI T
Date: 2026.10.12
14:52:43 +0530
1D. SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O. MAHADEVAPPA NARAGUND,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KALAGHATAGI ROAD LAST STOP,
TADAS VILLAGE-581207, TQ. HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD.

1E.

SHRI YOGAPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA JYOTEPPANAVAR,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HALLIGERI ONI, MORAB VILLAGE-580112,
TQ. NAVALGUND, DIST. DHARWAD.

1F. SHRI YALLAPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA JYOTEPPANAVAR,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16299
RSA No. 100726 of 2018


CNR: KAHC020132522018


R/O. HALLIGERI ONI, MORAB VILLAGE-580112,
TQ. NAVALGUND, DIST. DHARWAD.

…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. CHETAN T. LIMBIKAI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DIST: DHARWAD-580008.

2. SMT. CHANNAVVA,
W/O. RAMACHANDRAPPA SHETEGANNAVAR,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KALLI ONI, DHARWAD-580001,
TQ: DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD.

3. SMT. YALLAVVA W/O. MARUTI BANDI @ BHOSALE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: GANTIKERI ONI, HUBBALLI-580020,
TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RATNAMALA G.H, HCGP FOR R1;
V/O. DATED 14.08.2024 NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT;
V/O. DATED 30.07.2026 NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE FIRST APPELLATE
COURT IN R.A.NO.04/2014 DATED 10.04.2018 AND THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE OF TRIAL COURT IN O.S.NO.49/2007 DATED
02.08.2013 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THIS APPEAL AS PRAYED
IN THE PLAINT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16299
RSA No. 100726 of 2018


CNR: KAHC020132522018


ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellants and learned
HCGP appearing for Respondent No.1.

2. The plaintiff in OS No.49/2007 on the file of
learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Navalgund has maintained
this regular second appeal.

3. The plaintiff maintained the suit in OS
No.49/2007 praying for declaration that he and Defendant
Nos.2 and 3 are the legal representatives of Sri Peeraji S/o
Rajappa Tahasildar @ Jyoteppanavar. On service of
summons, Defendant No.2 appeared before the trial court
and filed her written statement admitting that the plaintiff
and the defendants are the relatives belonging to one
family. She further submitted that earlier there were
proceedings in OS No.149/1964 and OS No.22/1995,
wherein it was held that the plaintiff was not entitled to
claim share in the properties involved therein. Thus, she
contended that the plaintiff maintained the suit with
malafide intention.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16299
RSA No. 100726 of 2018


CNR: KAHC020132522018



4. Based on the pleadings, the trial court framed
necessary issues, recorded evidence of the parties and
then dismissed the suit vide its judgment dated
14.08.2013. The trial court held that the relationship
between the parties to the suit with Peeraji is not in
dispute. However, it held that the suit was hopelessly
barred by time as the plaintiff maintained the suit after
lapse of 86 years from the date of death of Peeraji, i.e. on
10.03.1921. The trial court also opined that the plaintiff
did not approach the court with clean hands.

5. The plaintiff preferred the appeal in RA
No.4/2014, challenging the judgment and decree of the
trial court. The first appellate court, on re-appreciating the
materials on record, dismissed the appeal by concurring
with the findings recorded by the trial court and observed
that the contentions raised in the present suit have been
decided in earlier proceeding.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred this
regular second appeal. During pendency of the appeal, he

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16299
RSA No. 100726 of 2018


CNR: KAHC020132522018


died. Hence, his legal representatives came on record by
filing necessary applications and prosecuted the appeal.

7. Sri Chetan T. Limbikai, learned Counsel for the
legal representatives of the plaintiff vehemently submitted
that the courts below have erred in dismissing the suit,
which was filed to seek the declaration of the plaintiff’s
status as the legal heir of Sri Peeraji. He submitted that
the plaintiff has proved the genealogy and his relationship
with Sri Peeraji. He drew the attention of this Court to the
finding recorded by the trial Court on issue Nos.1 and 2,
holding that the plaintiff has proved that he is one of the
legal heirs of the deceased Sri Peeraji and submitted that
in spite of such finding, the courts below erroneously
proceeded to dismiss the suit without applying their
judicial mind to the matter in dispute.

8. As pointed out earlier, the plaintiff has
maintained the suit seeking declaration that he and
Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the legal representatives of Sri
Peeraji, S/o Rajappa Tahasildar @ Jyoteppanavar. The

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16299
RSA No. 100726 of 2018


CNR: KAHC020132522018


materials on record indicate that the parties to the suit are
not in dispute either regarding the interse relationship
between the plaintiff and Defendant Nos.2 and 3 or they
being the legal representatives of deceased Sri Peeraji.

9. Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act deals with

the declaration of status or right of a person entitled to any
legal character or any right to property to file a suit
against the person denying or interested to deny to his
title such a character or right. In the case on hand, the
defendants have not disputed the legal status of the
plaintiff as the legal heir of Sri Peeraji. Thereby, it
becomes clear that the suit maintained by the plaintiff
seeking for declaration of his legal status as the legal heir
of Sri Peeraji does not fall within the ambit of Section 34
of the Specific Relief Act.

10. It is also not in dispute that earlier there were
proceedings in OS No.149/1964 and OS No.22/1995 for
the relief of partition, wherein it was held that the plaintiff
was not entitled for any share in the properties involved

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16299
RSA No. 100726 of 2018


CNR: KAHC020132522018


therein. The plaintiff herein was a party to those
proceedings and he did not challenge the orders and the
judgments passed therein. Thus, the judgments and
orders in those proceedings have attained finality.

11. It is also relevant to note that in the present
case the plaintiff has not sought for any other relief except
the declaration of the status that he and Defendant Nos.2
and 3 are the legal heirs of Sri Peeraji. The facts and
circumstances of the case give an impression that he has
intentionally omitted to seek other reliefs in addition to
declaration of legal status. The said conduct of the plaintiff
creates a reasonable doubt regarding his bonafide in
maintaining the suit. Thus, on careful analysis of the
materials on record, this Court holds that the courts below
have not committed any error in appreciating the
materials on record and in arriving at their conclusion.
Hence, it is held that no substantial question of law arises
for consideration in the appeal.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16299
RSA No. 100726 of 2018


CNR: KAHC020132522018



12. In the result, this Court proceeds pass the
following:
ORDER
The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed .
The pending applications, if any, stand disposed
of as they do not survive for consideration.


SD/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE


HMB/CT:PA
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 27