SMT. KALLAVVA D/O. SIDRAMAPPA HATTI vs MALLAVVA W/O. KUBERAPPA MENSINAKAI

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17511
RSA No. 100398 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020043032023



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100398 OF 2023 (PAR/DEC)
BETWEEN:


SMT. KALLAVVA D/O. SIDRAMAPPA HATTI,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. SULLA, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580023.



…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR B. HALLI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. MALLAVVA W/O. KUBERAPPA MENSINAKAI,
AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. SULLA, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580023.





2. BASAPPA S/O. KUBERAPPA MENSINAKAI,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SULLA, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580023.


3. YALLAPPA S/O. KUBERAPPA MENSINAKAI,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SULLA, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580023.

4. MUDAKAVVA W/O. SIDRAMAPPA GOURI,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SULLA, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580023.
…RESPONDENTS

(V/O. DATED 01.07.2026 NOTICE TO R1 TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.12.2021 IN
R.A.NO.95/2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, HUBBALLI AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 24.07.2017 IN O.S.NO.532/2012 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND III JMFC, HUBBALLI, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:


Digitally
signed by
BHARATHI
H M
Date:
2026.11.03
10:09:30
+0530
BHARATHI
H M

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17511
RSA No. 100398 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020043032023



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

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant.

2. Plaintiff No.1(b) in O.S. No.532/2012 on the file of
learned II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC-III, Hubballi (for
short, ‘trial court’) has maintained this regular second
appeal.

3. The plaintiff namely Sri Sidramappa S/o.
Sannakallappa @ Kallappa Hatti maintained the suit in O.S.
No.532/2012 for partition and separate possession claiming
his half share in properties bearing Block No.33/1 measuring
2 acres 35 guntas and VPC No.121 (Old Panchayat No.211A)
measuring 20 ft. X 45 ft. situated in Sulla Village of Hullabbi
Taluk. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit properties
belonged to the propositus namely Sri Yallappa S/o Kallappa
Hattikal and that the parties to the suit are the joint family
members. It is stated that Sri Yallappa had two wives
namely Fakirawwa and Gangawwa. The plaintiff is the son of

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17511
RSA No. 100398 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020043032023


Smt. Kallavva, the daughter of Yallappa through his first wife
and that the defendants are the children of Yallappa through
his second wife. Thus, it is contended that the plaintiff and
defendants are the joint family members and that the suit
properties are their joint family properties. The plaintiff
stated that though he requested the defendants to partition
the suit properties and to allot his share, initially they
dodged the matter and later on he came to know that the
defendants got entered the revenue records in their names
without the knowledge of the plaintiff. Hence, he maintained
the suit.

4. On service of summons, Defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4
appeared before the trial court through their counsel and
filed their written statement. Despite service of summons,
Defendant No.2 remained absent. Hence, she was placed
exparte.

5. Defendant No.4 filed his written statement.
Defendant Nos.1 and 3 have adopted the written statement
of Defendant No.4. In his written statement, Defendant No.4

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17511
RSA No. 100398 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020043032023


contended that the suit of the plaintiff is not tenable. He
disputed the genealogy furnished by the plaintiff and
contended that it is created one. He submitted that the
plaintiff is not their family member and that the genealogy
furnished by the plaintiff is false to the extent showing
Fakirawwa as the first wife of Yallappa. He further stated
that there is no property bearing VPC No.121 as claimed by
the plaintiff and as such he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. Based on the pleadings, the trial court framed
necessary issues, recorded evidence adduced by the parties
and then decreed the suit vide its judgment dated
24.07.2017. The trial court relied on the documents
produced at Exs. P5 to P7 and believed the claim of the
plaintiff regarding his relationship with Yallappa. The trial
court held that the plaintiff has established the genealogy
submitted by him in schedule ‘A’ to the plaint and proceeded
to hold that schedule ‘B’ properties, being the properties
belonging to the propositus namely Late Yallappa, the

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17511
RSA No. 100398 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020043032023


plaintiff is entitled for a share in those properties and
decreed the suit.

7. Being aggrieved, Defendants No.1, 3 and 4
preferred the appeal in R.A. No.95/2017. The first appellate
court after re-appreciating the materials on record allowed
the appeal and set-aside the judgment and decree passed by
the trial court on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to
prove his relationship with Yallappa and his entitlement to
claim share in the suit properties. The first appellate court
observed that the documents produced at Exs.P5 and P6 are
the documents obtained subsequent to the filing of the suit
and that the trial court erred in relying on these documents
to decide the relationship of the plaintiff with Yallappa.
Further, the first appellate court noted that there is no
evidence on record to show that the plaintiff is the grandson
of Yallappa or that Yallappa had a first wife by name Smt
Fakirawwa. Thus, the first appellate court held that the trial
court wrongly considered the evidence on record.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17511
RSA No. 100398 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020043032023



8. Sri Rajashekhar B. Halli, learned Counsel for
Plaintiff No.1(b) vehemently submitted that the finding
recorded by the first appellate court is erroneous and
misconceived. He submitted that there was no reason for the
first appellate court to disbelieve the documents produced at
Exs.P5 to P7, the documents issued by the competent
authorities. He submitted that the first appellate court failed
to consider the evidence of the parties and particularly the
admissions of DW-1 and erroneously reversed the judgment
of the trial court. He also submitted that during the
pendency of the appeal in R.A. No.95/2017 the defendants
had maintained an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of
CPC along with additional documents and that the first
appellate court disposed of the appeal without considering
such application. In these circumstances, he contended that
the judgment and decree rendered by the first appellant
court is perverse and liable to be set-aside.

9. As pointed out earlier, the plaintiff maintained the
suit for partition and separate possession claiming his share

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17511
RSA No. 100398 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020043032023


in the suit properties on the ground that those properties
originally belonged to the propositus namely Sri Yallappa S/o
Kallappa Hattikal and that he being the member of the
family of Sri Yallappa, he is entitled for a share in the suit
properties.

10. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that Sri
Yallappa had two wives, namely Smt Fakirawwa and Smt.
Gangawwa and that he is the grandson of Yallappa, i.e., the
son of his daughter namely Smt. Kallawwa, through his first
wife. The defendants have disputed such claim of the
plaintiff and contended that the plaintiff or his mother was
not their family member. Hence, it becomes clear that the
parties to the suit are mainly at dispute regarding their inter-
se relationship and the right to succeed to the properties left

behind by Sri Yallappa.

11. The case papers reveal that in support of his case
the plaintiff has not adduced any other evidence before the
court except his testimony as PW-1 and the documents
produced as Exs.P1 to P13. The documents produced by the

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17511
RSA No. 100398 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020043032023


plaintiff indicate that majority of them are revenue records
such as ROR, mutation extract, and extract of mutation
register, certificate issued by Gram Panchayat and Property
Tax Assessment. None of these documents is helpful to the
plaintiff in proving his relationship with Sri Yallappa.

12. As noted above, the trial court proceeded to hold
that Exs. P5 and P6 speak about Smt Fakirawwa being the
wife of Sri Yallappa and Ex.P7 speaks that the plaintiff is the
son of Late Kallawwa. The trial court opined that there is no
reason to disbelieve the correctness of these documents and
relied on them to answer Issue No.1 regarding proof of
genealogy in favour of the plaintiff on the ground that the
defendants have not adduced contrary evidence to disbelieve
these documents.

13. Ex.P5 is the Death Certificate of Smt Fakirawwa.
Ex.P6 is the Birth Certificate of Smt. Kallawwa. As per these
documents, Smt Fakirawwa died on 11.05.1939 and Smt.
Kallawwa born on 08.08.1935. The plaintiff maintained the
suit for partition and separate possession on 24.05.2012.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17511
RSA No. 100398 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020043032023


Whereas, the documents produced as Exs. P5 and P6 bear
date of these certificates as 24.06.2014. Thus, it becomes
clear that these certificates came into existence subsequent
to the filing of the suit. Added to it, the plaintiff has not
adduced any evidence on record to support correctness of
the entries in these documents. In the above circumstances,
this Court finds no error committed by the first appellate
court in discarding these documents and in holding that Exs.
P5 and P6 are not helpful for the plaintiff in proving his
relationship with Sri Yallappa.

14. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff No.1(b) tried to rely
on certain statements of DW-1 made during his cross-
examination on the ground that he has admitted the plaintiff
being the legal heir of Sri Yallappa and that Ex.P6 contains
father’s name of Smt Kallawwa as Sri Yallappa. There is no
dispute regarding the contents of Exs. P5 and P6. The
dispute is regarding correctness of such entries and
reliability those documents to decide the relationship of the
plaintiff with Sri Yallappa. It is to be noted that during his

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17511
RSA No. 100398 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020043032023


cross examination DW-1 has categorically stated that such
documents are concocted and created documents. In view of
the same, this Court holds that the admission of DW-1
regarding the entries in Exs. P5 and P6 are not helpful for
the plaintiff in proving his relationship with Sri Yallappa.

15. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff No.1(b) has also
drawn the attention of this Court to an application filed by
the defendants before the first appellate court i.e., under
Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC and
submitted that the first appellate court disposed of the
appeal without considering said application. First of all, it
was an application filed by the defendants. As such, if at all
there is any grievance regarding non disposal of such
application, it should be by the defendants and the plaintiff
cannot make out a grievance in this regard. Further, it is not
the case of the plaintiff that allowing of such application
would have benefited him in substantiating his contention.
The case papers reveal that the defendants had filed the
application seeking permission to produce death certificate of

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17511
RSA No. 100398 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020043032023


Smt. Gangamma, the sale deed in the name of Sri Yallappa,
the order of the Land Tribunal dated 09.07.1976 and other

revenue documents. None of these documents concern to
the relationship between the plaintiff and Sri Yallappa.

16. The entire case of the plaintiff depends on his
relationship with Sri Yallappa. He claimed to be the grandson
of Sri Yallappa through Smt Kallawwa, the alleged daughter
of Sri Yallappa through his first wife namely Smt Fakirawwa.
The materials on record clearly indicate that the plaintiff has
not adduced any evidence on record to prove that Sri
Yallappa had a first wife by name Smt Fakirawwa and that
he has a daughter by name Smt Kallawwa through Smt
Fakirawwa. The case papers reveal that the first appellate
court has properly re-appreciated the materials available on
record and found error committed by the trial court in
wrongly placing reliance on the documents produced as
Exs.P5 to P7 and in holding that the plaintiff has proved his
relationship with Sri Yallappa. On careful analysis of the
materials available, this Court finds that the first appellate

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17511
RSA No. 100398 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020043032023


court was fully justified in reversing the judgment and
decree of the trial court. Hence, it is held that no substantial

question of law arises for consideration in the appeal.

17. In the result, this court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
dismissed
The regular second appeal is .
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of as they
do not survive for consideration.




SD/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE


RH, ASN/CT:PA
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 33