Karnataka Circuit Bench High Court · 2012

SMT. YALLAVVA W/O DEVENDRAPPA KANTI, AGE: 52 YEARS, 0CC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, KRSHNAPUR, HALE-HUBLI, HUBLI, DHARWAD-580020. ADIVEPPA SIDDAPPA KANT!, AGE: 61 YEARS, 0CC: AGR1, AT SIRAGUPPI. TAL. HUBLI, DIST: HUBLI-580020. MAHADEVAPPA BASAPPA KANT!, AGE: 46 YEARS, 0CC: AGRI, RIO -DO ASHOK BASAPPA KANT!, AGE: 39 YEARS, 0CC: SERVICE, RIO -DO- MANJU RAMAPPA KANT!, AGE: 26 YEARS, 0CC: SERVICE, RIO -DO HANUMANTHAPPA FARKIRAPPA KANT!, AGE: 78 YEARS, 0CC: AGRI, R/O KRISHNAPUR, HUBLI, PIN-580020. BASAPPA FAKKTRAPPA KANT!, AGE: 75 YEARS, 0CC: AGRI, RIO 2ND CROSS, KRISHNAPUR, HUBLI, PIN-580020. RAMAPPA FAKKIRAPPA KANT!, AGE: 71 YEARS, 0CC: AGRI, RIO 2ND CROSS, KRISHNAPUR, HUBU-580020. ADHYAPAKA NAGAR MANE KATFUV SANGH, GANESHPET HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD, BY ITS PRESIDENT. 580020. I’ :3: (BY SRI.V.R.DATAR & SRLRAVI S.HEGDE, ADV. FOR .RESPON DENTS C/Ri TO R9, RiO TO R13 SERVED) This APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED

14.07.2006 PASSED IN O.S.NO.57/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) HUBLI PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION, DECLARATION, PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION. IN RFA NO.190912006 BETWEEN: ADHYAPAK NAGAR MANE KAfl’UVA SANGH, REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT, SRI.CHANDRASHEKHARAYYA SON OF GADAGAYYA SALIMATH, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, OCC:RETD. GOVT. SERVANT, R/O H.NO.27, ADHYAPAI( NAGAR, NEAR DARGA, VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI-31, DIST: DHARWAD. APPELLANT (BY SRI.SACHIN S.MAGADUM, ADV.FOR SRI.VIGHNESHWAR S. SHASTRY, ADV.) AND:

2. SRI.SHIVANAND SON OF HANUMANTAPPA KANTI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 0CC: PRIVATE SERVICE, RESIDENT OF KR1SHNAPUR, OLD HUBLI, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD-58003 1. SRI.SHANKAREPPA SON OF KANTEPPA KANTI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 0CC: SERVICE, REST —DO V :4:

12. SRI.BASAPPA SON OF KANTEPPA KANTI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 0CC: SERVICE, SRI.SAHADEVAPPA SON OF BASAPPA KANTI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 0CC: PRIVATE SERVICE, REST —DO- SMT.YALLAWWA WIFE OF DEVENDRAPPA KANTI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 0CC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, REST -DO SRI.ADIVEPPA SON OF SIDDAPPA KANTI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, REST -DO- SRI.MAI-IADEVAPPA SON OF BASAPPA KANTI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, REST -DO SRI.ASHOK SON OF BASAPPA KANTI, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 0CC: SERVICE, REST- DO- SRI.MANJU SON OF RAMAPPA KANTI, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, 0CC: SERVICE, REST -DO SRI.HANUMANTHAPPA SON OF FAKKIRAPPA KANTI, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, RIO KRISHNAPUR, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580020. SRI.BASAPPA SON OF FAKKIRAPPA KANTI, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, REST -DO SRI.RAMAPPA SON OF FAKKIRAPPA KANTI, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, REST --DO 1) :5:

13. SUNDAflA WORKERS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580020. (R13 DELETED AS PER C/O DT.03.08.2009) ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.R.DATAR, ADV.FOR SR1.RAVI S.HEGDE, ADV. FOR C/RI TO R9, RiO TO R12 SERVICE, RFA DISMISSED AGAINST R13) THIS RFA FILED U/S 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT.14.07.2006 PASSED IN O.S.NO.57/2002ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, (SR.DNJ, HUBLI PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION, DECLARATION, PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION. THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THiS DAY, K.SREEDHAR RAO, J, DELIVERED ThE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT One Fakkirappa, the propositus died in the year

1969. The propositus had six sons by name. Yallappa, 2) Sidappa, 3)Hanumanthappa (DI). 1) 4) Kantappa (D2), 5) Basappa (D3) and 6) Rarnappa (D4). Ct. 6 The sons of Hanurnanthappa. Kantappa. Basappa. Sidappa and l3asappa are tile plaintiff >10%. 1 to 8 in the the plaintiffs c ontend in thc suit that thc suit properties are the self acquired properties of proposit us. The plaintiffs. being the grand children of tin propositus. got birth right in the suit properties Defendant Na’,. 1 to I said to have been illenated the suit. property In favour of defendant Nos.5 and 6. The plaintiffs #ontend that tin sale effected by defendant Nos. 1 to 4 1 Illegal and does not bind to the extent of share of the plaintiffc in the stilt properties ) ‘b .enda t N” ‘ ppar’ ‘1 laid 1 ‘ lOt Ilk my ernc Ho (r. dcfcr dant is 6 and b appedred md I ‘a’ e (lied thrir writtcu statenv Ifl. Iii ul)mt .14h iekn i”S.’ Ito * Intl No l Ix n, ‘ r ‘ jfl ‘)t tJ’” %%lbii :iiiti •lp-’ %aIIa rife cttA hi’ ilicm ‘o I I j 5 L 1 + - j I H 0 Q — I — H I 0H H r Q I H < . - 0 2 I ) t - j i c — Q J 0 1 r — — j 1 ) J J 1 - ( + r - J - i c 1 ( ( I ‘ D C‘ 1 C — 3 \ l C ) 1 3 : j - D C D C ) ) 3 ) I ) 3 ) 3 i T D C ) 3 1 i c - ) 1 3 : l ‘ D C D C i - c 3 : - 1 1 ) 3 1 : D C - I 2 - D C - i c ) 1 3 : I - D C S i c ) / C j - - 3 1 ’ i T F ( , 3 D C , ) 3 ) 3 — - j I - — ) 3 3 ) 3 : * - C 3 3 1 ? ) 3 1 — J j - 3 — 5 - I 1 1 1 ‘ - ) 1 ) 3 3 : 3 : 2 / 3 : 3 : - i c 3 ) 3 : Q r c Q r : 3 3 i T 3 : 3 1 ‘ ‘ — D C D C ) 1 ( — ‘ 1 ) 3 - 2 ) / ( D C ) l C D C t r - i c D C H i c D C D — C i c s _ D C . i c QSC C 1 3 : 3 t - ) 3 1 i c D C D C i c ( . i c 3 : ) F ( D C S D C i c / t r D C i T 5 D C ) 3 1 — 3 ) 3 1 l C i c ; i T ) 3 — ) 3 1 1 ‘ , ) 3 - D C Q 7 3 : D C D C 1 r C I j 3 : ‘ 3 : 3 : 3 : C f C H D C D C i T C 3 1 i c f C ( ) - 3 - 2 D C ) 3 3 ) 3 I ) 3 1 3 : ) 3 ) 1 - 2 I fI C 3 : - 3 : I J 3 1 ) 3 ) 3 ) 3 I ( 3 : , 3 ) 3 a a S a a. C’ upon the death of the proposituS. In that view of the mattera the plaintiffs ttfl not hate any nght in the property. The sale effect’ ci b3 deftndarsL Not. I to I and nther dec cased would be valid and binding and the plaintiffs bate no right to hal1enge the same. Accozdin&Y. both the appcals are allowed IUDGE .Sc JUDGE Mi38,