Shri. Buradappa S/O Bharamappa Neelageri v. 1A. Smt. Siddavva W/O Siddappa Ulligeri

NC:(2025:KHC-D:17238( RSA(No.(100024(of(2022( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA,AT(DHARWAD(

THDATED(THIS(THE(4 (DAY(OF(DECEMBER,(2025(

BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(C(M(JOSHI(

REGULAR(SECOND(APPEAL(NO.100024(OF(2022((SP)(

BETWEEN:(( ( SHRI,BURADAPPA,S/O.,BHARAMAPPA,NEELAGERI,, AGE:,44,YEARS,,OCC.,AGRICULTURE,, R/O.,SURAPAGATTI,,TALUK:,SHIGGAON,, DIST.,HAVERI.,

…APPELLANT, (BY,SRI.,SHIVASAI,M.,PATIL,,ADVOCATE), , AND:( (

1., SHRI,BURADAPPA,S/O.,BHARAMAPPA,NEELAGERI,, , SINCE,DECEASED,BY,HIS,LRS., , , 1A., SMT.,SIDDAVVA,W/O.,SIDDAPPA,ULLIGERI,, AGE:,54,YEARS,,OCC.,HOUSEWIFE,, R/O.,GOVANAKOPPA,, TQ.,AND,DIST.,DHARWAD-580112.,YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR , 1B., SMT.,MAHADEVI,D/O.,SHIVAPURTAPPA,BHARANNAVAR,,Digitallytisignedtiby YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR AGE:,54,YEARS,,OCC.,HOUSEWIFE,, Date:02025.12.08 10:00:490+0530 R/O.,GOVANAKOPPA,, TQ.,AND,DIST.,DHARWAD-580112., , 1C., SMT.,SHIVAKKA,W/O.,KALLAPPA,BENDIGERI,, AGE:,52,YEARS,,OCC.,HOUSEWIFE,, R/O.,TIRTH,,TQ.,KUNDAGOL,, DIST.,DHARWAD-581113., , 1D., SMT.,LAKSHMAVVA,W/O/,SIDDALINGAPPA,NEELAGURI,, AGE:,43,YEARS,,OCC.,HOUSEWIFE,, R/O.,SURPAGATTI,,TQ.,SHIGGAON,, DIST.,HAVERI-591243., , NC:(2025:KHC-D:17238( RSA(No.(100024(of(2022( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( 1E., KUMARI,BHUVANESHWARI,, D/O.,SIDDALINGAPPA,NEELAGURI,, AGE:,16,YEARS,,OCC.,STUDENT,, R/O.,SURPAGATTI,,TQ.,SHIGGAON,, DIST.,HAVERI-591243., , 1F., KUMARI,BHUMIKA,D/O.,SIDDALINGAPPA,NEELAGURI,, AGE:,13,YEARS,,OCC.,STUDENT,, R/O.,SURPAGATTI,,TQ.,SHIGGAON,, DIST.,HAVERI-591243., , 1G., KUMAR,MANJUNATH,S/O.,SIDDALINGAPPA,NEELAGURI,, AGE:,11,YEARS,,OCC.,STUDENT,, R/O.,SURPAGATTI,,TQ.,SHIGGAON,, DIST.,HAVERI-591243., , APPLICANT,NO.1E,TO,G,ARE,SINCE,MINORS,,, REPRESENTED,BY,THEIR,NATURAL,MOTHER,AND, GUARDIAN,APPELLANT,NO.1D., ,

2., BOORADAPPA,SHANMUKHAPPA,SORATUR, AGE:,38,YEARS,,OCC.,AGRICULTURE,, R/O.,SURPAGATTI,,TQ.,SHIGGAON,, DIST.,HAVERI-591243., ,

3., RAMACHANDRAPPA,@,BURADAPPA,, S/O.,BHARAMAPPA,NEELAGURU,, AGE:,48,YEARS,,OCC.,AGRICULTURE,, R/O.,SURPAGATTI,,TQ.,SHIGGAON,, DIST.,HAVERI-591243., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,K.C.,PATIL,,ADVOCATE,AND,, ,,,,,SRI.,UMESHGOUDA,,ADVOCATE,AND, ,,,,,SRI.,SHRIKANT,K.,DESHPANDE,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R1,(A,TO,D);,, ,,,,,SRI.,V.M.,BANAKAR,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R2;,,, ,,,,,R3-NOTICE,SERVED), , , THIS,RSA,IS,FILED,UNDER,SECTION,100,OF,CPC,,PRAYING,TO, SET, ASIDE, THE, JUDGMENT, AND, DECREE, DATED, 04.11.2019, IN, R.A.NO.93/2011, PASSED, BY, THE, COURT, OF, THE, FILE, OF, I, ADDITIONAL, DISTRICT, AND, SESSIONS, JUDGE,, HAVERI,, AND, SET, ASIDE, THE, JUDGMENT, AND, DECREE, DATED, 01.08.2011, IN, O.S., NO.25/2010, PASSED, BY, THE, COURT, OF, THE, ADDITIONAL, SENIOR, CIVIL,JUDGE,,HAVERI,AND,ETC.,

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)

Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and respondents.

¶2The dispute revolves around the question whether the appellant and respondent No.3 are one and the same. The appellant has approached this Court stating that he was not a party before the First Appellate Court or the Trial Court and therefore, his rights have been affected by the impugned judgment and as such, he is entitled to maintain this appeal.

¶3This contention is refuted by learned counsel for the respondents contending that it was the appellant herein, who was arrayed as respondent No.3 and he was a party in the First Appellate Court as well as in the Regular Second Appeal which was arising out of it. It is submitted that the appellant herein, was the respondent No.2 in RSA No.100209/2020 which has been disposed off by this Court on 14.09.2020.

¶4In order to ascertain whether the appellant herein was the respondent No.2 in the earlier second appeal, this Court had asked the party to be present. On the last occasion, i.e., on

27.11.2025, this Court has passed the following order: "Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not respondent No.2 in RSA No.100209/2020, which was disposed on

14.09.2020. In support of his contention, he has produced certain documents like Voter ID and Aadhaar Card of the appellant. The above contention of the appellant is resisted by the counsel for the respondents saying that the appellant was the respondent No.2 in R.A.No.93/2011. The appellant is present before this Court and submits that he was never known as Ramachandrappa alias Buradappa. He also admits that Siddavva W/o. Siddappa Ulligeri is his elder sister. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the said Siddavva had filed an affidavit stating that Ramachandrappa alias Buradappa was the legal representative of deceased-Bharmappa.

The records reveal that the notice issued by this Court was served on the respondent No.3 and that the signature on the postal acknowledgment and the signature on the Vakalath are one and the same. When this is confronted to the appellant, who is present before the Court, he states that after he approached his advocate for filing this appeal, he had received the letter from the Court, which he received after signing it on postal acknowledgment. In other words, the records reveal that the notice, which was issued to the respondent No.3 was received by none else than the appellant. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1(a) to 1(d) is absent. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that he would verify the records and then make his submission in this regard. List this matter on 04.12.2025."

¶5Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that on verification, he is unable to say whether the appellant herein was the respondent No.2 in the earlier Regular Second Appeal. He also submits that the appellant is a rustic villager and he might have received the notice in the earlier Regular Second

Appeal and as such, he is unable to say anything on behalf of the appellant.

¶6This Court has noticed that the appellant was a rustic villager and he had answered to the questions of the Court and ultimately submitted that he had received some notice from the Court on earlier occasions. In that view of the matter, it is evident that the appellant's grievance was heard by this Court in RSA No.100209/2020 and by the First Appellate Court and as such, the present appeal would not be maintainable. Under these circumstances, noting that the appellant is a rustic villager, no action is initiated against him and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

SD/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE

RKM CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 10