Karnataka High Court
Veeranagouda S/O Shivanagouda Patil vs Vanishri D/O Basangouda Patil on 6 June, 2025
-1-
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 R
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
RFA NO. 100168 OF 2016 (DEC/PAR)
C/W
RFA CROB. NO. 100018 OF 2022 (DEC/PAR)
IN RFA NO. 100168 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. ANNADANESHGOUDA
S/O BASANAGOUDA PATIL
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
OCC: ADVOCATE/AGRI
R/O HOLEHADAGALI, TALUK RON
DISTRICT: GAD-582209.
2. KUMARI TEJASWINI
D/O ANNADANESHGOUDA
AGED 8 YEARS
3. KUMAR RAJENDRAGOUDA
S/O ANNADANESHGOUDA
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS
SINCE NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS
REP. BY THEIR GUARDIAN I.E.
THEIR FATHER ANNADANESHGOUDA
S/O BASANAGOUDA PATIL (APPELLANT NO.1)
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
OCC: ADVOCATE
R/O HOLEHADAGALI, TALUK RON
DISTRICT: GADAG-582209.
-2-
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
4. SMT. SHASHIKALA @ AKKAMAHADEVI
W/O ANNADANESHGOUDA
AGED 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O HOLEHADAGALI, TALUK: RON
DISTRICT: GADAG-582209.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. DAYANAND M. BANDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. VANISHREE
ALLEGED D/O BASANAGOUDA PATIL
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
OCC: PRIVATE
R/O HOLE HADAGALI, TALUK: RON
DISTRICT: GADAG-582209.
NOW AT SHIRAHATTI
2. SULOCHANA
ALLEGED W/O BASANAGOUDA PATIL
SINCE DEAD BY LRs ALREADY ON RECORD
R1, R4, R5 AND R6
3. VEERANAGOUDA
S/O SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL
AGED 61 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O HULLUR
PRESENTLY R/AT
HOLEHADAGALI, TALUK: RON
DISTRICT GADAG-582209.
4. SMT. UMA
W/O VEERANAGOUDA PATIL
AGED 55 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O HULLUR
PRESENTLY R/AT
HOLEHADAGALI, TALUK: RON
DISTRICT GADAG-582209.
5. NATARAJ
ALLEGED TO BE S/O BASANAGOUDA PATIL
AGED 61 YEARS
-3-
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
OCC: LECTURER
R/O HOLEHADAGALI
NOW R/AT SHIRAHATTI
TALUK SHIRAHATTI
DISTRICT GADAG-582120.
6. RAJASHEKHAR
ALLEGED TO BE S/O BASANAGOUDA PATIL
AGED 58 YEARS
OCC: ARTIST
R/O HOLEHADAGALI
NOW R/AT NO. 30, II FLOOR
N. SUBBAYYA ROAD, 12TH MAIN
5TH CROSS, VAIYYALI KAVAL
MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560003.
[VIDE COURT ORDER, CAUSE TITLE IS AMENDED]
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.S. SHETTAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. AKASH R. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6;
R1, R5 AND R6 ARE LRs OF DECEASED R2)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.03.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.
36/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RON,
PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR DECLARATION AND
PARTITION.
IN RFA CROB. NO. 100018 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
VEERANAGOUDA
S/O SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL
AGED 67 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O HULLUR
NOW R/AT HOLE-HADAGALI
TALUK RON, DISTRICT GADAG-580024.
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE)
-4-
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
AND:
1. VANISHRI
D/O BASANGOUDA PATIL
AGED 57 YEARS
OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE
R/O HOLE-HADAGALI, T: RON
NOW R/AT SHIRAHATTI
DISTRICT GADAG-580024.
SULOCHANA
W/O BASANGOUDA PATIL
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRs ALREADY ON RECORD
AS R1, R6, R7 AND R8
2. ANNADANESHGOUDA
CALLING HIMSELF AS
S/O BASANGOUDA PATIL
AGED 45 YEARS
OCC: ADVOCATE
R/O HOLE HADAGALI, T: RON
DISTRICT GADAG-580024.
3. KUMARI TEJASWINI
D/O ANNADANESHGOUDA
AGED 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
R/O HOLE HADAGALI, T: RON
DISTRICT GADAG-580024.
4. KUMAR RAJENDRAGOUDA
S/O ANNADANESHGOUDA
AGED 17 YEARS
OCC: STUDENT
R/O HOLE HADAGALI, T: RON
DISTRICT GADAG-580024.
BOTH R3 AND R4 ARE MINORS REP. BY
THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN
R2-ANNADANESHGOUDA
CALLING HIMSELF AS S/O BASANGOUDA PATIL
AGE 45 YEARS
OCC: ADVOCATE
R/O HOLE - HADAGALI
T: RON, DISTRICT GADAG.
-5-
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
5. SHASHIKALA @ AKKAMAHADEVI
W/O ANNADANESHGOUDA
AGE 39 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O HOLE HADAGALI, T: RON
DISTRICT GADAG-580024.
6. UMA W/O VEERANAGOUDA PATIL
AGED 62 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O HULLUR, NOW R/AT
HOLE - HADAGALI, T. RON
DISTRICT GADAG-580024.
7. NATARAJ S/O BASANGOUDA PATIL
AGED 67 YEARS
OCC: RETIRED LECTURER
R/O HOLE-HADAGALI, TALUK: RON
DISTRICT GADAG
NOW R/AT SHIRHATTI
DISTRICT GADAG-580024.
8. RAJASHEKAR S/O BASANGOUDA PATIL
AGED 64 YEARS
OCC: ARTIST
R/O HOLE-HADAGALI, TALUK RON
DISTRICT GADAG-580024.
NOW R/AT NO.30, II FLOOR
N. SUBBAYYA ROAD, 12TH MAIN
5TH CROSS, VAIYYALI KARAL
MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-06.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.S. SHETTAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. DAYANAND M. BANDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5;
SRI. AKASH NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R8)
THIS RFA CROB. IS FILED U/O 41 RULE 22 OF THE CPC,
PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
11.03.2016 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC RON IN
O.S. NO. 36/2009 CONSEQUENTLY HOLDING THAT THE DECREE IN
O.S. NO. 19/2009 IS NOT BINDING UPON THE CROSS-OBJECTOR
AND FURTHER DECLARE THAT THE CROSS-OBJECTOR IS THE
OWNER OF SUIT SCHEDULED I PROPERTIES IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-6-
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
THIS RFA AND RFA CROB. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 29.04.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
C.A.V JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
The captioned appeal in RFA.No.100168/2016 is filed
by defendant Nos.1 to 4 challenging the judgment and
decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.36/2009.
Defendant No.5 has filed cross appeal in
RFA.Crob.No.100018/2022 to modify the judgment and
decree by holding that the decree passed in O.No.36/2009
is not binding upon him and to further declare that
defendant No.5 is the owner of suit schedule I properties.
2. The facts leading to the case are as under:
The suit properties described in Schedule II and
III are admittedly the properties of Basanagouda, son
of Sidaramagouda Patil, a resident of Holehadagalli
village. Plaintiff No.2 claims to be the legally wedded wife
-7-
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
of Basanagouda. The plaintiffs contend that Plaintiff
No.1 and Defendants No.6 to 8 are the children born out
of the wedlock of Basanagouda and Plaintiff No.2.
The plaintiffs have asserted that the property
described in Schedule I originally belonged to Rudramma,
the mother of Basanagouda. They contend that Defendant
No.5, who claims title over Schedule I property, had
instituted a suit in O.S.No.58/1990 and obtained a decree
in his favour. The plaintiffs alleged that Defendant No.5
subsequently transferred Schedule I property to Defendant
No.1 by executing a vardhi, and claimed that the said
property forms part of the joint family estate. On this
basis, the plaintiffs asserted that only they and Defendant
Nos.6 to 8 are entitled to legitimate shares in all the suit
schedule properties.
Defendant No.1 appeared and filed a detailed written
statement, vehemently denying the relationship of the
plaintiffs and Defendants Nos.6 to 8 with Basanagouda. He
specifically denied that Plaintiff No.2 was never married to
-8-
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
Basanagouda. On the contrary, Defendant No.1 asserted
that Basanagouda was legally married to one Anasuya,
and that he (Defendant No.1) is the legitimate son born of
that marriage.
Defendant No.1 also contended that there had been
a family partition, under which Schedule I property was
allotted to the share of Rudramma, the mother of
Basanagouda. Rudramma, in turn, is said to have
bequeathed the property in favour of one Gurappa Hugar.
Defendant No.5 instituted suit in O.S.No.58/1990 against
Gurappa Hugar and secured a decree declaring him to be
the absolute owner of Schedule I property. Therefore,
Defendant No.1 contended that the plaintiffs had no right,
title, or interest in Schedule I property and prayed for
dismissal of the suit.
Defendant No.5 also filed a separate written
statement, asserting exclusive ownership over Schedule I
property and similarly sought dismissal of the suit.
-9-
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
The plaintiffs and defendants adduced both oral and
documentary evidence before the Trial Court. Upon a
detailed appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court
answered Issue No.1 in the negative, holding that the
plaintiffs had failed to prove that Plaintiff No.2 is the
legally wedded wife of Basanagouda Patil, and that Plaintiff
No.1 and Defendants No.6 to 8 are the legitimate children
born from the alleged marriage. However, the Court went
on to hold that Defendant No.1 had also failed to establish
that he is the legitimate son of Basanagouda.
Consequently, the suit filed with respect to Schedule
I property was dismissed.
The present appeal in RFA No.100168/2016 is filed
by Defendant No.1, challenging the findings and decree of
the Trial Court. A cross-objection has also been filed
by Defendant No.5 in RFA.Crob.No.100018/2022.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf
of Defendant No.1 made elaborate submissions and filed a
detailed synopsis, placing reliance on the judgment of the
- 10 -
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Revanasiddappa and Another
vs. Mallikarjun & Ors.1.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the plaintiffs
strongly opposed the appeal, arguing that the plaintiffs are
entitled to challenge the Trial Court's findings on Issue
No.1, especially the observation that Plaintiff No.2 is not
the legally wedded wife of Basanagouda Patil. A detailed
written synopsis has also been filed by the plaintiffs'
counsel in support of their contentions.
5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
defendants and learned counsel appearing for the
plaintiffs, the following points would arise for our
consideration:
(i) Whether the plaintiffs, having failed to
challenge the findings recorded on Issue No.1,
have the locus standi to now assail the Trial
Court's conclusion that Plaintiff No.2 failed to
establish her marriage with Basanagouda Patil?
1
2023 Live Law (SC) 737
- 11 -
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
(ii) Whether the Trial Court, after holding
that the marriage between Plaintiff No.2 and
Basanagouda Patil was not proved, committed a
legal error in declaring Plaintiff No.1 and
Defendants No.6 to 8 as the illegitimate children
of Basanagouda, and if such a finding is perverse
and warrants interference by this Court?
(iii) Whether the Trial Court erred in
rendering a finding on the legitimacy of
Defendant No.1 in the absence of a counterclaim
or a specific issue framed to that effect?
(iv) Whether the cross-objection filed by
Defendant No.5 is maintainable, particularly
when the decree of the Trial Court in dismissing
the suit as regards Schedule I property is already
in his favour?
FINDING ON POINT NO.(i):
6. The Trial Court has meticulously examined the
documentary and oral evidence adduced by the plaintiffs,
as well as the rebuttal evidence produced by Defendant
No.1, while addressing the crucial issue concerning the
legal status of Plaintiff No.2 vis-Ã -vis Basanagouda Patil.
- 12 -
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
During cross-examination, Defendant No.1 succeeded in
eliciting crucial admissions from Plaintiff No.1, particularly
that Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and Defendant Nos.6 to
8 profess the Muslim faith. Additionally, Plaintiff No.1
admitted to the contents and authenticity of documents
marked as Exs.D-2 to D-4 and Ex.D-29, which were
extensively relied upon by the defendants to rebut the
plaintiffs' assertion of a valid marital relationship between
Plaintiff No.2 and Basanagouda.
7. Specifically, Ex.D-2 (school certificate of
Defendant No.7), Ex.D-3 (pertaining to Defendant No.8),
and Ex.D-4 (relating to Defendant No.6) uniformly
record Plaintiff No.2-Sulochanabai as the father of
Defendants No.6 to 8, thereby significantly undermining
the claim of her being their mother through a matrimonial
relationship with Basanagouda. Further, Ex.D-29, being a
registered sale deed obtained by Plaintiff No.2
on 01.08.1966, records her identity as "daughter of
Renukabai Kalavant" and her religion as Muslim. Notably,
- 13 -
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
at no point in that document is she described as the wife
or widow of Basanagouda Patil.
8. Another critical document, Ex.D-30, is the last
will and testament dated 16.06.1974 executed
by Shivavva, the paternal aunt of Basanagouda Patil, in
favour of Plaintiff No.2. In this testament as well, Plaintiff
No.2 is referred to as "Sulochanabai, daughter of
Renukabai Kalavant", again without any reference to her
being the wife of Basanagouda.
9. On careful appreciation of these documents, the
Trial Court recorded a categorical finding that there
were no pleadings or evidence to demonstrate
the solemnization of a valid marriage between Plaintiff
No.2 and Basanagouda Patil. Furthermore, in the above-
referred crucial documents executed at undisputed points
of time, Plaintiff No.2 herself has not asserted her status
as the wife of Basanagouda, which seriously militates
against the plaintiffs' case.
- 14 -
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
10. The Trial Court also took note of the
geographical disparity. While Basanagouda was a
permanent resident of Holehadagali village, the documents
of the plaintiffs and Defendant Nos.6 to 8 reflect their
residence as Shirahatti village, thereby reinforcing the
conclusion that they did not constitute a matrimonial
family unit. Consequently, Issue No.1, which pertains to
the marital status of Plaintiff No.2, was answered in
the negative, with a clear and reasoned finding
that Plaintiff No.2 failed to establish that she was the
legally wedded wife of Basanagouda Patil.
11. It is a settled principle of law that a finding
which conclusively determines the legal status of a party
such as marital status constitutes a decree within the
meaning of Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure,
especially when such a finding affects the substantive
rights of the parties and forms an integral part of the final
adjudication. Accordingly, the finding on Issue
No.1 amounts to a decree, and is not a mere observation
or incidental remark.
- 15 -
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
12. In the present case, neither the plaintiffs
nor Plaintiff No.2 have chosen to prefer an appeal against
this adverse finding. More significantly, they have also not
invoked the remedy available under Order XLI Rule 22 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, by way of cross-
objection or cross-appeal, to challenge the said finding. In
the absence of any such challenge, the plaintiffs
particularly Plaintiff No.2 are estopped from disputing the
binding effect of the finding on Issue No.1.
13. By failing to appeal or file cross-objections, the
plaintiffs have acquiesced to the Trial Court's conclusion,
and therefore, any attempt now to question that finding in
appellate proceedings is barred under the doctrine
of estoppel by acquiescence. It is well settled that a party
who suffers an adverse decree or finding but chooses not
to challenge it at the appropriate stage loses the right to
contest its correctness at a later stage.
14. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the
Negative, holding that the plaintiffs, having failed to
- 16 -
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
challenge finding on Issue No.1 cannot assail findings
recorded on Issue No.1.
FINDING ON POINT NO.(ii):
15. Though the Trial Court categorically held that
the plaintiffs failed to establish the solemnization of
a valid marriage between Plaintiff No.2
(Sulochanabai) and Basanagouda Patil, it nevertheless
proceeded to grant 1/5th share in the suit schedule
properties to Plaintiff No.1 and Defendant Nos.6 to 8, by
extending the benefit of Section 16(3) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955. This finding, in our considered view,
is legally untenable, suffers from perversity, and
warrants interference.
16. This Court has independently examined the
pleadings, oral testimony, and documentary evidence on
record. From the materials available, it emerges
that Basanagouda Patil, during his lifetime, founded a
drama company called Nataraj Natya Sangh, and Plaintiff
No.2 was associated with it as a performing artist. Exs.D-9
- 17 -
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
to D-15 and D-21 to D-23 are handbills and awards
showcasing Plaintiff No.2's role as an actress. However,
these documents do not support the claim of a valid
marriage between Plaintiff No.2 and Basanagouda.
17. Defendant No.1 has relied upon two significant
documents namely Ex.D-29, a registered sale deed
dated 01.08.1966 obtained by Plaintiff No.2, and Ex.D-30,
a registered Will executed by Shivavva, paternal aunt of
Basanagouda. In both documents, Plaintiff No.2 is
unequivocally described as "Sulochana", daughter of
Renukabai Kalavant," and her religion is shown as Muslim.
There is no assertion in either document that she is the
wife or widow of Basanagouda. Crucially, the pleadings
are also silent as to the solemnization of marriage
between Plaintiff No.2 and Basanagouda, and for the first
time during trial, Plaintiff No.2 claimed that she had
married Basanagouda in 1953, without mentioning the
date, month, or any particulars about such marriage. Her
oral testimony on this aspect lacks credibility and
specificity.
- 18 -
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
18. To establish cohabitation and societal
recognition of the relationship, Plaintiff No.2
examined PW.3 and PW.4, residents of Shirahatti village,
who merely stated that Plaintiff No.2 and Basanagouda
lived together as husband and wife. However, their
evidence is contradicted by Ex.D-22, a ration card which
shows that Basanagouda was a permanent resident
of Holehadagali village and resided with Defendant No.1,
whereas the plaintiffs and Defendant Nos.6 to 8 were
residing at Shirahatti. This discrepancy weakens the
plaintiffs' version of matrimonial cohabitation and lends
support to the defence version that there was no marriage
nor continuous cohabitation as husband and wife.
19. Further, reliance by Plaintiffs on documents
like Ex.P-14 (affidavit dated 28.09.1992) and letters
allegedly written by Basanagouda (Exs.P-22, P-28, P-30)
do not inspire confidence in light of the suppression of
material facts. Ex.D-64, a letter written by Plaintiff No.1
to the Panchayat requesting non-issuance of her birth
certificate, reveals deliberate concealment. From the birth
- 19 -
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
certificate marked as Ex.D-41, it is evident that Plaintiff
No.1's mother is Sulochana and her father is shown as
Renavva Kalavant, who is in fact the maternal
grandmother. Similarly, the birth register (Ex.D-
56) affirms that Plaintiff No.2 hails from an artist family
and is the daughter of Renukabai Kalavant. This evidence
conclusively establishes that the plaintiffs are Muslims by
faith and that Plaintiff No.1 and Defendants No.6 to 8 are
children born outside wedlock from the relationship
between Plaintiff No.2 and Basanagouda.
20. The school certificates of Defendant Nos.6 to 8
(born between 1957 and 1965) further corroborate this
fact. These documents list Sulochana Kalavant as
the father and record the religion as Muslim, thereby
confirming the plaintiffs' religious identity and the absence
of any recognized Hindu marriage between Plaintiff No.2
and Basanagouda.
21. In light of the above, we must consider the
legal framework:
- 20 -
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
(i) Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 confers legitimacy upon children born from void or
voidable marriages under the Act. However, this
legitimacy is statutorily limited. It does not confer upon
such children any rights in the property of any person
other than the parents. More importantly, this legal fiction
of legitimacy under Section 16 is available only to children
of Hindu parents whose marriage, though void or voidable,
is recognized under the Hindu Marriage Act.
(ii) However, under Section 3(1)(j) of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956, the term "related to" is statutorily
confined to legitimate kinship relationships through lawful
wedlock among Hindus. Where the claimants are not
Hindus or are not born from a Hindu marriage, the
protective umbrella of Hindu succession law is not
available.
22. In the present case, it is conclusively
established through documentary evidence that Plaintiff
No.2 and her children are Muslims, and the marriage with
- 21 -
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
Basanagouda who was a Hindu has not been established,
much less solemnized under Hindu law. Therefore, the
plaintiffs cannot invoke the legal fiction under Section
16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, as they fall outside the
scope of the Act, and correspondingly, are not "heirs"
under Section 8 read with Section 3(1)(j) of the Hindu
Succession Act.
23. In the present case, the plaintiffs have utterly
failed to establish even the basic foundation necessary to
invoke the legal fiction under Section 16(3) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955. It is not only that the marriage
between Plaintiff No.2 and the deceased Basanagouda has
neither been pleaded with clarity nor proved by cogent
evidence, but there is a conspicuous absence of any
material to show that they ever lived as husband and wife
within the meaning and contemplation of Hindu law. On
the contrary, the record clearly reflects that Plaintiff No.2
is a Muslim by religion and was a well-known actress by
profession, enjoying her own distinct and independent
identity in society. There is no evidence to suggest that
- 22 -
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
she either projected herself as the wife of Basanagouda or
was socially acknowledged in that role. The relationship, if
any, between Plaintiff No.2 and Basanagouda appears to
be no more than a casual or intimate association and
certainly does not rise to the level of a marital union
recognized under Hindu law.
24. It is trite that for the legal fiction under Section
16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act to operate, the marriage
in question must be one solemnized or purporting to be
solemnized under the provisions of the said Act. Since the
plaintiffs are Muslims and the alleged relationship was
never sanctified through a Hindu marriage ceremony, they
stand completely excluded from the statutory scheme of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Consequently, the children
born from such a relationship, however sympathetic their
situation may be, cannot be conferred legitimacy under
Section 16(3), nor can they be treated as "heirs" within
the meaning of Section 8 read with Section 3(1)(j) of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The term "related to" under
Section 3(1)(j) of the Hindu Succession Act confines itself
- 23 -
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
to relationships arising out of lawful Hindu wedlock and
cannot be expanded to include children born out of
relationships that fall outside the framework of the Act.
25. It is, therefore, evident that the Trial Court has
committed a grave legal error in granting 1/5th share in
the suit schedule property to Plaintiff No.1 and Defendants
No.6 to 8 by wrongly invoking Section 16(3) of the Hindu
Marriage Act. The impugned judgment, insofar as it
extends inheritance rights to them, is not only factually
unsupported but also reflects a fundamental misapplication
of the governing statutory provisions. Mere existence of a
physical relationship between Plaintiff No.2 and the
deceased Basanagouda, absent any semblance of a valid
or even a voidable Hindu marriage, cannot by itself
amount to a marital relationship acknowledged by society
or recognized by law. The impugned judgment, to the
extent it confers property rights on Plaintiff No.1 and
Defendants No.6 to 8, deserves to be reversed and set
aside as being perverse, untenable, and legally
unsustainable.
- 24 -
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
26. Accordingly, the Trial Court's decree granting
1/5th share to Plaintiff No.1 and Defendants No.6 to
8 suffers from a fundamental misapplication of law,
is perverse, and cannot be sustained. Hence, Point No.2 is
answered in the affirmative, holding that the impugned
judgment to the extent it confers property rights on
Plaintiff No.1 and Defendant Nos.6 to 8 by invoking
Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act is legally flawed,
factually unsupported, and liable to be reversed.
FINDING ON POINT NO.(iii):
27. We are of the view that the Trial Court gravely
exceeded its jurisdiction and committed a serious legal
error in rendering a finding on the legitimacy and paternity
of Defendant No.1 in the absence of either a counterclaim
under Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 or a specific issue framed for adjudication
under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC. The plaintiffs had instituted
the suit solely for the purpose of establishing that Plaintiff
No.2 is the legally wedded wife of Basanagouda, and that
Plaintiff No.1 and defendant Nos.6 to 8 are the legitimate
- 25 -
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
children born from that wedlock. The lis before the Court
was thus confined to the personal and legal status of the
plaintiffs. Defendant No.1, in his written statement,
merely denied the plaintiffs' claim and contended that
Anasuya was the legally wedded wife of Basanagouda and
that he (Defendant No.1) is the legitimate son of
Basanagouda. However, he did not seek any substantive
or declaratory relief with respect to his own legitimacy, nor
did he file a counterclaim as required under Order VIII
Rule 6A CPC, which is the proper procedure for a
defendant to assert any right or claim against the plaintiff.
A declaratory adjudication on his legitimacy, absent a
prayer and proper pleading, was thus beyond the scope of
the Court's authority.
28. Furthermore, as per Order XIV Rule 1(1) and
(5) CPC, issues arise only when a material proposition of
fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the
other. No issue was framed by the Trial Court relating to
the legitimacy or paternity of Defendant No.1, and in the
absence of such an issue, the Trial Court could not, in law,
- 26 -
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
have rendered a conclusive and binding finding on the
same. The jurisdiction of a civil court is limited to
adjudicating only those matters which are properly
brought before it through pleadings and framed issues.
This principle has been authoritatively reiterated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bachhaj Nahar vs. Nilima
Mandal & Anr.2, where it was held that "a Court cannot
grant a relief which is not claimed, and any finding or
decree beyond the pleadings and issues is without
jurisdiction and liable to be set aside."
29. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 also reinforces
this boundary. Section 5 of the Act clearly states that
evidence may be given only of facts in issue and relevant
facts. Section 11 permits facts not otherwise relevant to
be admitted only if they are inconsistent with or render
probable or improbable any fact in issue. In the present
case, the paternity or legitimacy of Defendant No.1 was
not a fact in issue, nor was it relevant to the determination
2
(2008) 17 SCC 491
- 27 -
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
of whether Plaintiff No.2 was the legally wedded wife of
Basanagouda and whether plaintiff No.1 and defendant
Nos.6 to 8 were legitimate children. The Trial Court, in the
course of answering Issue No.1 which pertained to the
marital relationship between Plaintiff No.2 and
Basanagouda and the legitimacy of the plaintiffs has gone
beyond the pleadings, beyond the scope of the issue, and
has erroneously declared Defendant No.1 to be the
illegitimate child of Basanagouda. Such a declaration not
only violates the procedural safeguards enshrined in the
CPC and the Evidence Act but also infringes upon the
rights of Defendant No.1 to be heard and to have the issue
determined only upon proper pleading including counter
claim, framing of issues, and adjudication. The finding is
thus legally untenable, rendered without jurisdiction, and
liable to be set aside. Accordingly, point No.3 is answered
in the affirmative.
FINDING ON POINT NO.(iv):
30. The cross-objection in
RFA.Crob.No.100018/2022 is filed by defendant No.5
- 28 -
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
primarily assailing the judgment and decree rendered in
O.S.No.36/2009 on the ground that the trial Court has not
set aside the mutation under M.E.No.11/2008-09 and the
decree passed in O.S.No.19/2009 obtained by defendant
No.1 along with his children. The trial Court while
answering issue No.2 has dealt with defendant No.5's right
pursuant to decree obtained in O.S.No.58/1990. Para 65
to 67 would be relevant and the same are culled out which
reads as under:
"65. The above referred mutations,
proceedings in the suits are not in dispute between
the parties. Therefore, these records clearly indicate
that schedule-I lands were belong to Sidramagouda
originally and after his death, Basanagouda,
Rudramma inherited those lands. Thereafter, name
of Shivavva came to be entered, then there was
partition between Basanagouda, Rudramma and
Shivavva and in that partition schedule-I properties
were allotted to the share of Rudramma. Rudramma
executed will-deed in favour of Gurappa which was
upheld in O.S.No.110/1973 and again the decree of
that suit was not acted upon because of the
compromise in O.S.No.58/1990. In O.S.No.58/1990
defendant No.5 of this case set-up his own right over
- 29 -
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
schedule-I properties and succeeded. The decree
was passed on 08.11.1990 and such decree has not
been challenged by Basanagouda, his sisters, present
plaintiffs, defendants No.1 to 8. Therefore, the
decree in O.S.No.58/1990 reached its finality.
66. After the decree in O.S.No.58/1990 the
name of defendant No.1 came to be entered in the
records of schedule-I properties only on the basis of
Vardi. The Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in the
decision reported in AIR 2015 SC 2499 held that the
mutation do not convey any rights and would not
extinguish the existing right. Therefore, under law
the defendant No.1 has not acquired any right over
schedule-I property under the mutation produced at
Ex.P-50 dtd. 09.12.2008. Inspite of that fact there
was a compromise between defendants No.1 to 4
herein in O.S.No.19/2009. When the defendant No.1
not acquired legal right under Ex.P-50, the
defendants No.1 to 4 herein would not acquire any
better title over schedule-I property. This discussion
is necessary only to decide whether the plaintiffs and
defendants No.6 to 8 who are claiming share in
schedule-I property have got right and locus-standi
in schedule-I property. In the present case, the
defendant No.5 has not filed any counter claim and
therefore, adjudication of the right between the
defendants No.1 to 4 on the one hand and the
- 30 -
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
defendant No.5 on the other hand in respect of
schedule-I property is not required in this suit.
67. The above said records and the admitted
facts between the parties clearly show that
defendant No.5 acquired right over schedule-I
property under the decree and that decree has not
been challenged by any of the heirs of Rudramma till
today. Therefore, the plaintiffs and defendants No.6
to 8 being the illegitimate children of Basanagouda
have no locus-standi to challenge the decree in
O.S.No.58/1990. Therefore, I hold that the plaintiffs
cannot have right to dispute the mutation at Ex.P-50,
decree in O.S.No.58/1990 and the decree in
O.S.No.19/2009. For these reasons, I hold that the
plaintiffs and defendants No.6 to 8 have no share in
schedule-I properties. Accordingly, I answer this
issue in the negative."
31. We have carefully examined the records.
Defendant No.5 filed a suit against Gurappa MUdakappa
Hugar in O.S.No.58/1990. In the said suit, defendant
No.5 asserted title over schedule I property. The suit filed
by defendant No.5 in O.S.No.58/1990 was decreed on
08.11.1990. The said decree is neither challenged by
Basanagouda nor his sisters nor by the present plaintiffs
- 31 -
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
and defendant No.1. The decree rendered in
O.S.No.58/1990 has attained finality.
32. The plaintiffs' suit is dismissed insofar as
schedule I properties is concerned. Since defendant No.5
is declared to be the absolute owner pursuant to decree
rendered in O.S.No.58/1990 and there is no challenge
either by plaintiffs or defendant No.1 and the fact that trial
Court has examined the mutation obtained by defendant
No.1 under disputed M.E.No.11/2008-09 and has come to
conclusion that merely based on a vardhi, an immovable
property cannot be transferred, we are of the view that
the defendant No.5 though was initially aggrieved by
rejection of interlocutory application, where he sought
leave of the Court to seek amendment of the written
statement to enable him to seek a relief of declaration of
his title, his title in respect of schedule I is incidentally
decided.
33. In view of conclusive findings recorded by the
trial Court thereby holding that defendant No.5 is the
absolute owner pursuant to decree drawn in
- 32 -
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
O.S.No.58/1990, we are of the view that the cross
objection is not maintainable. The plaintiffs have accepted
this decree insofar as schedule I properties are concerned.
Similarly, defendant No.1 has not raised any counter claim
in respect of schedule I properties and defendant No.1 has
also not challenged the dismissal of suit insofar as
schedule I properties are concerned. Accordingly, point
No.4 is answered in the Negative.
34. CONCLUSIONS:
I. It is conclusively established from the pleadings
and evidence on record that Plaintiff No.2 failed to either
plead or prove a valid marriage with the deceased
Basanagouda Patil. The Trial Court, after an objective
assessment of the documents and testimonies, rightly
recorded a categorical finding that Plaintiff No.2 did not
establish her status as the legally wedded wife of the
deceased. Importantly, this finding on Issue No.1, which
touches upon the marital status of Plaintiff No.2,
constitutes a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The said finding, having
- 33 -
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
not been challenged through an appeal or by way of cross-
objections under Order XLI Rule 22 of CPC, has attained
finality. In the absence of any such challenge, the plaintiffs
are estopped from disputing its validity in appellate
proceedings. Accordingly, Point No.(i) is answered in the
negative, holding that Plaintiff No.2 failed to establish that
she was the legally wedded wife of the deceased
Basanagouda, and the said finding, having not been
appealed, binds the parties.
II. Despite the Trial Court having held that there
was no valid marriage between Plaintiff No.2 and the
deceased, it erroneously proceeded to grant 1/5th share in
the suit schedule properties to Plaintiff No.1 and
Defendant Nos.6 to 8 by invoking Section 16(3) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This approach is fundamentally
flawed in law. The legal fiction of legitimacy under Section
16(3) is confined only to children born from void or
voidable marriages solemnized or purporting to be
solemnized under the Hindu Marriage Act. The
documentary evidence on record clearly establishes that
- 34 -
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
Plaintiff No.2 and her children are Muslims, and the alleged
marriage with the Hindu deceased, Basanagouda, was
neither pleaded nor proved, nor shown to have been
solemnized under Hindu law. In the absence of a valid or
voidable Hindu marriage, the statutory benefit under
Section 16(3) is not available. Furthermore, Section
3(1)(j) of the Hindu Succession Act restricts the term
"related to" to relationships arising from lawful Hindu
wedlock, which excludes the plaintiffs. The Trial Court's
finding, therefore, amounts to a grave misapplication of
statutory provisions. Accordingly, point No.(ii) is answered
in the affirmative, holding that the judgment of the Trial
Court in granting a share in the property to Plaintiff No.1
and Defendant Nos.6 to 8 is perverse, contrary to law, and
liable to be reversed.
III. The Trial Court, while adjudicating Issue No.1
pertaining solely to the marital status of Plaintiff No.2 has
erroneously ventured into the question of the legitimacy
and paternity of Defendant No.1 without there being any
pleadings or issue framed on that aspect. Under Order XIV
- 35 -
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
Rule 1(1) and (5) of the CPC, issues arise only when a
material proposition of law or fact is affirmed by one party
and denied by the other. No issue was framed concerning
Defendant No.1's legitimacy or parentage. The finding
rendered by the Trial Court on this point is thus beyond its
jurisdiction and contrary to settled law as laid down
in Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal & Anr., (supra)
which prohibits grant of reliefs beyond the scope of
pleadings and framed issues. Additionally, Sections 5 and
11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, restrict admissibility
of evidence to relevant facts in issue. Since Defendant
No.1's paternity was neither a fact in issue nor relevant for
determining the marital status of Plaintiff No.2, the Trial
Court's finding is procedurally flawed, rendered without
jurisdiction, and in breach of Defendant No.1's right to a
fair hearing. Accordingly, point No.(iii) is answered in the
aAffirmative, holding that the finding on Defendant No.1's
paternity is without jurisdiction, legally unsustainable, and
liable to be set aside.
- 36 -
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
IV. It is also relevant to note that the plaintiffs'
claim of inheritance is not entirely defeated by the
rejection of their claim under Section 16(3) of the Hindu
Marriage Act. A crucial document on record, namely
Ex.D-30, being the last Will and testament dated
16.06.1974 executed by Shivavva, the paternal aunt of
Basanagouda Patil, clearly demonstrates that Plaintiff No.2
was a beneficiary under the said Will. Under this
testamentary disposition, Plaintiff No.2 was bequeathed 30
acres of land, and this property has devolved upon Plaintiff
No.1 and Defendant Nos.6 to 8. Thus, the assertion of
gross or irreparable injustice stands rebutted by the
factual reality that a substantial share of property has
already come to the plaintiffs by virtue of a valid
testamentary instrument.
V. Moreover, the evidence also reveals a distinct
and consistent customary practice followed by Plaintiff
No.2 and her family, who hail from an artist community.
As is evident from Exs.D-29 and D-30, Plaintiff No.2's
identity and paternity have been consistently recorded and
- 37 -
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
recognized through her mother Renukabai Kalavant, rather
than a conventional patrilineal identification.
This matrilineal identification appears to be a customary
norm within the artist community to which Plaintiff No.2
belongs. Notably, this pattern has continued with the next
generation as well. Plaintiff No.1 and Defendant Nos.6 to 8
have also been identified and recorded through their
mother, Plaintiff No.2, rather than through any assertion
of paternal lineage.
VI. Such recognition of lineage through the
maternal line, especially in a close-knit and socially distinct
artistic community, indicates the presence of a socio-
cultural practice that diverges from the mainstream Hindu
patrilineal structure. However, while such custom may
offer social recognition, it cannot substitute or override the
formal requirements of a valid Hindu marriage or the
statutory framework of inheritance under the Hindu
Succession Act. That said, the fact that Plaintiff No.2 was
considered worthy of a testamentary bequest by a close
- 38 -
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
relative of the deceased though they were treated as
strangers.
VII. Accordingly, this Court finds that no gross
injustice has occurred. The plaintiffs, particularly Plaintiff
No.1 and Defendant Nos.6 to 8, have already acquired
substantial property through the Will (Ex.D-30), and
their social identity and lineage have been customarily
acknowledged through the maternal line. While this does
not create a legal right under Hindu succession law, it
certainly mitigates the claim of denial of justice or
complete exclusion.
VIII. The DNA report secured by this Court during
the pendency of the present proceedings is, in our
considered view, of no legal consequence and does not
warrant examination or cognizance in light of the
conclusive findings already recorded on Points I to III. As
elaborated above, the plaintiffs have categorically failed to
establish the solemnization of a valid marriage between
Plaintiff No.2 and the deceased Basanagouda Patil, either
- 39 -
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
through pleadings or cogent evidence. In the absence of
proof of a valid or even a voidable marriage recognized
under the Hindu Marriage Act, the question of legitimacy
of the children under Section 16(3) of the said Act does
not arise. Moreover, the plaintiffs have been conclusively
shown to be Muslims by faith, and as such, they fall
entirely outside the scope and protective framework of the
Hindu Marriage Act and the Hindu Succession Act. In such
circumstances, the biological relationship, even if
established through DNA testing, becomes irrelevant to
the adjudication of legal rights under the applicable
personal laws. It is well settled that paternity established
through scientific means like DNA testing cannot, by itself,
confer inheritance rights unless it is backed by proof of a
lawful marriage under the governing personal law.
Therefore, in the absence of a valid marital relationship,
the DNA report cannot override the statutory scheme or
the findings of this Court on the crucial legal issues.
Accordingly, we decline to examine or place any reliance
on the DNA report, as it does not in any manner alter or
- 40 -
RFA No. 100168/2016
C/W RFA CROB. No. 100018/2022
impact the final determination of the rights of the parties
in this case.
35. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) RFA.No.100168/2016 filed by
defendant Nos.1 to 4 is allowed;
(ii) The judgment and decree dated
11.03.2016 passed in O.S.No.36/2009
by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC, Ron is set aside;
(iii) Cross objection filed by defendant No.5
in RFA.Crob.No.100018/2022 is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
CA