Doddapapanna vs Kum. Manya

                           1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                       BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

               R.S.A. No.1188/2015 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

DODDAPAPANNA,
S/O LATE BOREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O PANAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
MANDYA TQ - 571 414.
                                           ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.M.Y.SREENIVASAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     KUM. MANYA,
       D/O DODDAPAPANNA,
       AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS,
       MINOR R/P BY HER MOTHER AND
       NEXT FRIEND
       SMT. SUKHITHA,
       W/O DODDAPAPANNA,
       AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
       R/AT HOLALU VILLAGE,
       DUDDA HOBLI,
       MANDYA TQ - 571 410.

2.     P.B BOREGOWDA,
       S/O LATE BOREGOWDA,
       AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
       R/O PANAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
       KASABA HOBLI,
       MANDYA TQ - 571 414.
                                  ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.H.B.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
    R2 SERVED)
                              2



     THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.02.2015
PASSED IN R.A.NO.84/2012 AND 90/2012 ON THE FILE OF
THE II ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE, MANDYA, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 06.09.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.322/2007 ON THE
FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANDYA.

     THIS R.S.A. COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                     JUDGMENT

This Regular Second Appeal is preferred by the defendant No.1/appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2015 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya, dismissing the appeal in RA No.84/2012 and confirming the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2012 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya in OS.No.322/2007.

Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a memo dated 06.01.2021 seeking disposal of the appeal stating that relief sought for by the appellant does not survive for consideration, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment passed in the case of VINEETA SHARMA VS. RAKESH SHARMA reported in AIR 2020 SC 3717 wherein it is held that daughters, like sons, 3 are coparceners and have an equal right to inherit joint Hindu family property.

Memo is taken on record.

In that view of the matter, accepting the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant, appeal is disposed of as not maintainable after applying the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court VINEET SHARMA (supra).

Appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE SB