Karnataka High Court
Neelamma vs Basamma on 19 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48098
RSA No. 565 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 565 OF 2019 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. NEELAMMA
D/O. PARAMESHWARAPPA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
2. KAMALAMMA
D/O. PARAMESHWARAPPA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
APPELLANTS ARE AGRICULTURISTS AND
RESIDENTS OF GOGGA VILLAGE,
SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577 427
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. BASAMMA
W/O. LATE. SHIVANAGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. GOGGA VILLAGE,
SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577 427
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
2. SIDDANAGOWDA
S/O. LATE. SHIVANAGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48098
RSA No. 565 of 2019
HC-KAR
R/O. GOGGA VILLAGE,
SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577 427
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
3. CHANDRA GOWDA
S/O. LATE. SHIVANAGOWDA,
AGED 29 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. GOGGA VILLAGE,
SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577 427,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
4. SIDDAMMA
W/O. BASAVARAJ,
AGED 33 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. GOGGA VILLAGE,
SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577 427,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
5. GOGGAMMA
W/O. BASAVARAJAPPA,
AGED 56 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. RATTIHALLI VILLAGE,
HIREKERURU TALUK-581 111,
HAVERI DISTRICT,
6. ERANAGOWDA
S/O. PARAMESHWARAPPA GOWDA,
AGED 35 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. GOGGA VILLAGE,
SHIKARIPURA TALUK577 427,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
7. BASAMMA
W/O. SHEKARAPPA,
AGED 51 YEARS
R/O. CHINNIKATTE VILLAGE,
HONNALI TALUK-577 217,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
8. SAKAMMA
W/O. SHIVANAGOWDA,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:48098
RSA No. 565 of 2019
HC-KAR
AGED 41 YEARS
R/O. KADURU VILLAGE,
HIREKERUR TALUK-581 111,
HAVERI DISTRICT
9. SHAKUNTALA
W/O. NAGARAJ,
AGED 39 YEARS
R/O. MALEBENNUR,
HONNALI TALUK-577 217,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
10. GEETHA
W/O. HANUMANTHA GOWDA,
AGED 36 YEARS
R/O. GUNDAGATTI,
HIREKERUR TALUK-581 111.
HAVERI DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH T.B , ADVOCATE FOR R5, R7-R10,
SRI. SRIKANTH PATIL K, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R4,
R6 - SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.11.2018 PASSED IN
RA NO.19/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL.DISTRICT
JUDGE, AT SHIVAMOGGA PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND
MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.09.2012
PASSED IN OS NO.312/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., ITINERARY COURT, SHIKARIPURA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:48098
RSA No. 565 of 2019
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This is plaintiffs' regular second appeal.
2. The case of the plaintiffs is that they being the daughters of Parameshwarappa Gowda through his second wife late Sharadamma, were entitled for partition and separate possession of joint family properties i.e., suit schedule properties along with defendants and hence, they filed the suit seeking aforesaid relief.
3. However, defendant Nos.1 to 4 denied the plaint averments by filing written statement. They denied that the plaintiffs and defendants are the joint family members. They admitted that Siddamma was the wife of Parameshwarappa Gowda and out of their wedlock, they had one son namely deceased Shivannagowda and defendant No.1 is his wife and defendant Nos.2 to 4 are the children of defendant No.1. They also admitted that defendant No.5 is the sister of deceased Shivannagowda. However, they denied that Sharadamma is the second wife of Parameshwarappa Gowda and the plaintiffs and -5- NC: 2025:KHC:48098 RSA No. 565 of 2019 HC-KAR defendants 6 to 10 are their children. They also denied that suit schedule 'B' property i.e., Sy.No.196 measuring 5 acres was the darkasth land granted to Sharadamma. As such, the plaintiffs have no right to seek for partition of the suit schedule properties and hence, they prayed to dismiss the suit.
4. The Trial Court, based on rival pleadings, framed the relevant issues and after considering the evidence and documents placed on record by both the parties, has decreed the suit of the plaintiffs holding that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, defendant Nos.6 to 10 are entitled for 1/9th share in suit schedule 'A' to 'C' properties as well as in Sy.No.148 measuring 7 acres 33 guntas and defendant Nos.1 to 4 are entitled for 1/9th share of late Shivannegowda in the said properties.
5. On appeal, the First Appellate Court by concurring with the judgment of the Trial Court, modified the share of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.5, 7 to 10 by relying the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Prakash and -6- NC: 2025:KHC:48098 RSA No. 565 of 2019 HC-KAR others vs. Phulavathi and others reported in (2016) 2 SCC 36 as under:
"The plaintiffs and defendant No.5, 7 to 10 are entitled for partition and separate possession of their 1/27th share in the suit 'A' to 'C' schedule properties and the land in Sy.No.148 of Goagga Village of Shikaripura Taluk. The defendant No.1 to 4 together entitled for 10/27th share of Shivanagowda with defendant No.6 in all the suit schedule properties and land bearing Sy.No.148 of Gogga Village, Shikaripura Taluk."
6. Heard Sri Spoorthy Hegde, N., learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, Sri Manjunath T.B., learned counsel for respondents 5, 7 to 10, Sri Srikanth Patil K., learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4.
7. While admitting the appeal, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law: -7-
NC: 2025:KHC:48098 RSA No. 565 of 2019 HC-KAR
i) Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in modifying the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court?
ii) Whether the modification of decree by the First Appellate Court is sustainable in law in view of the law laid down in VINEETA SHARMA Vs. RAKESH SHARMA AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2020 SC 3717?
8. As could be gathered from records, the First Appellate Court has partly allowed the appeal modifying the judgment of the Trial Court by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Phulavathi's case cited supra.
9. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Phulavathi's case (supra) for a daughter to be entitled to coparcenary rights in the ancestral property, her father (the coparcener through whom she claimed the right) had to be alive as on the date the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 was enacted. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC:48098 RSA No. 565 of 2019 HC-KAR
10. However, in view of subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma's case cited supra, the daughter simply enters into the coparcenary as a son by taking birth before or after the enactment of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, but the rights can only be claimed from the date of amendment, i.e., 09.09.2005 and it is not necessary for her father (the coparcener through whom she claimed the right) to be alive as on the date the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 was enacted. Further, in view of the observations made at paragraph 130 of the judgment in Vineeta Sharma's case cited supra, the said dictum apply to all suits/appeals pending before different High Courts and Subordinate Courts. As such, in the instant case, the appellants are entitled to equal partition as granted by the Trial Court.
11. Accordingly, both the substantial questions of law framed by this Court are answered in the "negative" and the appeal succeeds. Hence, I pass the following, -9- NC: 2025:KHC:48098 RSA No. 565 of 2019 HC-KAR ORDER
(i) The second appeal is allowed.
(ii) The judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.19/2013 dated 02.11.2018 by the III Additional District Judge, Shivamogga is hereby set aside.
(iii) The judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.312/2007 dated 07.09.2012 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shikaripura is affirmed.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38