Karnataka High Court
Ramachandrappa S/O Omkarappa Karaddy vs Smt. Lakshmi Devi on 25 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16373
RSA No. 5476 of 2010
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.5476 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
1. RAMACHANDRAPPA
S/O. OMKARAPPA KARADDY,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
1A. SMT. K. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O. RAMACHANDRAPPA KARADDY,
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS.
APPELLANTS NO.2 TO 5 ARE TREATED AS THE
LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED APPELLANT NO.1A.
V.O.D. 20.08.2024.
2. GOVINDAPPA
S/O. RAMACHANDRAPPA KARADDY,
Digitally
signed by
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
YASHAVANT
YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR
NARAYANKAR Date:
2025.11.28
10:40:03
3. MALLIKARJUN
+0530
S/O. RAMACHANDRAPPA KARADDY,
AGE: 29 YEARS,
4. VITTAL REDDY
S/O. RAMACHANDRAPA KARADDY,
AGE: 27 YEARS,
5. MANJUNATH
S/O. RAMACHANDRAPPA KARADDY,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
ALL ARE R/O. RAMAPUR,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16373
RSA No. 5476 of 2010
HC-KAR
POST: MALLAPUR,
TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SURABH KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. G.B. SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)
AND.
SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI
W/O. HANUMAREDDY KARADDY,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. RAMAPUR, TAL. GANGAVATHI,
NOW AT C/O. BASAPPA MOOLIMANI,
R/O. CHUKANKALLI, POST: BADAR BANI,
DIST. KOPPAL.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR R. GUNJALLI, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 12-03-
2010 PASSED IN R.A.NO.35/2009 BY THE COURT OF FAST
TRACK COURT-I AT KOPPAL CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND
DECREE DATED 20-01-2009 IN O.S.NO.77/2006 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AT KOPPAL,
O.S.NO.77/2006 BE DISMISSED AND THIS APPEAL BE ALLOWED
WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16373
RSA No. 5476 of 2010
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and respondent.
2. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Trial Court in O.S.No.77/2006 and the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.35/2009 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed granting 1/6th share in the suit schedule property, the defendant Nos.1 to 5 have approached this Court in appeal.
3. The Factual matrix that is relevant for the purpose of this appeal is as below:
i) The plaintiff is widow of one Hanumareddy, who was son of defendant No.1-
Ramachandrappa. Defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the brothers of Hanumareddy. The plaintiff contended that her husband and defendants constituted a joint Hindu family and while they were living jointly, Hanumareddy died. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16373 RSA No. 5476 of 2010 HC-KAR
ii) The plaintiff and the said Hanumareddy did not have any children. Thereafter, the defendants and the wife of defendant No.1 took certain articles from the plaintiff and forcibly obtained the plaintiff's signatures on blank papers. Even the maintenance was not provided to the plaintiff and they also got deleted name of her husband from record of rights of the suit property on the basis of a forcible document got signed by the defendants.
iii) It is contended that the defendants are trying to take the insurance claims on account of death of Hanumareddy and they also filed O.S.No.37/2006 to restrain the plaintiff. Even the death claim on account of death of Hanumareddy was also claimed by the defendants exclusively. Therefore, the plaintiff sought partition in the property of the joint -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:16373 RSA No. 5476 of 2010 HC-KAR family and when it was refused, she was constrained to file suit for partition.
4. Defendant No.1 on behalf of all other defendants, filed a written statement contending that there was no such joint family as pleaded by the plaintiff. He denied that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and on the contrary, it was stated that the suit properties are the self- acquired properties of defendant No.1. It was also contended that one of the property that item No.4 of the suit schedule property is a property belonging to the defendant No.4. Therefore, the defendants contended that the suit is merit less and the same deserves to be dismissed. All other contentions of the plaintiff were denied.
5. On the basis of above contentions, the following appropriate issues were framed by the Trial Court.
"«ªÁzÁA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ
1) ªÁ¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ »AzÀÄ MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÉAzÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ? -6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16373 RSA No. 5476 of 2010 HC-KAR
2) zÁªÁ ±ÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÁ¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ C«¨sÁfvÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?
3) ªÁ¢AiÀÄ UÀAqÀ wÃj ºÉÆÃzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É zÁªÁ ±ÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀéwÛ£À°è ªÁ¢UÉ 1/6 ¨sÁUÀ ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀªÁV «¨sÁUÀ ªÀiÁr ªÁ¢AiÀÄ ¸Áé¢üãÀPÉÌ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?
4) ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ zÁªÁ ±ÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀéwÛ£À°è ªÁ¢AiÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀħzÀÞ ¨sÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ®Ä ¤gÁPÀj¹ ¸ÀvÁ¬Ä¹zÀÝgÉAzÀÄ ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?
5) 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ zÁªÁ ±ÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀéAiÀiÁfðvÀªÁV ¸ÀA¥Á¢¹zÁÝgÉAzÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?
6) K£ÀÄ ¥ÀjºÁgÀPÉÌ CxÀªÁ DzÉñÀPÉÌ ¥ÀPÀëPÁgÀgÀÄ CºÀðjzÁÝgÉAiÉÄ?"
6. The plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.9 were marked. The defendants examined DW.1 to DW.4 and Exs.D.1 to D.7 were marked. After hearing the arguments, the Trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff granting her 1/6th share in the suit schedule property.
7. Being aggrieved, the defendants approached the First Appellate Court.
8. The First Appellate Court by its impugned judgment dated 12.03.2010, dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:16373 RSA No. 5476 of 2010 HC-KAR defendants No.1 to 5 have approached this Court in second appeal.
9. During pendency of this appeal, the appellant No.1, who was the defendant No.1 before the Trial Court also died. The appellants No.2 to 5 and one Lakshmamma are his legal representatives. Thereafter, the wife of defendant No.1 Lakshmamma, who was the appellant No.1(a) also died and as such, it is only the defendants No.2 to 5 who are the appellants herein.
10. It is pertinent to note that all along it was the contention of the plaintiff that she is entitled for a share that was entitled by her husband in the suit schedule properties as they were the joint family properties.
11. On the contrary, the defendant No.1 has contended that they are his self-acquired properties and one of the property was the self-acquired property of the defendant No.4. However, the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court held that they are not the self-acquired properties of the defendant No.1 or the -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:16373 RSA No. 5476 of 2010 HC-KAR defendant No.4 and had granted share in all the suit schedule properties to the plaintiff.
12. Now, even if it is held that the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of the defendant No.1, in view of his demise intestate, the properties would devolve upon all his children. So also, the wife of the defendant No.1 Lakshmamma has also died intestate. This Court had requested the counsel for the appellant to ascertain whether the said Ramachandrappa and his wife Lakshmamma died intestate or testate. It is submitted that they have died intestate. In that view of the matter, the plaintiff either by virtue of the decree passed by the Trial Court or by virtue of the intestate succession under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, would be entitled for an equal share that would fall to the share of her husband in the suit schedule properties.
13. As noted above, the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have held that the item No.4 of the suit schedule property was acquired by the defendant No.4 under the sale deed. Obviously, both the Courts below have noted that there is nothing on record to show that the defendant No.4 had any -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:16373 RSA No. 5476 of 2010 HC-KAR independent income for him to purchase the item No.4 suit schedule property. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court also noted that when the item No.4 property was purchased, the defendant No.4 was aged 21 years and there was nothing on record to show that he had any independent income except the income derived from the other suit schedule properties enabling him to purchase. In that view of the matter, the question whether the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of the defendants No.1 and 4 or they are the ancestral joint family properties do not survive anymore. The plaintiff would be entitled for equal share which her husband Hanumareddy would have got in the suit schedule properties. In the result, the appeal is bereft of any merits and the share which is granted to the plaintiff remains unchanged.
14. However, it is relevant to note that the share which was carved out for Ramachandrappa, having devolved upon the plaintiff and the defendants No.2 to 5, the share of the plaintiff would come to 1/5th. Except this, there is no need for any modification of the impugned judgments. Hence, the following:
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16373
RSA No. 5476 of 2010
HC-KAR
ORDER
i. The appeal is dismissed.
ii. The share of the plaintiff is held to be 1/5th in all the suit schedule properties. The preliminary decree stands modified accordingly.
SD/-
(C M JOSHI) JUDGE SSP-para 1 to 6 RKM-para 7 to end Ct:pa List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62