Karnataka High Court
Veerappa vs Kamalamma on 5 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025: KHC-D:15058
RSA No. 100474 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100474 OF 2015 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. VEERAPPA
S/O. REVANAPPA PUTTASIDDAMMANAVAR,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NITUVALLI,
NOW AT NITTUR,
TQ. RANEBENNUR,
DIST. HAVERI.
2. RUDRAPPA
S/O. REVANAPPA PUTTASIDDAMMANAVAR,
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NITUVALLI,
Digitally
signed by
YASHAVANT
NOW AT NITTUR,
YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR
NARAYANKAR Date:
2025.11.06
TQ. RANEBENNUR,
14:27:56
+0530 DIST. HAVERI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY MISS VINAYA KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. NAGANGOUDA R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. KAMALAMMA
W/O. REVANAPPA PUTTASIDDAMMANAVAR,
SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HER LRS
WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD AS
RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3.
-2-
NC: 2025: KHC-D:15058
RSA No. 100474 of 2015
HC-KAR
2. SMT. RUDRAVVA
W/O. CHANDRAPPA HUBLI,
AGE: 52 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. NITUVALLI,
NOW AT NITTUR,
TQ. RANEBENNUR,
DIST. HAVERI.
3. SMT. PARAVVA
W/O. SHANTAPPA GOUDAR,
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. HOLEYANAHALLI,
TQ. DAVANGERE,
DIST. DAVANGERE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.M. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W. ORDER 41
RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS RSA BY SETTING
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.03.2015 PASSED
BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE RANEBENNUR, IN
R.A.NO.34/2012, IN CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 02.04.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.320/2010 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC RANEBENNUR IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025: KHC-D:15058
RSA No. 100474 of 2015
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.
2. This appeal is filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.320/2010, which came to be decreed by the learned Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Ranebennur and later confirmed by the First Appellate Court i.e., the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranebennur in R.A.No.34/2012.
3. The factual matrix that is relevant for the purpose of this order is as below:
a) The mother and her two daughters have filed the suit for partition against the defendants who are none else than the sons of plaintiff No.1. The genealogy and the relationship between the parties are not in dispute. The plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants contending that they constitute a joint Hindu family and the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties, which was owned by the propositus -4- NC: 2025: KHC-D:15058 RSA No. 100474 of 2015 HC-KAR Revaneppa. He died on 25.03.1973, leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants. There was no partition in the joint family properties and when the plaintiffs sought partition, defendant Nos.1 and 2 denied to effect the partition and therefore, there was cause of action for filing the suit.
b) The suit was resisted by the defendants contending that after death of the propositus Revaneppa, there was a partition between the parties and as per the said partition, the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2 have been entered in the records. It was contented that the share of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 was given to them at the time of their marriage about 15 to 20 years back, during the lifetime of Revaneppa. Therefore, they set up a defence of earlier partition and sought for dismissal of the suit.
4. The Trial Court framed appropriate issues and after the trial, it came to conclusion that there is no material to show -5- NC: 2025: KHC-D:15058 RSA No. 100474 of 2015 HC-KAR that there was partition between the parties in the year 2002 as alleged by the defendants. Therefore, it decreed the suit of plaintiffs.
5. Being aggrieved, defendant Nos.1 and 2 approached the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.34/2012 and after hearing the parties, the appeal came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, defendant Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have not appreciated the evidence borne out of the record in the form of mutation entries in a proper way and these mutation entries clearly depict that there was partition and as such, the impugned judgments are not sustainable in law. It is also submitted that plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 were given share at the time of their marriage and therefore, they could not have claimed any partition in the suit schedule properties.
7. A perusal of the records would reveal that the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have come to the conclusion that the mutation entries do not depict a partition. The Trial Court do not specifically refer to the mutation entries -6- NC: 2025: KHC-D:15058 RSA No. 100474 of 2015 HC-KAR produced at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.5. It observes that there is no previous partition which has been established. It is pertinent to note that the First Appellate Court has gone into the documents in detail and it has held that there was no previous partition which has been established and when there is a clear denial by the plaintiffs about the giving appropriate share to them at the time of the marriage, the First Appellate Court rejected the claim of the appellants and held that the plaintiffs are entitled for partition.
8. A perusal of Ex.D5 would show that it depicts a partition between the propositus Revaneppa and his siblings. It does not depict any partition between the plaintiffs and defendants. The other revenue records would show that when Revaneppa died, the defendants No.1 and 2 were minors and therefore, their names were entered with the plaintiff No.1 as a minor guardian. After attaining majority, the guardianship was discharged and the name of the defendants No.1 and 2 came to be entered in the revenue records of the suit schedule properties. None of the mutation entries produced by the appellants show that there was any amicable partition, or family arrangement which shows that the plaintiff's herein had given up -7- NC: 2025: KHC-D:15058 RSA No. 100474 of 2015 HC-KAR any right in the property. It is also pertinent to note that there is no answer from the appellants as to what share was given to the plaintiff No.1. Even if the oral contention of the defendants that the plaintiffs No.2 and 3 were given their share at the time of their marriage, there is no answer to the question as to what share was given to the plaintiff No.1. The plaintiff No.1 in her testimony has clearly denied that there was any partition or a family arrangement. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to hold that the appreciation of the evidence by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court is erroneous.
9. So far as the question of law is concerned, by applying the principles laid down in the case of Vineeta Sharma V/s Rakesh Sharma1, the partition ordered by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court cannot be found fault with. Obviously, the suit schedule property is the property obtained by Revaneppa in a partition among his siblings. Therefore, in the hands of Revaneppa, it was the ancestral property. Consequently, after his demise, the property devolves as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act and therefore, the plaintiff 1 AIR 2020 SC 3717 -8- NC: 2025: KHC-D:15058 RSA No. 100474 of 2015 HC-KAR and the defendants are entitled for share equally. Thus, there is no reason to hold that any substantial question of law arises in the present appeal.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that the respondent No.1 is no more and therefore, her share would devolve upon plaintiffs No.2, 3 and defendants No.1 and 2 in equal shares. The plaintiffs who seek final decree are at liberty to make the said submission before the Court at the time of drawing the final decree. Hence, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself.
SD/-
(C M JOSHI) JUDGE SSP: Para 1 to 7 RKM: Para 8 to end CT: PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 13