Karnataka High Court
Sri Parameshwarappa vs Smt Shashikala on 13 October, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:40474
RSA No. 1606 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1606 OF 2022 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
SRI. PARAMESHWARAPPA
S/O LATE SIDRAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/O BENAKUNSE VILLAGE
AJJAMPURA HOBLI,
AJJAMPURA TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 550.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHASTRI GANAPATI BHAT B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. SMT. SHASHIKALA
by DEVIKA M D/O PARAMESHWARAPPA
Location: HIGH W/O KUMARAPPA K
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/O KALKERE VILLAGE
CHOWLAHIRIYUR HOBLI
AJJAMPURA TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 180.
2. SRI B P DEVARAJ
S/O PARAMESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:40474
RSA No. 1606 of 2022
HC-KAR
3. SRI NANJUNDAPPA
S/O LATE SIDRAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
4. SRI GURUMURTHY
S/O LATE DIDRAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R NO. 2 TO 4 ARE
R/O BENAKUNSE VILLAGE
AJJAMPURA HOBLI, AJJAMPURA TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 550
5. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER/
ASSISTANT COMMISISONER
UPPER BHADRA PROJECT-4
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, TARIKERE
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 547.
6. SMT. MANJULA
D/O PARAMESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/O KALLUSHETIHALLI VILLAGE
TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 547.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH S.C, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 AND R4)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.09.2022
PASSED IN RA.NO.76/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
JUDGE (DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE) FAMILY COURT,
CHIKKAMAGALURU. PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND
PARTLY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:40474
RSA No. 1606 of 2022
HC-KAR
01.10.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.10/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JMFC., TARIKERE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
2. The factual matrix of the case of defendant No.1/appellant that this appeal is filed against the concurrent finding passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The Trial Court, while passing an order comes to a conclusion in O.S.No.10/2019 that the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants and granted 1/12th share in all the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff but rejected the claim of the properties. The same is challenged before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court considering the appeal filed by -4- NC: 2025:KHC:40474 RSA No. 1606 of 2022 HC-KAR the appellant herein modified the judgment of the Trial Court answering the point for consideration partly affirmative in coming to the conclusion that the Trial Court committed an error in holding that the plaintiff is entitled to a 1/12th share in the entire extent of item Nos.1 and 2 of the scheduled properties. While passing an order, modifying the same, and coming to the conclusion that plaintiff, defendant Nos.1, 2 and 6 are entitled to a 1/12th share each in the compensation amount and in the remaining extent of lands in item Nos.1, 3 to 6 and defendant Nos.3 and 4 are entitled for 4/12th share each in the compensation amount and then the remaining land in item Nos.1, 3 to 6 of the suit schedule property by metes and bounds.
3. Being aggrieved by the said concurrent findings, the present second appeal is filed by defendant No.1 before this Court. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant before this Court is that both the Courts were not justified in holding that the plaintiff is -5- NC: 2025:KHC:40474 RSA No. 1606 of 2022 HC-KAR entitled to a 1/12th share and the First Appellate Court was also not justified in holding that entitlement of 1/12th share each in the compensation amount and defendant Nos.3 and 4 are also entitled to 4/12th share each in the compensation amount and both Courts have not considered the evidence available on record. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. Hence, prays this Court to admit the appeal and frame the substantial questions of law.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would also vehemently contend that respondent No.1/plaintiff got married about 25 years back and she is living happily with her husband and also spent maximum amount at the time of performing her marriage, i.e., around Rs.20,00,000/- and also gave a dowry. Learned counsel would also contend that defendant No.1 was managing the family and he has repaid the loan amount borrowed by her grandfather Siddaramappa wherein he has pledged the suit schedule property for borrowing a loan. When such -6- NC: 2025:KHC:40474 RSA No. 1606 of 2022 HC-KAR admission is given by the parties before the Trial Court, the Trial Court ought not to have granted the relief of partition.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also considering the reasoning of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, it discloses that it is the specific case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties and the defendants have also not denied the same, but only the contention is that defendant No.1 spent more money at the time of marriage and also even cleared the loan that was availed by his grandfather and also the counsel would vehemently contend that the suit is filed even after 25 years of the marriage of the plaintiff. The counsel also vehemently contends that both the Courts have not considered both the oral and documentary evidence placed on record when the appellant did not dispute the fact that the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties. The only contention -7- NC: 2025:KHC:40474 RSA No. 1606 of 2022 HC-KAR is that defendant No.1 has spent more money at the time of performing the marriage of plaintiff , which cannot be a ground to declare a relief and also no material is placed on record before the Court to show that a share is given in favour of the plaintiff and in the absence of any documentary proof for having given any share or relinquishing any right by the plaintiff, the very contention of the counsel cannot be accepted. Maybe the appellant or maybe the respondent No.1/plaintiff was married 25 years ago. But though contended that already there was a partition in the year 1983 itself, the same was not proved by the defendants and the same is also taken note of by the Trial Court while considering the issue involved between the parties answering issue No.2 and so also with regard to the mesne profits, issue No.3 is answered in the negative taking note that the share of the plaintiff in paragraph '14' that propositus Siddaramappa had three sons, that is, defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4. Therefore, the suit schedule properties have to be divided into three shares. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC:40474 RSA No. 1606 of 2022 HC-KAR Defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 are entitled to one share each in the suit-scheduled properties. The plaintiff, defendant Nos.1, 2 and 6 are entitled for 1/4th share each in the share of defendant No.1. As such, the plaintiff is entitled for 1/12th share in the suit schedule property and the Appellate Court has reassessed the material available on record both in respect of the acquired land with regard to the compensation concerned and also with regard to the remaining land concerned in answering point Nos.1 and 3 and answered the same in the affirmative in coming to the conclusion that the Trial Court has committed an error in holding that he is entitled to a 1/12th share and modified the same.
6. When such being the case, if there is any modification also, the same will not affect defendant No.1/appellant since there was no division in the family allotting of shares in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and no document is placed on record in this regard when concurrent finding is given with regard to the share of the -9- NC: 2025:KHC:40474 RSA No. 1606 of 2022 HC-KAR plaintiff is concerned, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and frame substantive questions of law in the appeal since both the Courts have taken note of factual aspects as well as question of law. Hence, no merit in the appeal.
In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.As. if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE GJM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35 CT: BHK