Karnataka High Court
Smt.Rajashree W/O Chandrashekarayya ... vs Shri.Kadayya S/O Sadashivayya ... on 14 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13805
RSA No. 100483 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100483 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.RAJASHREE
W/O. CHANDRASHEKARAYYA MATHAPATI,
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK,
R/O. CHIKKAPADASALAGI, TAL. JAMAKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOTE.
2. SMT. SANGEETA
W/O. NAGARAJ NEELAGUNDAMATH,
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O. KOPPALA,
TAL. KOPPALA, DIST. KOPPALA.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEENKUMAR G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
YASHAVANT
AND:
YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR
NARAYANKAR Date:
2025.10.17
11:05:52
+0530
1. SHRI KADAYYA
S/O. SADASHIVAYYA BABALADIMATH,
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE.
R/O. HIREPADASALAGI, TAL. JAMAKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOTE-587301.
2. SMT. ROOPA
W/O. KADAYYA BABALADIMATH,
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK,
R/O. CHIKKAPADASALAGI, TAL. JAMAKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOTE-587301.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13805
RSA No. 100483 of 2021
HC-KAR
3. SMT. JAYASHREE
W/O. SADASHIVAYYA BABALADIMATH,
AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK,
R/O. CHIKKAPADASALAGI,
TAL. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587301.
(SINCE DECEASED,
HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES ARE ALREADY ON
RECORDS I.E. R1, R2 AND R4,
AS PER ORDER DATED 22.01.2025.)
4. SMT. BHAGYASHREE
W/O. SHARVESH MATHAPATI,
AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK,
R/O. BILLUR, TAL. JATTA,
DIST. SANGOLLI-591115.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHRIKANT D. BABLADI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2-ABSENT;
R3 AND R4-NOTICE SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC.100 R/W. ORDER XLII OF THE OF
CPC, 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.09.2019
PASSED IN R.A.NO.140/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE, TO SIT AT
JAMKHANDI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD. 22.07.2017 PASSED IN O.S.
NO.163/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, JAMKHANDI,PARTLY
DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE
POSSESSION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13805
RSA No. 100483 of 2021
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) The appellants are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.163/2016, whose first appeal in RA No.140/2017 came to be dismissed.
2. The appellants/plaintiffs filed O.S.No.163/2016 for partition, which came to be decreed granting 1/10th share each in the suit schedule properties. The Trial Court had effected the partition on the basis of the concept of notional partition as it stood. In pursuance to the amendment brought to the Hindu Succession Act, impugned judgment on 22.07.2017 came to be passed. The said judgment was questioned by the plaintiffs before the First Appellate Court in RA No.140/2017. The grievance of the appellants is that the calculation of the share is incorrect and therefore, there is a need for interference by this Court.
3. It is submitted that the appellants are entitled for 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties but not 1/10th share as ordered. Though the said contention was urged before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.140/2017, the First Appellate -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13805 RSA No. 100483 of 2021 HC-KAR Court despite considering the said question, and answering that there is a need for interference in the judgment of the Trial Court, dismissed the appeal. It is pertinent to note that the point No.2 for consideration framed by the First Appellate Court reads as below.
"Whether it is necessary to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the lower Court?"
4. The discussion on point No.2 and paragraph 17 by the First Appellate Court reads as below.
"17. POINT No.2:- The lower court erred in allotting 1/10th share each to the plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties though the suit is barred by limitation. The lower court failed to consider the fact that the plaintiffs have not produced any documents to show that item No.2 of the 'A' schedule property has been allotted to the share of the 1st defendant in the partition. No documents produced by PW.1 to show that the house properties are the ancestral properties of the 1st defendant. So, for the reasons assigned in answering point No.1 as above, it is just and necessary to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the lower court. Hence I answer this point in the Affirmative."
5. Obviously despite the Court coming to the conclusion that there is a need for interference by the First Appellate Court it has not done so. It is pertinent to note that the operative portion of the order says that the appeal is dismissed. However -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13805 RSA No. 100483 of 2021 HC-KAR the impugned judgment of the Trial Court is set aside. It is clear that the First Appellate Court has not applied its mind to the contentions raised by the appellant. The reasoning and the operative portion of the judgment are not in consonance with each other. The calculation of the shares is the only aspect which needs to be considered. The properties claimed by the plaintiffs and whether the plaintiffs have share in it being the primary consideration in the suit and consequent upon it, the share has to be calculated in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma and others1.
6. In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed and matter is remanded to the First Appellate Court with a direction to pass a detailed order after applying its mind. Obviously, the appeal could not have been dismissed, if the impugned judgment of the Trial Court should have been set aside by the First Appellate Court. There is no reason as to why the appeal is to be dismissed. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: 1
(2020) 9 SCC 1 dated 11.08.2020.-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13805 RSA No. 100483 of 2021 HC-KAR ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed.
ii) The impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court is set aside.
iii) The matter is remanded to the First Appellate Court for fresh hearing and disposal within a period of three months from the date of the parties appearing before the First Appellate Court.
iv) The parties are directed to appear before the First Appellate Court on 17.11.2025 without waiting for a fresh notice from that Court.
SD/-
(C M JOSHI) JUDGE SSP CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 34