Karnataka High Court
Archana And Anr vs Shivabasamma @ Sarswati And Ors on 11 February, 2022
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar, K S Hemalekha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
RFA NO.200190/2018
BETWEEN:
1. Archana W/o Shivram
Age: 35 years, Occ: Conductor
R/o Kalamala Village
Now residing at Askihal
Tq. & Dist. Raichur
2. Nagartna W/o Anjeneya
Age: 33 years, Occ: Household
R/o Govt. Quarter, KPC
Shaktinagar, Dist: Raichur
... Appellants
(By Sri Mahantesh Patil, Advocate)
AND:
1. Shivabasamma @ Sarswati
W/o Gangappa Bagli
Age: 48 years, Occ: Household
R/o Kalmal Village
2. Jothi D/o Gangappa Bagali
Age: 23 years, Occ: Student
2
3. Naveen Kumar S/o Gangappa Bagali
Age: 18 years, Occ Student
4. Sudeep Kumar S/o Gangappa Bagali
Age: 15 years, Occ Student
All are resident at Kalmal Village
The defendant No.4 is minor
Hence through natural guardian
His mother Shivabasamma @ Sarswati
i.e., defendant No.1
... Respondents
(Sri Shivanand Patil, Advocate for R1 to R3;
R4 is minor Reptd. by R1)
This RFA is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated
29.09.2018 passed by the learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge &
JMFC-I, Raichur, in O.S.No.224/2015 and consequently decree the
suit of the plaintiffs.
This appeal coming on for final hearing this day,
S.R.Krishna Kumar J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.224/2015 is directed
against the impugned judgment and decree dated 29.09.2018
passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC-I, Raichur
(for short 'Trial Court), whereby the suit for partition and separate
possession and other reliefs filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against
the respondents/defendants was dismissed by the Trial Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and
learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on
record.
3. A perusal of the material on record including the
impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court will
indicate that the main ground on which the Trial Court rejected the
claim of the appellants/plaintiffs was that, they were not entitled for
share in the suit schedule properties in view of the following
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court:
i. Mangammal @ Thulasi and Anr. Vs. T.B. Raju & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No.1933 of 2009, dated 19.04.2018).
ii. Prakash & Ors. Vs. Phulavati & Ors. reported in (2016)
2 SCC 36.
iii. Danamma @ Suman Supur & Anr. Vs. Amar & Ors.
reported in 2018 (1) Scale 657.
4. However, in the light of the subsequent decision of
the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta
Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and others reported in AIR 2020 SC
3717, wherein the earlier decisions referred to supra have been
overruled by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of
the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and decree
passed by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside and the matter
be remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in
accordance with law bearing in mind the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma's case supra.
5. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed.
ii. The impugned judgment and decree dated
29.09.2018 passed in O.S. No.224/2015 by the Addl.
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC-I, Raichur is hereby set
aside.
iii. The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for
reconsideration afresh bearing in mind the decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma's case
supra.
iv. Having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year
2015, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit
in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible
and preferably within a period of one year from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
SD/-
JUDGE
SD/-
JUDGE
LG
