Karnataka High Court
Chikkammanni vs Shyla on 17 February, 2022
Bench: N S Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
R.S.A. No.883/2021 (DEC/PAR)
C/W
R.S.A.No.941/2021(DEC/PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. CHIKKAMMANNI,
W/O LATE G. C. HANUMANTHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/O VIDYANAGAR EXTN.,
RAILWAY STATION ROAD,
NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
GUBBI TOWN,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 216.
2. G. H. SATHISH KUMAR,
AGED 37 YEARS,
S/O LATE G.C.HANUMANTHAIAH,
3. T.H.SHYLA,
W/O G.H.SATHISH KUMAR,
AGED 31 YEARS,
R/O VIDYANAGAR EXTN.,
RAILWAY STATION ROAD,
GUBBI TOWN,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 216.
... APPELLANTS
(COMMON)
(BY SRI.A.G.SHIVANNA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.KIRAN KUMAR T.L., ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. SHYLA,
D/O LATE MALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT NO.152, OLD K.E.B. COLONY,
TUMKUR - 572 102.
2. UMADEVI,
D/O LATE MALLAPPA,
W/O CHANNABASAVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/O NO.594, SRIRAMPURA STREET,
T. NARASEEPURA, T.NARASEEPURA TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 106.
3. NAGARAJU,
S/O LATE MALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
4. SHEKAR,
S/O LATE MALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
5. NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
S/O LATE MALLAPPA,
RESPONDENTS NO.3, 4 AND 5 ARE
R/AT 4TH CROSS,
MAHALAKSHMI NAGAR, GUBBI TOWN,
TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572 216.
6. CHANNABASAVANNA,
S/O LATE MALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT OPP. S.I.T. BACK GATE,
GANGOTHRI ROAD, RAKSHA MEDICAL,
S.I.T. EXTENSION,
TUMKURU - 572 102.
... RESPONDENTS
(COMMON)
(BY SRI.M.N.MADHUSUDHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI.N.HONNALINGE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
3
THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF
CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
31.08.2021 PASSED IN RA.No.30/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE
VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKURU,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.01.2016 PASSED IN
OS.No.34/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, GUBBI.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
With the consent of both the learned counsels,
matter is taken for final disposal.
2. The appeal is admitted to consider the
following substantial question of law:
"Whether the Courts below were justified in
coming into conclusion that the sale deed
executed by Malappa in favour of the 6th
defendant on 18.11.2004 would not bind the
plaintiff-Umadevi, the daughter of Malappa?"
3. The facts are not in dispute. On 14.12.1999,
two sons of Mallappa, i.e., Shekar and Nanjappa
(defendant Nos.3 and 4) relinquished their rights over
the joint family property in favour of father-Mallappa and
on the very same day partition deed was entered into
between Mallappa, Nagaraju and Channabasavanna
(defendant Nos.1 and 5) respectively. It is thus clear
that prior to the amendment to Section 6 of Hindu
Succession Act, there was a partition of the properties of
the joint family by means of a registered partition deed.
4. On 18.11.2004, Mallappa and all his sons
executed a sale deed conveying Sy.No.52/1A measuring
1 acre 37 guntas to the 6th defendant, who is the
appellant herein.
5. Thus, even when the family was joint, the
land bearing Sy.No.52/1A which is the subject matter of
this appeal was alienated by the father of the plaintiff
and defendants alongwith defendant Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5.
6. Even by the provisions of the amended
Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, the property
which has been conveyed prior to 27.12.2004 cannot be
amenable to a partition or a claim for partition by female
coparcener.
7. In the light of the declaration of law by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Vineetha Sharma
Vs. Rakesh Sharma and Ors reported in AIR 2020
(SC) 3717, though the plaintiff would be entitled to a
share by virtue of being a female coparcener her claim
for a share would have to exclude the properties which
were already subjected to a partition by means of
registered deed and properties which have already been
sold.
8. In that view of the matter both the Courts
were not justified in coming to the conclusion that the
plaintiff was entitled to a share in the property which
was conveyed by her father and her brothers and also in
respect of the properties which was already partitioned
in the year 1999.
9. The substantial question of law is accordingly
answered in favour of the appellant and the impugned
judgment and decree of both the Courts are set aside
and suit of the plaintiff in so far as item No.1 is
concerned shall stand dismissed.
In view of disposal of the main appeal, prayer No.4
and office objections shall be ignored in RSA
No.941/2021. Pending I.As stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RKA
