Karnataka High Court
Balappa S/O Ramappa Patil vs Subhas S/O Honnappa Killedar on 6 January, 2022
Bench: Anant Ramanath Hegde
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
R.S.A. No.5951/2012 (PAR)
BETWEEN
SHRI.BALAPPA S/O RAMAPPA PATIL
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: KANAGALA,TQ: HUKKERI
DIST: BELGAUM. PIN: 591309.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.SABEEL AHMED, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.A.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SHRI.SUBHAS S/O HONNAPPA KILLEDAR
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: HOLEHITNI,TQ: GADAHINGLAJ
DIST: KOLHAPUR. PIN: 591309.
2. SHRI.MALLAPPA S/O HONAPPA KILLEDAR
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
---REST DO---
PIN : 591309.
3. SHRI.MARUTI S/O HONNAPPA KILLEDAR
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE
---REST DO---
PIN : 591309.
2
4. SHRI.SATTEPPA S/O HONNAPPA KILLEDAR
AGE: 38YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
---REST DO---
PIN : 591309.
5. SMT.BHIMASHI W/O MAREPPA BASTAWADE
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: VIJAYA NAGAR,TQ: CHIKKODI
DIST: BELGAUM. PIN: 591309.
6. SMT.PARAVVA W/O PUNDALIK MARAPURE
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: KANAGALA,TQ: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELGAUM. PIN: 591309.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.S.YALIGAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & 6,
SRI.SHIVARAJ. S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1-4)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
31.01.2012 PASSED BY THE FAST TRACK COURT AND ADHOC
DISTRICT JUDGE, HUKKERI IN R.A.NO.231/2011 CONFIRMING
THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED DATED
15.12.2010 BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HUKKERI
IN O.S.NO.63/2001, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff's suit for partition and separate possession
to claim a share in the property as a successor to his wife
is dismissed. Challenge to the said judgment and decree is
unsuccessful. Hence, the present Second Appeal by the
plaintiff.
2. The brief facts that are necessary for
adjudication of the appeal can be stated as under;
The property in question belonged to plaintiff's
mother-in-law i.e., mother of wife of plaintiff. The wife of
plaintiff died in the year 1998. The mother-in-law of
plaintiff died in the year 1999 leaving behind her other two
children as successors. The suit is filed in the year 2001 by
the son-in-law claiming share in the property of his
mother-in-law.
3. The trial Court placing reliance on Section 15
(2) (a) of Hindu Succession Act (herein after referred as
'the Act' for short), has come to the conclusion that the
property of mother-in-law of plaintiff would devolve upon
her two surviving children as the heirs of her husband.
Since, the plaintiff, who is the son-in-law is not an heir
recognized under Section 15(2)(a) of the Act, has
dismissed the suit. The first appellate Court did not find
any reason to interfere with the said judgment.
4. The only question i.e., required to be
considered is whether Section 15 (2) (a) of the Act applies
to the case or not? Section 15 (2) (a) of the Act is
extracted as under;
To notwithstanding anything contend in sub
Section (1)
(a) Any property inherited by a female Hindu
from her father or mother shall devolve in the
absence of any son or daughter of the
deceased (including the children of any pre-
deceased son or daughter) not upon the other
heirs referred to in sub Section (1) in the order
prescribed therein, but upon the heirs of the
father; and .....
5. In the instant case there is no dispute that
plaintiff has no issues from his wife. There is no dispute
that the plaintiff is claiming a right in respect of property
which originally belonged to his wife's mother and the
father. Thus Section 15 (2) (a) of the Act applies to the
fact situation.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant would
contend that the appellant being the son-in-law was taking
care and managing the property of mother-in-law and as
such he is entitled to a share. This contention cannot be
accepted for the simple that the right in property of
mother-in-law of the plaintiff devolves upon the heirs
specified in Section 15(2) (a) of the Act. Said Section
clearly stipulates that in situations contemplated under
Section 15(2)(a), the property would devolve upon the
heirs of the father. Son-in-law is not recognized as the heir
in respect of properties referred in Section 15(2)(a). This
bar applies to the plaintiff even in respect of property held
by the mother-in-law as well as the wife of the plaintiff.
The favour done by the son-in-law managing the property
of mother-in-law does not confer any right, over the
property.
7. There is no merit in the appeal and no
substantial question of law would arise for consideration
and the appeal is dismissed accordingly.
8. In view of dismissal of the main appeal,
pending applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and accordingly, they are disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE
am
