Karnataka High Court
Sangappa S/O. Ishwarappa Angadi vs Drakshayani W/O. Nagaraj ... on 4 January, 2022
Bench: Sachin Shankar Magadum
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
RSA NO.5766/2013 (PAR)
C/W RSA NO.6309/2012
IN RSA NO.5766/2013
BETWEEN
AKKAVVA W/O. SANGAPPA ANGADI
AGE: 28 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. MEVUNDI, TQ: MUNDARGI
DIST: GADAG 591 116
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.AVINASH BANAKAR, ADV.)
AND
1. SANGAPPA S/O. ISHWARAPPA ANGADI
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. MEVUNDI, TQ: MUDARGI
DIST: GADAG 591 116
2. DRAKSHAYANI W/O. NAGARAJ KORLAHALLI
AGE: 27 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. HALLIKERI, TQ: MUNDARGI
DIST: GADAG 591 116
3. SHARAWWA W/O. GURANAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 31 YEARS,
2
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. MEVUNDI, TQ: MUNDARGI
DIST: GADAG 591 116
4. BASAWWA @ BASAMMA W/O. BASAVARAJ HANCHINALI
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. KOPPAL TQ: and DIST: KOPPAL 561 091
5. BASAVARAJ S/O. NAGAPPA SASI
AGE: 25 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. MEVUNDI, TQ:MUNDARGI and DIST: GADAG 591 116
6. NIRAMALA D/O. NAGAPPA SASI
AGE: 25 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. MEVUNDI, TQ:MUNDARGI and DIST: GADAG 591 116
7. SHAILA D/O. NAGAPPA SASI
AGE: 23 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. MEVUNDI, TQ:MUNDARGI and DIST: GADAG 591 116
8. VIDYA D/O. NAGAPPA SASI
AGE: 21 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. MEVUNDI, TQ:MUNDARGI and DIST: GADAG 591 116
9. ISHWARAPPA S/O. RACHAPPA ANGADI
AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. MEVUNDI, TQ:MUNDARGI and DIST: GADAG 591 116
10 . IRAWWA W/O. ISHWARAPPA ANGADI
AGE: 71 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. MEVUNDI, TQ:MUNDARGI and DIST: GADAG 591 116
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SRIKANT T.PATIL, ADV. FOR R2-R8,
R1 & R9 SERVED REMAIN UNREPRESENTED,
APPAL STANDS ABATED AS AGAINST R10)
3
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC SEEKING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.09.2012
PASSED Y THE COURT OF FAST TRACK JUDGE, GADAG IN
R.A.NO.60/2011 IN CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 02.04.2011 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
& CJM, GADAG IN O.S.NO.35/2010 AND DISMISS THE SUIT OF THE
PLAINITFF'S AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE LOWER
APPELLATE COURT WITH A DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THE CROSS-
OBJECTION FILED BY THE APPELLANT.
IN RSA NO.6309/2012
BETWEEN
1. SRI. SANGAPPA S/O. ISHWARAPPA ANGADI
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. MEVUNDI, TQ: MUNDARGI DIST: DIST: GADAG
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.MAHANTA GOUDA, ADV.)
AND
1. SMT.DRAKSHAYANI W/O. NAGARAJ KORLAHALLI
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. HALLIKERI, TQ: MUNDARGI DIST: GADAG
2. SMT.SHARAWWA W/O. GURUNGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. MEVUNDI, TQ: MUNDARGI, DIST: GADAG
3. SMT.BASAWWA W/O. BASAVARAJ HANCHINALLI
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. KOPPAL
4. SRI.BASAVARAJ S/O. NAGAPPA SASI
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. MEVUNDI, TQ: MUNDARGI DIST: GADAG
4
5. SMT.NIRMALA D/O. NAGAPPA SASI
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. MEVUNDI, TQ: MUNDARGI DIST: GADAG
6. SMT.SHAILA D/O NAGAPPA SASI,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. MEVUNDI, TQ: MUNDARGI DIST: GADAG
7. SMT.VIDYA D/O NAGAPPA SASI,
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. MEVUNDI, TQ: MUNDARGI DIST: GADAG
8. SMT.AKKAWWA W/O. SANGAPPA ANGADI
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. MEVUNDI, TQ: MUNDARGI DIST: GADAG
9. SRI.ESHWARAPPA S/O. RACHAPPA ANGADI
AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. MEVUNDI, TQ: MUNDARGI DIST: GADAG
10 . IRAWWA W/O. ISHWARAPPA ANGADI
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. MEVUNDI, TQ: MUNDARGI DIST: GADAG
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SRIKANT T.PATIL, ADV. FOR R1-R7,
SRI.PRASHANT HOSAMANI, ADV. FOR R8-R10)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC SEEKING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.09.2012
PASSED BY THE COURT OF FAST TRACK JUDGE, GADAG IN
R.A.NO.60/2011 AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
02.04.2011 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM,
GADAG IN O.S.NO.35/2010 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SUIT.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
5
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeals are filed by defendant
Nos.1 and 2 challenging the concurrent finding of the
courts below in a partition suit.
2. Respondent Nos.2 to 8/plaintiffs filed a suit for
partition and separate possession against the present
appellants in O.S.No.35/2010. The respondents/plaintiffs
specifically contended that the suit schedule properties are
the joint family ancestral properties and they are entitled
for their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties.
The cause of action for filing of the present suit was on
account highhandedness of defendant No.1 who with an
ulterior motive transferred Sy.No.198 measuring 13.04
acres in favour of defendant No.1/wife by way of mutation.
The grievance of the respondents/plaintiffs is that
defendant No.1 has no exclusive right, as the suit schedule
properties are joint family ancestral properties and the
plaintiffs mother Kotramma being the daughter of the
propositus Rachappa had legitimate share in the suit
schedule properties.
3. The suit is contested by the present appellants
herein. The trial court on appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence held that the suit schedule
properties are the joint family ancestral properties and
there is no partition by metes and bounds. The contention
of defendant No.1 that on account of matrimonial dispute
which was amicably settled and Sy.No.306/2/2 totally
measuring 8 acres and house bearing VPC No.119 was
allotted to defendant No.2 towards her maintenance and
therefore, the suit properties are not available for partition
was negatived by the trial court. The trial court decreed the
suit by granting 1/6th share jointly to plaintiff Nos.3 to 7
who represents Kotramma, i.e., daughter of propositus
Rachappa.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the present appellant in RSA
No.6309/2009 preferred an appeal in R.A.No.60/2011. It is
stated by the counsel appearing for defendant No.2 that
she also filed a cross appeal. The appellate Court on re-
appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record
has come to conclusion that the alleged mutation indicating
that there was a partition in 1996 does not bind the
legitimate share of the plaintiffs. The Appellate Court
affirming the conclusions arrived by the Trial Court was of
the view that the judgment and decree of the Trial Court is
in accordance with law and does not require interference.
5. Heard the learned counsel for appellant and
learned counsel appearing for respondent. Perused the
judgment under challenge.
6. The appellant in RSA No.6309/2012 was arrayed
as defendant No.1. Though defendant No.1 has set up a
prior partition, both the Courts have negatived and have
not acceded to the said contention. The material on record
clearly indicates that the suit schedule properties are joint
family ancestral properties. Therefore, defendant No.1
being a male member of the family and also son of
Eshwarappa has no exclusive right over the suit schedule
properties and therefore he could not have transferred
survey No.306/2/2 by way of mutation in favour of his wife
i.e. defendant No.2. The said mutation would not create
any right or title in favour of defendant No.2. If defendant
No.2 has any grievance against her husband i.e. defendant
No.1, it was always open for her to initiate appropriate
proceedings either to claim maintenance or to seek
appropriate relief. Only by way of mutation, no right is
created in favour defendant No.2. Both the Courts below
have concurrently held that the suit schedule properties
are joint family ancestral properties and there is no
severance in the family. The Trial Court has granted equal
share to the daughters. The quantification done by the Trial
Court is in consonance with the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs.
Rakesh Sharma and others reported in ILR 2020 KAR
4370. On examination of the judgment under challenge, I
do not find any substantial question of law involved in the
present case and both the appeals are devoid of merits and
are dismissed accordingly.
7. In view of disposal of the appeals, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MBS/YAN/-
