Karnataka High Court
Smt Bhagyamma vs Smt Akkemma on 18 January, 2022
Bench: N S Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
R.S.A.No.453/2021(PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. BHAGYAMMA,
W/O LATE B.K.MADAVARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
2. PRAMEELA,
D/O LATE B.K.MADAVARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
3. KANTHAMMA,
D/O LATE B.K.MADAVARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
4. KANTHA KUMAR,
S/O LATE B.K.MADAVARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
5. MANJUNATHA,
S/O LATE B.K.MADAVARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
BEECHAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
VEMAGAL HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 128.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH.B.R., ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. SMT. AKKEMMA,
D/O LATE KALAPPA,
W/O NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
BHEEMAPURA VILLAGE,
NANDAGUDI HOBLI,
HOSKOTE TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562 122.
2. SMT. PILLAMMA @ PILLA BASAMMA,
D/O LATE KALAPPA,
W/O CHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 6O YEARS,
MASTENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KAIWARA HOBLI,
CHINTAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT -563 128.
3. RATHNAMMA,
D/O LATE KALAPPA,
W/O DEVARAJA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/O M.HOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
NANDAGUDI HOBLI,
HOSAKOTE TALUK - 562 129.
4. RAMAPPA,
S/O MUNISHAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
5. VENKATESHA REDDY,
S/O RAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
6. LAKSHMIDEVI,
W/O NARAYANASWAMY,
D/O BASAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
3
7. SRINIVASA,
S/O RAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
8. GOVINDA REDDY,
S/O RAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
9. NARAYANASWAMY,
S/O RAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
10. LAKSHMAMMA,
W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA,
D/O LATE VENKATARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R-4 TO R-10 ARE RESIDING OF
NAYANDRAHALLI VILLAGE,
KAIWARA HOBLI,
CHINTHAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 563 128.
11. CHANDRAPPA,
S/O VENKATARYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/O BEECHAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
VEMAGAL HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK - 563 128.
12. GOWRAMMA,
W/O VENKATESHAPPA,
D/O LATE VENKATARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/O ANGATATTI VILLAGE,
VIJAYAPURA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 135.
13. NARAYANAMMA,
W/O THANNA,
W/O LATE VENKATARAYAPPA,
4
R/O PERJENAHALLY VILLAGE,
VEMGAL HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK - 563 102.
14. LAKSHMINARAYANA,
S/O L.MUNISHAMAPPA,
MAJOR BY AGE,
15. SEENAPPA,
S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA,
MAJOR BY AGE,
16. GERIGE REDDY,
S/O L. MUNISHAMAPPA,
MAJOR BY AGE
R-14 TO R-16 ARE RESIDENTS OF
MASTERNAHALLI VILLAGE,
KAIWARA HOBLI,
CHINTAMANI TALUK - 563 128.
17. SARASWATHI,
D/O MUNISHAMAPPA,
W/O VENKATESHAPPA,
MAJOR BY AGE,
R/O SETTAHALLI VILLAGE,
DIBBURAHALLI HOBLI,
SIDLAGATTA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 105.
18. PILLAMMA,
D/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA,
W/O MUNISHAMAPPA,
MAJOR BY AGE,
R/O BOMMEKALLU VILLAGE,
KAIWARA HOBLI,
CHINTHAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 563 128.
19. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA,
D/O LATE THIPPAMMA,
5
W/O VENKATASHAMAPPA,
MAJOR BY AGE,
R/O SHETTAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
CHINTHAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 563 125.
PADMA DEAD BY LRs.,
20. CHANDRAPPA @
VENKATESHAPPA,
H/O LATE PADMA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
21. MANOJ,
S/O CHANDRAPPA @
VENKATESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
22. SUNIL, S/O CHANDRAPPA @
VENKATESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
R-20 TO R-22 ARE RESIDENTS OF
KONGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KAIWARA HOBLI,
CHINTAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 563 128.
... RESPONDENTS
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.10.2020
PASSED IN R.A. No.161/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 31.10.2015 PASSED IN O.S.
No.375/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, KOLAR.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
6
JUDGMENT
1. Akkemma, Pillamma and Rathnamma, the
daughters of Kalappa along with their brother-in-law
Ramappa (husband of their elder sister--
Doddabasamma) instituted a suit for partition against,
Bhagyamma, their sister-in-law (wife of their brother
Madavarayappa), contending that the suit properties
were the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the
husband of defendant No.1, and on the death of
Kalappa, they succeeded to the said properties and that
they were entitled to 1/3rd share.
2. The suit was resisted by the sister-in-law i.e.,
defendant No.1 on the ground that the suit schedule
properties belong to her husband Madavarayappa, and
she had sold some of the properties to discharge the
loans. She stated that the purchasers had not been
made parties and the plaintiffs had, in fact, expressed
willingness to execute release deed and relinquish their
rights and the plaintiffs along with their elder sister--
Doddabasamma had, in fact, received a sum of
Rs.20,000/- and executed a relinquishment deed on
27.10.1996 and in view of the relinquishment, the suit
for partition was liable to be dismissed.
3. The Trial Court on consideration of the evidence
adduced before it, recorded a finding that the suit
schedule properties were the ancestral and joint family
properties of the plaintiffs and the husband of defendant
No.1, and the plaintiffs were entitled to 1/10th share
each in suit schedule item Nos.1 to 3, 5 to 7, 11 and 12.
The Trial Court allotted 6/10th share to the husband of
defendant No.1/Madavarayappa.
4. The decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs was
accepted by them inasmuch as no appeal was preferred.
However, the wife and children of B.K.Madavarayappa
i.e., defendant Nos.1 and 16 to 19, preferred an appeal.
5. The Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the
evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the
findings of the Trial Court that the plaintiffs have proved
that suit schedule item Nos.1 to 3, 5 to 7, 11 to 12 were
proved to be the joint family properties of the plaintiffs,
defendant No.1 and 16 to 19, and the Trial Court was
justified in granting a share to the plaintiffs. The
Appellate Court, however, came to the conclusion that
the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the suit item
Nos.14 to 19 were not the joint family properties. The
Appellate Court accordingly dismissed the appeal.
6. The Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal
also stated that the plaintiffs were at liberty to seek for
modification of their shares allotted to them, in view of
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma and others,
[(2020) 9 SCC 1] ('Vineeta Sharma'), during the
course of final decree proceedings.
7. It is against these concurrent findings, the present
second appeal has been preferred.
8. Both the Courts have recorded a finding of fact that
the suit schedule properties were the coparcenery
properties and the plaintiffs, by virtue of being daughters
of Kalappa, were entitled to a share. The Appellate
Court, in fact, while dismissing the appeal of defendant
Nos.1 and 16 to 19, has also observed that the plaintiffs
would be at liberty to seek for modification of their
shares in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma.
9. In the light of the admitted relationship between
the parties and the fact that the suit schedule item Nos.1
to 3, 5 to 7, 11 to 12 have been found to be joint family
properties, by virtue of the judgment in the case of
Vineeta Sharma, the share of the daughters cannot be
denied. There is thus, absolutely, no question of law
much less a substantial question of law involved in this
second appeal.
10. However, the learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that as pleaded in the written statement, the
plaintiffs had executed a relinquishment deed and the
same has now been produced in this appeal along with
an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908.
11. Admittedly, the relinquishment deed sought to be
produced is an unregistered relinquishment deed.
Having regard to the mandate of Section 49 of the
Indian Registration Act, 1908, the said relinquishment
deed will be of no consequence since it would have no
effect on the immoveable property by virtue of its non-
registration. I am, therefore, of the view that the said
document would not in any way assist this Court in
deciding the lis.
12. As stated above, since both the Courts have
recorded a finding that the suit schedule properties are
the joint family properties and by virtue of the Apex
Court's decision in Vineeta Sharma, the judgment and
decree passed by the Trial Court, as confirmed by the
Appellate Court, cannot be found fault with and the
second appeal is accordingly dismissed.
13. It is made clear that the plaintiffs would be at
liberty to seek for modification of their shares as per the
decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Vineeta Sharma and as observed by the Appellate Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RK
CT:SN
