Karnataka High Court
Smt Gowramma vs Smt Mangalamma 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. 1048/2008 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. GOWRAMMA,
W/O. LATE SIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
(APPELLANT NO.1, SINCE DECEASED,
REPRESENTED BY HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES)
a) SRI. MUNIYAPPA
b) SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
c) SMT. MANGALAMMA.
2. SRI. MUNIYAPPA,
S/O. LATE SIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
LAKKENAHALLI VILLAGE,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE.
3. SMT. LAKSHAMMA,
W/O. GOVINDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RESIDING AT K.G. SRINIVASAPURA,
DODDABALLAPURA ROAD,
KASABA HOBLI,
2
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
BANGALORE.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MURALI B.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. MANGALAMMA,
W/O. HANUMANTHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDING AT LAKKENNAHALLI VILLAGE,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE.
... RESPONDENT
(SRI. P.M. SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.01.2008
PASSED IN R.A. NO.38/07 ON THE FILE OF THE I/C P.O. FTC-
III/PRINCIIPAL DISTRICT AND JUDGE, BANGALORE (R)
DISTRICT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED
07.12.2006 PASSED IN OS 1566/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.), BANGALORE RURAL
DISTRICT, BANGALORE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
1. This second appeal is by the defendants.
2. Mangalamma had instituted a suit against her
mother Gowramma, her brother Muniyappa and her
sister Lakshamma contending that the suit properties
were joint family properties and she had a share in the
said properties.
3. The said suit was contested by the defendants and
it was stated that the suit properties belonged to
defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the plaintiff had no right or
interest in the suit properties. The Trial Court after
recording the evidence, came to the conclusion that the
plaintiff had proved that the said properties were joint
family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants and
as a consequence, the plaintiff would be entitled to 1/4th
share.
4. Being aggrieved, the defendants preferred an
appeal.
5. The appellate Court on re-appreciation of the
evidence concurred with the findings of the trial Court
and dismissed the appeal.
6. This appeal was admitted to consider the following
substantial question of law.
"Whether the application of amended
Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as
amended by Act No.39/2005 would apply
prospectively or retrospectively?"
7. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court rendered in Vineeta Sharma's case, it will have to
be held that the daughters would also be entitled to an
equal share as a co-parcener and they have acquired this
right by birth. Consequently, the decree granted by the
Trial Court in favour of the daughter cannot be said to be
in any way improper or incorrect. Consequently, the
substantial question of law is answered in favour of the
respondent - plaintiff and the second appeal is
dismissed.
8. During the pendency of the appeal, the mother of
the plaintiff and the defendant i.e., defendant No.1 has
passed away and her share would therefore devolve on
all her legal heirs.
9. However, defendant No.2 contends that defendant
No.1 had executed a will under which, defendant No.1
had been granted the share of his mother. It is to be
stated that the question as to whether defendant No.1 is
entitled to the share of her mother or not is a question
which will have to be considered in the final decree
proceedings.
10. Subject to the above, the second appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VBS
