Karnataka High Court
Shankrappa vs Smt. Mallavva on 15 June, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indireshpresided Byesij
-1-
RSA No. 100150 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100150 OF 2021 (DEC-)
BETWEEN:
1. SHANKRAPPA S/O. SHIDDALINGAPPA HOSARITTI,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC. BARBER,
R/O. BASAVANAGUDI NAGAR,
RANEBENNUR, TQ. RANEBENNUR,
DIST. HAVERI-581115
2. SMT. SHAMBAKKA W/O. MOHAN HADAPAD
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BASAVANAGUDI NAGAR,
RANEBENNUR, TQ. RANEBENNUR,
DIST. HAVERI-581115
3. SMT. GEETAMMA W/O. ASHOK HADAPAD
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BASAVANAGUDI NAGAR,
RANEBENNUR, TQ. RANEBENNUR,
DIST. HAVERI-581115
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S N BANAKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. MALLAVVA W/O. SHIVANANDAPPA CHAVVANNAVAR,
AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. MALAMADDI,
DHARWAD-580007
2. MAHANTESH S/O. SHIVANANDAPPA CHAVVANNAVAR,
AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O. MALAMADDI,
DHARWAD-580007
3. DHARMARAJ S/O. SHANMUKAPPA HOSARITTI
AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC: BARBER,
-2-
RSA No. 100150 of 2021
R/O. DODDAPETI, NEAR BASAVANAGUDI NAGAR,
RANEBENNUR, TQ. RANEBENNUR,
DIST. HAVERI-581115
4. RAGHAVENDRA S/O. SHANMUKAPPA HOSARITTI
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC. BARBER,
R/O. DODDAPETI, NEAR BASAVANAGUDI NAGAR,
RANEBENNUR, TQ. RANEBENNUR,
DIST. HAVERI-581115
5. PRAKASH S/O. SHIVAPPA HOSARITTI
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC. BARBER,
R/O: DODDAPETI, NEAR BASAVANAGUDI NAGAR,
RANEBENNUR, TQ. RANEBENNUR,
DIST. HAVERI-581115
6. GANESH S/O. SHANMUKAPPA HOSARITTI
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC. BARBER,
R/O. DODDAPETI, NEAR BASAVANAGUDI NAGAR,
RANEBENNUR, TQ. RANEBENNUR,
DIST. HAVERI-581115
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. SAGAR S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DTD 12.10.2020 PASSED IN R.A.NO.45/2016 ON THE FILE
OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI,
SITTING AT RANEBENNUR, PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL AND
MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD 19.02.2016 PASSED IN
O.S. NO.13/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
RANEBENNUR, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR
DECLARATION.
JUDGMENT
challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 12.10.2020 in
R.A.No.45/2016 on the file of the II Addl. Dist and
Sessions Judge, Haveri, (sitting at Ranebennur), allowing
RSA No. 100150 of 2021
the appeal in part, modifying the shares of the parties and
as such, declared and held that, the Judgment and Decree
dated 19.02.2016 in O.S.No.13/2008 on the file of the
Principle Civil Judge, Ranebennur, is confirmed.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties to this
Regular Second Appeal are referred to as per their ranking
before the trial Court.
3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the plaintiff
No.1 is the legally wedded wife of late Siddalingappa, who
died leaving behind the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2. It is further
stated in the plaint that, the said Siddalingappa died on
29.03.2003 leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendant
No.1 to 3, wherein, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the
children of the first wife (Smt. Girijavva) of the
Siddalingappa. The said Girijavva died on 19.02.1997 and
accordingly, it is the case of the plaintiffs that, the
plaintiffs are entitle for the share in the suit schedule
property.
RSA No. 100150 of 2021
4. On service of notice, the defendants entered
appearance and filed detailed written statement denying
the averments of the plaint.
5. It is the specific case of the defendants that,
the first plaintiff is not the wife of the said Siddalingappa
and further stated that, the plaintiffs have no share in the
suit schedule property in terms of the decree passed in
O.S.No.13/2008 and accordingly sought for dismissal of
the suit. After answering the pleadings on record, the trial
Court formulated the issue for its consideration.
6. In order to establish their case, the plaintiffs
have examined two witnesses as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and got
marked 14 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14. Defendants
have examined 03 witnesses as D.W.1 to D.W.3 and
produced 45 documents and the same were marked as
Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.45. The trial court after considering the
material on record, by judgment and decree dated
19.02.2016, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs holding that,
RSA No. 100150 of 2021
the plaintiff No.1 is the legally wedded wife and second
plaintiff is the son of the late Siddalingappa and plaintiff
Nos.1 and 2 are entitle for 12/20th share in the suit
schedule property. Feeling aggrieved by the same,
defendant Nos.1 to 3 preferred R.A.No.45/2016 on the file
of the First Appellate Court and the same was resisted by
the plaintiffs.
7. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciating
the material on record, by its Judgment and decree dated
12.10.2020, partly allowed the appeal by modifying the
shares of the plaintiffs. Feeling aggrieved by the same,
defendant Nos.1 to 3 have presented this appeal.
8. I have heard Sri. S.N.Banakar, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants and Sri. Sagar S. Hegde,
learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.1.
9. Sri. S.N.Banakar, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants contended that, both the Courts below have
not properly appreciated the material on record,
particularly the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.136/2002.
RSA No. 100150 of 2021
He further contended that, the said Siddalingappa died on
29.04.2003 and the suit was filed on 28.03.2008 and
therefore, the trial Court ought to have dismissed the suit
on the ground of limitation. He further submitted that,
both the Courts below have not properly appreciated the
documents made available by defendant No.1 to 3,
particularly with regard to Ex.D.9, Ex.D.11 and Ex.D.16
and accordingly, he submitted that, in view of considering
the material on record, both the Courts have erred in
declaring the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 as the legal heirs of
late Siddalingappa. Accordingly, he sought for interference
of this court.
10. Per contra, Sri. Sagar S. Hegde, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent invited the attention
of this Court to Ex.P.9, P.12 and P.13 and argued that Sri.
Siddalingappa himself has accepted the plaintiff No.1 as
the wife and in this regard, documentary evidence has
been produced by the plaintiffs to establish their rights
and the relationship with the said Siddalingappa and both
RSA No. 100150 of 2021
the Courts have rightly decreed the suit and therefore, Sri.
Sagar S. Hegde, contended that in view of the concurrent
findings recorded by both the Courts below on facts, no
interference is called for in this appeal under Section 100
of Code of Civil Procedure.
11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and on perusal of the findings recorded by both
the Courts below, the relationship between the parties
which would indicate that the said Siddalingappa had two
wives namely Smt. Girijavva and Smt. Mallavva.
Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the children of Sri. Siddalingappa
through his first wife Smt. Girijavva and plaintiff No.1 is
the second wife of the Siddalingappa and plaintiff No.2 is
the son of Siddalingappa through his second wife Smt.
Mallavva. In order to establish their case, the plaintiffs
have produced Ex.P.9-Sale Deed executed by the first
plaintiff as a wife of late Siddalingappa who has been
arraigned as the second purchaser in the registered Sale
Deed dated 12.10.2002. I have also seen Ex.P.12-
RSA No. 100150 of 2021
Registered Will executed by late Sri. Siddalingappa in
favour of the plaintiff No.2 dated 11.06.2002 acknowledge
that, the plaintiff No.1 is the wife, and plaintiff No.2 is the
son through plaintiff No.1. In this regard, I have also
noticed that Ex.P.13, wherein, the evidence of Sri.
Shanmukappa in P & SC No.1/2004 stating about the
relationship between the late Siddalingappa and the
plaintiff and therefore, I am of the opinion that, the trial
Court by taking into consideration the entire material on
record and on appreciation of evidence, has rightly come
to the conclusion that the first plaintiff is the legally
wedded wife of late Siddalingappa.
12. That apart, the genesis of the case is that, the
Defendant Nos.1 to 3 have filed, P & SC No.1/2004 before
the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & Principal JMFC Court,
Ranebennur, under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act
to get Succession Certificate to get the benefit on behalf of
the deceased Siddalingappa and the said proceedings
came to be allowed on 25.09.2006. During the evidence in
RSA No. 100150 of 2021
P & SC No.1/2004, relationship between the said
Siddalingappa with the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 was
established and in that view of the matter, I am of the
view that, the Judgment referred to by the learned counsel
appearing fort the appellant is not applicable to the factual
aspects of the case. In that view of the matter, as the
appellant herein has not made out a case for framing of
the substantial question of law as required under Section
100 of Code of Civil Procedure and taking into account the
entire material on record, oral and documentary evidence,
particularly the documents i.e. Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.12, I am of
the view that, the plaintiffs have proved that the plaintiff
No.1 is the wife of the said Siddalingappa and therefore, I
do not find any material illegality in the impugned
Judgment and Decree passed by the Courts below,
accordingly, the appeal fails.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SVH
