Karnataka High Court
Sri Murugendrappa vs Smt Puttamma on 4 March, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.21623 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MURUGENDRAPPA
S/O LATE MARIYAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT RANGANATHASWAMY ROAD,
ANANDAPURAM VILLAGE,
ANANDAPURAM HOBLI,
SAGAR TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 412.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MAHESH B.J, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. PUTTAMMA
W/O LATE SUBBANNA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT ASHOKA ROAD,
ANANDAPURAM HOBLI,
SAGAR TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 412.
2. SMT. KOMALA
W/O LATE BELANDUR D. SHANKARAPPA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT RANGANATHA BEEDI,
ANANDAPURAM HOBLI,
SAGAR TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 412.
2
3. MISS. RANJITHA
D/O LATE BELANDUR D. SHANKARAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT RANGANATHA BEEDI,
ANANDAPURAM HOBLI,
SAGAR TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 412.
4. MR. AJEETH
S/O LATE BELANDUR D. SHANKARAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT RANGANATHA BEEDI,
ANANDAPURAM HOBLI,
SAGAR TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 412.
5. MISS. BINDU
D/O LATE BELANDUR D. SHANKARAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT RANGANATHA BEEDI,
ANANDAPURAM HOBLI,
SAGAR TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 412.
6. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA @ SHASHIKALA
W/O SHANTHAVEERAPPA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT OPP. STATE BANK OF MYSORE,
SAGAR TOWN,
SAGAR TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 401.
....RESPONDENTS
3
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 04TH OCTOBER, 2021 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DIVISION) AND JMFC, SAGARA IN FINAL
DECREE PROCEEDINGS NO.3 OF 2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; AND
ETC
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by respondent No.2 in Final
Decree Proceedings No.3 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Civil
Judge (Jr. Division) and JMFC, Sagar, Shivamogga District
challenging the order dated 04th October, 2021.
2. The brief facts for adjudication of this writ petition are
that the respondent No.1-Puttamma has filed Final Decree
Proceedings No.3 of 2013 under Order XX Rule 18 read with
Section 54 of the Civil Procedure Code to draw final decree for
partition of one-twelfth share each in all the suit schedule
properties as per the judgment and decree passed in Original
Suit No.121 of 2000. In the said Final Decree Proceedings,
respondent No.1 herein has filed application under Section 151
read with Section 152 and Order XX Rule 18 of the Civil
Procedure Code, seeking amendment of preliminary decree to
get her share enlarged in view of the law declared by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of VINEETA SHARMA vs. RAKESH
SHARMA reported in AIR 2020 SC 3717. The said application
was opposed by the respondents therein including the petitioner
herein by filing the statement of objections. The trial Court,
after considering the material on record, allowed the said
application, consequently, the share of the respondent No.1
herein got enlarged to an extent of one-fourth share in view of
the law declared by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of VINEETA
SHARMA (supra). The said order dated 04th October, 2021 is
impugned in this writ petition.
3. I have heard Sri. Mahesh. B.J., learned counsel
appearing for petitioner, who contends that the petitioner has
filed Final Decree Proceeding No. 1 of 2010 (Annexure-C) before
the trial Court and the said petition came to be dismissed and
respondent No.1 herein has sought for one-twelfth share in the
said Final Decree proceedings. However, thereafter filed another
Final Decree proceedings No.3 of 2013 seeking one-fourth share
in terms of the law declared by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
VINEETA SHARMA (supra). Therefore, Sri. Mahesh B.J.,
learned counsel appearing for petitioner contended that the
order dated 19th January, 2013 made by the trial Court in Final
Decree Proceedings No.1 of 2010 cannot be brushed aside by
the trial Court in Final Decree proceedings No.3 of 2013 by
applying the principle of res-judicata. Accordingly, he sought for
interference of this Court in writ petition.
4. However, taking into consideration the arguments
advanced by learned counsel appearing for petitioner, it is not in
dispute that the trial Court in Original Suit No.121 of 2000 by its
judgment and decree dated 17th April, 2002, decreed the suit by
holding that the petitioner is entitled for the share in the suit
schedule property. However, the said judgment and decree was
ought to be executed by way of Final Decree Proceedings under
Order XX Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Code in Final Decree
Proceedings No.1 of 2010.
5. Perusal of the writ papers would indicate that the trial
Court by order dated 19th January, 2013 dismissed the Final
Decree Proceedings holding that the respondent No.1 herein
(petitioner in FDP No.1 of 2010) has not produced the material
to show that she was born after 1956. However, in the
meanwhile, respondent No.1 has filed Final Decree Proceedings
No.3 of 2013 on the file of the trial Court and sought to claim of
one-fourth share in terms of the law declared by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of VINEETA SHARMA (supra). The
trial Court, after considering the material on record by its order
dated 04th October, 2021 held that the respondent No.1 herein is
entitled for an extent of one-fourth share in the suit schedule
property. Accordingly, share of the respondent No.1 got
enlarged. Looking into the finding recorded by the trial Court, I
am of the view that in view of the amendment made to Section 6
of the Hindu Succession Act, the daughter, by birth, become a
coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son and
same has been fortified by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
VINEETA SHARMA (supra). In that view of the matter, I am
of the view that the finding recorded by the trial Court enlarging
the share to respondent No.1 in an extent of one-fourth share is
just and proper which does not call for any interference in this
writ petition. However, insofar as the arguments advanced by
the learned counsel for petitioner with regard to the application
of principle of res-judicata is concerned, though the trial Court
has passed the preliminary decree, however, till the Final Decree
Proceedings in No.3 of 2013, the share of the parties to the suit
was not crystalised. In that view of the matter, I do not find any
material in the submission made by learned counsel for
petitioner. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed confirming the
impugned order passed by the trial Court in Final Decree
Proceedings No.3 of 2013.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ARK
