Karnataka High Court
Sri Channa Reddy vs Smt Ramakka @ Ramalakshmamma on 8 March, 2022
Bench: R. Nataraj
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
R.S.A. NO.452 OF 2018 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SRI. CHANNA REDDY
S/O LATE NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
RESIDING AT ETAGADDAPALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA TALUK,
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-561 207
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAVEEN J.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. RAMAKKA @ RAMALAKSHMAMMA
D/O LATE NAGAPPA,
W/O KUPPI REDDY,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
a. SRI. KUPPA REDDY,
S/O CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
b. SRI.NARASIMHA REDDY
S/O KUPPA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
c. SRI.RAJAREDDY
S/O KUPPA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
d. SRI. ADINARAYANAREDDY
DEAD BY LRS.
2
d(a) SMT.SRIDEVI
W/O LATE ADINARAYANA REDDY,
AGED ABOAUT 33 YEARS,
d(b) SRI. KRUTHIK REDDY
S/O LATE ADINARANAYA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS
MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL
GUARDIAN/MOTHER - SMT. SRIDEVI
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
BUDALI ERAHALLI VILLAGE,
BUDALI POST, GORANTLA MANDAL,
HINDUPUR TALUK,
ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, A.P.-515001.
e. SMT.ARUNAMMA
D/O KUPPA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
LRs of RESPONDENTS NO.1(a) TO (e) ARE
AGRICULTURIST AND ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
LALEPALLI VILLAGE, CHILAMATHUR MANDAL,
HINDUPUR TALUK, ANANTHPUR DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH-515001.
2. SMT. ADEMMA
W/O NAGAPPA,
DEAD BY LRS,
THE LRS OF RESPONDENT NO.2 ARE THE APPELLANT,
RESPONDENT NO.1(a), (b), (c), (d)(a), (d)(b), (e),
RESPONDENT NO.3, 5, 6, 7, 8 AND 9 ARE THE
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF RESPONDENT NO.2
ALREADY ON RECORD.
3. SMT.SANJEEVAMMA
D/O NAGAPPA,
W/O CHINNAPPA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
R/AT LALEPALLI VILLAGE,
CHILAMATHUR MANDAL,
HINDUPUR TALUK,
ANANTHPUR DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH-515001.
3
4. SRI. SATHYANARAYANA REDDY
S/O NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT LAGUMADDEPALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK,
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-560207.
5. SMT. SUNITHA
D/O SATHYANARAYANA REDDY,
W/O RAMACHANDRA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT KADEHALLI VILLAGE,
GUDIBANDE TALUK,
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-560207.
6. SMT.SUJATHA
D/O SATHYANARAYANA REDDY,
W/O SRIRAMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT CHINNAPPAREDDIPALLI VILLAGE,
CHILAMATHUR MANDAL,
HINDUPUR TALUK,
ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, A.P.-515001.
7. SMT.ANITHA
W/O SRINATH,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT HOSAHUDYA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK,
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-560207.
8. SRI.NARAYANA REDDY @ CHINNAPPAIAH
S/O LATE NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
9. SRI.ADINARAYANA REDDY,
S/O LATE NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 8 AND 9 ARE RESIDING AT
YETIGADDAPALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK,
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-560207.
...RESPONDENTS
4
THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 16.12.2017 PASSED IN RA.NO.117/2010 ON
THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND CJM,
CHICKBALLAPUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.7.2010 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.78/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
BAGEPALLI.
THIS R.S.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the defendant
No.1 in O.S. No.78/2008 challenging the judgment and
decree dated 12.07.2010 passed by the Civil Judge and
JMFC, Bagepalli (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court')
which was confirmed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and
CJM, Chickballapur (henceforth referred to as 'First
Appellate Court') in R.A. No.117/2010. Both the Courts
held that the plaintiff was entitled to an undivided 1/24th
share in the suit schedule properties.
2. The parties shall henceforth be referred as
they were arrayed before the Trial Court. The appellant
herein was the defendant No.1, while the respondent No.1
was the plaintiff and the other respondents were the other
defendants in the suit.
3. The suit in O.S. No.78/2008 was filed for
partition and separate possession of the suit properties
which were purportedly joint family ancestral properties
owned and possessed by the father of plaintiff and
defendants No.1 to 3 and 5. It was claimed that the said
properties were acquired by the father of the plaintiff at a
partition between him and his brother on 23.09.1952. The
plaintiff claimed that the defendants denied her share in
the suit property and were acting detrimental to her
interest. Therefore, she sought for partition and separate
possession of her share.
4. The defendants No.1 to 3 and 5 to 9 contested
the suit. They admitted that the suit properties belonged
to their father Nagappa. They, however, contended that a
suit in O.S. No.123/1998 was filed for partition and
separate possession by defendants No.1 to 3 and that the
said suit ended in a compromise on 11.04.2001.
Therefore, they claimed that the plaintiff cannot claim a
share in the suit property as a co-parcener since such a
right arose only after the Amendment Act of 2005, which
was, however, subject to the condition that this property
should not be subject to any partition or alienation before
20.12.2004. They also contended that certain other
parties were not added in the suit, and therefore, the suit
was not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties.
5. Based on the above, the Trial Court framed the
following issues :
1. Whether the description of the property given
by the plaintiff is true and correct?
2. Whether plaintiff proves that, the suit
schedule properties are joint family properties
of herself and defendants?
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-
joinder of necessary parties?
4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-
joinder of all the joint family properties?
5. Whether plaintiff is entitled for 1/6th share of
partition and separate possession as sought
for? If not, how much and in what properties?
6. What order or decree?
Additional Issue
1. Whether the defendants prove that, there was
a partition on 11.4.2001 as contended in para
No.14 of the written statement?
6. The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and she
marked documents as Exs.P-1 to P-10. The defendant
No.1 was examined as D.W.2 and he marked documents
as Exs.D-1 to D-9.
7. The Trial Court after considering the oral and
documentary evidence held that the decree passed in O.S.
No.123/1998 had not attained finality. Even otherwise it
held that the plaintiff as a female heir was entitled to a
notional share that may be allotted to her father. The Trial
Court, therefore, held that the defendants No.1 to 3 and
their father were entitled to 1/4th share in the suit schedule
properties and allotted 1/24th share to the plaintiff and
other defendants including the other sisters of the plaintiff.
8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and
decree, the defendants No.1 to 3 filed R.A. No.117/2010.
The First Appellate Court considered the claim of the
plaintiff and defendants and in view of the settled position
of law, held that the plaintiff was entitled to a notional
share out of the share of her father which was aptly done
by the Trial Court and hence, dismissed the appeal.
9. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and
decree, only the defendant No.1 has filed this Regular
Second Appeal.
10. The learned counsel for defendant No.1
submitted that since the suit properties were already
subject to partition in O.S. No.123/1998, in view of the
proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Amendment
Act, 2005, a suit for partition was not maintainable.
11. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff herein was
not a party to O.S. No.123/1998. It is also not in dispute
that the suit properties were ancestral in nature. The
relationship between the parties is also not in dispute. If
that be so, the plaintiff as a female heir along with her
sisters were entitled to notional share in the share of their
father, namely, Nagappa. The Trial Court and the First
Appellate Court have rightly applied the position of law and
appreciated the facts and also that the plaintiff is entitled
to an undivided 1/24th share in the suit schedule
properties. The finding recorded is in line with the law laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of Anar Devi and
Others vs. Parmeshwari Devi and Others reported in
(2006)8 SCC 656.
12. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in
this appeal and the same is dismissed.
Pending I.A., if any, does not survive for
consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE
hnm
