Karnataka High Court
Padmavva W/O. Shivappa Jadamali vs Basappa S/O. Hanumantappa ... on 3 August, 2023
Bench: Anant Ramanath Byarhj
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8210
RFA No. 4015 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 4015 OF 2012 (PAR-)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. PADMAVVA W/O SHIVAPPA JADAMALI
AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. 6TH CROSS, RAJESHWARI NAGAR,
RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
2. PARAMESHWARAPPA
S/O SHIVAPPA JADAMALI
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. GANESH BAR AND RESTAURANT,
KUMARAPATTANAM, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
3. SURESH S/O SHIVAPPA JADAMALI
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. 6TH CROSS, RAJESHWARI NAGAR,
RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
4. RAVI S/O SHIVAPPA JADAMALI
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
Digitally
signed by
SAROJA
R/O. 6TH CROSS, RAJESHWARI NAGAR,
SAROJA HANGARAKI
HANGARAKI Date:
2023.08.08
RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
16:01:59 -
0700
5. SMT. AKKAMMA
W/O BASAVARAJ KABBUR
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. NANDINI GENERAL STORES,
NANDINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE.
6. SMT. SAVITRI W/O G. VASANTHAKUMAR
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. NO. 700, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
14TH CROSS ROAD, KTJ NAGAR,
DAVANAGAERE.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8210
RFA No. 4015 of 2012
7. KUMARI MANJULA D/O SHIVAPPA JADAMALI
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. 6TH CROSS, RAJESHWAR NAGAR,
RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH L HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. M.H.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BASAPPA S/O HANUMANTAPPA JADAMALI
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. DURGADAVAR ONI,
KOTI, NEAR RAMDEV TEMPLE,
RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
2. LAXMAVVA W/O HANUMANTHAPPA JADAMALI
AGE: 78 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. KANCHAGARAGTTI,
TQ AND DIST: HAVERI.
3. SMT. RENUKA W/O NAGARAJ BANADAVAR
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. KURABAR ONI,
NOW OPP. TO RAM TALKIES,
HOSPET, DIST: BELLARY.
4. SMT. KUSUMA W/O NAGENDRAPPA BARKI
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. KANCHAGARAGATTI,
TQ AND DIST: HAVERI.
5. GANESH S/O RAMAPPA JADAMALI
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O. GANGA NILAYA, 5TH CROSS,
RAJESHWARI NAGAR,
RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
6. SHEKAPPA S/O RAMAPPA JADAMLI
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. MARUTHI NILAYA, 5TH CROSS,
RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8210
RFA No. 4015 of 2012
7. PANDAPPA S/O RAMAPPA JADAMALI
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. MARUTI NILAYA,
5TH CROSS, RAJESHWARI NAGAR,
RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
8. JAYAPPA S/O RAMAPPA JADAMALI
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. GANGA NILAYA, 5TH CROSS,
RAJESHWARI NAGAR,
RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
9. RAVI S/O RAMAPPA JADAMALI
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. GANGA NILAYA, 5TH CROSS,
RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
10. PRAKASH S/O RAMAPPA JADAMALI
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. MARUTHI NILAYA,
5TH CROSS,
RAJESHWARI NAGAR,
RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
11. SMT. PARAVVA W/O LAXMAPPA JADAMLI
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK,
R/O. DURGADAVAR ONI,
OPP TO RAMDEV TEMPLE,
KOTE ONI, RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
12. SMT. RADHAKKA
W/O SHANMUKAPPA KONASALI
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BEHIND DIXIT GAS GODOWN,
BESIDE JUMMA MASJID,
MRUTHUNJAYA NAGAR,
RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
13. NAGARAJ LAXMAPPA JADAMALI
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. DURGADAVAR ONI,
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8210
RFA No. 4015 of 2012
OPP TO RAMDEV TEMPLE,
KOTE ONI, RANEBENNUR.
14. PANDAPPA LAXMAPPA JADAMALI,
AGE: YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. DURGADAVAR ONI,
OPP TO RAMDEV TEMPLE,
KOTE ONI, RANEBENNUR.
15. JAYAPPA LAXMAPPA JADAMALI
AGE: YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. KOTE, RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
16. MANJUNATH LAXMAPPA JADAMALI
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. DURGADAVAR ONI,
OPP TO RAMDEV TEMPLE, KOTE ONI,
RANEBENNUR.
17. SMT. RENUKAVVA PUTTAPPA JALAGAR,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK,
R/O. BEHIND GOVT HOSPITAL,
HALAGERI ROAD, RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
18. KAMALAVVA HANUMANTHAPPA SHIRAGUMBI
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. KALIKARAO COMPOUND,
NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
SHIMOGA, DIST: SHIMOGA.
19. SMT. PREMAVVA
W/O SUBHASH ADIVEPPAR
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. C/O. S R HANCHINMANI,
AT PT ARELESHWAR,
TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI.
20. SMT. SANGAVA RAMAPPA JADAMALI
AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. MARUTHI NILAYA,
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8210
RFA No. 4015 of 2012
5TH CROSS,
RAJEHWARI NAGAR,
RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.DINESH M KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R10,
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1, R3, R4, R13, R14, R19 HELD
SUFFICIENT,
NOTICE TO R2, R11, R12, R16, R17, R18 AND R20 SERVED,
APPEAL AGAINST R15 ABATED)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD:04.11.2011 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.26/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, RANEBENNUR, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR
PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The suit for partition filed by the plaintiffs claiming
1/4th share in suit schedule properties is decreed in part
awarding 1/4th share in property bearing CTS No.4038 of
Ranebennur, Haveri District. The suit in respect of all other
properties is dismissed on the premise that the properties
are self-acquired properties of one Ramappa. Defendants
No.1 to 6 and defendant No.23 are the persons claiming
under Ramappa.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8210
RFA No. 4015 of 2012
2. The defendants have not filed any appeal and
they have accepted the judgment and decree passed by
the trial Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
would submit that the trial Court erred in dismissing the
suit for partition in respect of other properties though it is
established that the properties are the properties acquired
from joint family nucleus. It is also his further contention
that the evidence on record is not properly appreciated. He
would contend that once the property bearing CTS
No.4038 is held to be an ancestral property, the Court
should have proceeded on the presumption that the
remaining properties are acquired with the aid and
assistance of joint family nucleus and as such the suit for
partition could not have been dismissed in respect of other
properties.
4. Sri.Dinesh Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing
for the contesting respondents would submit that the
materials are not placed before the Court to show that all
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8210
RFA No. 4015 of 2012
the properties are the joint family properties. On the other
hand, he would submit that the evidence is placed on
record to show that the properties are self-acquired
properties of Ramappa who commenced business on his
own and from the income and from his business, he has
acquired other properties and the same is established by
producing necessary documentary evidence before the
Court.
5. He would further invite the attention of this
Court to the cross-examination of PW.1, where it is
admitted by PW.1 that all the properties are the properties
purchased by Ramappa from his own fund.
6. This Court has considered the contentions
raised at the bar and also perused the impugned judgment
and decree in the evidence placed on record.
7. The point for consideration in this appeal is,
whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit in
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8210
RFA No. 4015 of 2012
respect of all the properties except the property bearing
CTS No.4038.
8. Under the Hindu law, there is no presumption
that all the properties are joint family properties, though
there may be a presumption relating to jointness of the
family. The presumption is that the property standing in
the name of an individual is self-acquired property. This
presumption is rebuttable. It is for the person who alleges
that the properties are joint family properties to plead and
establish that the properties are joint family.
9. After going through the materials placed on
record, this Court is not in a position to accept the
contention of the plaintiffs that all the properties are joint
family properties. The plaintiffs have not been able to
establish that Ramappa has utilised the joint family
income to acquire other properties. On the other hand,
there is enough material to accept the contention of the
defendants that Ramappa has purchased the acquired
properties from his own funds.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8210
RFA No. 4015 of 2012
10. In the cross-examination, PW.1 has clearly
admitted the defence set up by the defendants and even
has gone to the extent of admitting that he has filed a
frivolous suit despite knowing that the properties are the
self-acquired properties of Ramappa.
11. Under these circumstances, the trial Court by
assigning valid reasons has rightly dismissed the suit in
respect of all the properties except CTS No.4038 which is
admittedly an ancestral property.
12. This being the position, this Court is of the view
that no grounds are made out to interfere with the
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and
accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Impugned judgment
and decree are confirmed.
13. I.A.No.1/2019 is filed for return of original title
deeds produced before the trial Court. I.A.No.1/2019 is
allowed. Registry to return the original title deeds to
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8210
RFA No. 4015 of 2012
respondents No.5 to 10 after retaining photocopies of the
same.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SH
