Karnataka High Court
Gurusiddayya S/O Muppayya ... vs Basayya Muppayya Hiremath on 23 August, 2023
Bench: Anant Ramanath Byarhj
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9407
RFA No. 4142 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH
HEGDE
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 4142 OF 2013 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. GURUSIDDAYYA
S/O MUPPAYYA HIRREMATH
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. AMBADAGATTI, TQ: BAIHONGAL,
DIST BELGAUM.
2. SIDDARAMAYYA
S/O MUPPAYYA HIREMATH
AGE: 61 YEARS,OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. AMBADAGATTI, TQ: BAIHONGAL,
DIST BELGAUM.
...APPELLANTS
Digitally
signed by
VIJAYALAXMI
(BY SRI. P.G.CHIKKANARAGUND, ADVOCATE)
VIJAYALAXMI M BHAT
M BHAT Date:
2023.08.28
16:05:25
+0530
AND:
1. SRI. BASAYYA MUPPAYYA HIREMATH
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. AMBADAGATTI, TQ: BAIHONGAL,
DIST BELGAUM.
2. SMT. MAHADEVI
D/O MUPPAYYA HIREMATH
AGE: 53 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE/ HOUSEHOLD, WORK,
R/O. AMBADAGATTI, TQ: BAIHONGAL,
DIST BELGAUM.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9407
RFA No. 4142 of 2013
3. SMT. CHINNAWWA
W/O CHANNABASAYYA VIRAKTMATH
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BAILHONGAL, DIST BELGAUM.
4. SMT. PATREWWA
W/O MUPPAYYA HIREMATH
AGE: 88 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE/ HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. AMBADAGATTI, TQ: BAILHONGAL,
DIST: BELGAUM.
AS PER VIDE COURT ORDER DT 18.09.2015 THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 3, 5,11 AND 12 ARE
TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.4.
*AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER VIDE ORDER
DATED 18.09.2015*
5. SMT. AKKAWWA
W/O VIRUPAXAYYA KALABHAVI
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MALLAPUR K.S., TQ: BAILHONGAL,
DIST: BELGAUM.
6. SMT. NEELAWWA
W/O MAHANTESH HIREMATH
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. TEGUR, TQ: DHARWAD,
DIST: DHARWAD.
7. KUMARI POOJA
D/O MAHANTESH HIREMATH
AGE: 15 YEARS,
8. KUMARI JYOTHI
D/O MAHANTESH HIREMATH
AGE: 13 YEARS,
9. KUMAR MUTTAYYA
S/O MAHANTESH HIREMATH
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9407
RFA No. 4142 of 2013
AGE: 12 YEARS,
10. KUMAR SHIVAYYA
S/O MAHANTESH HIREMATH
AGE: 10 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NO.7 TO 10 ARE MINORS REP. BY
THEIR GURADIAN MOTHER I.E. RESPONDENT NO.6.
11. SMT. GANGAWWA
W/O SHIDRAMAYYA GANACHARI
AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. INCHAL, TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELGAUM.
12. SMT. SAVITRI IRAYYA HIREMATH
AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O. ASUNDI, TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELGAUM.
...RESPONDENTS
( R5, R11-ARE HELD SUFFICIENT;
R7 TO R10 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R6;
R1 TO R3, R5, R11 AND R12 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF
DECEASED R4)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.03.2012 IN
O.S.NO.03/2010 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, BAILHONGAL, AT: BAILHONGAL AND CONSEQUENTLY
DISMISS THE SAID SUIT WITH COSTS IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9407
RFA No. 4142 of 2013
JUDGMENT
1. The propositus Muppayya died in the year 2002. He
had a wife by name Patrewwa, 5 sons and 5
daughters. The suit for partition in O.S.No.3/2010, on
the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal, is filed by
the son and two daughters and wife of late Muppayya.
The suit is filed against the surviving daughters and
sons of Muppayya and also against the successors of
the deceased sons of Muppayya. Madiwalayya and
Mahantesh, the sons of Muppayya had died prior to
the suit.
2. The suit was contested by the 1st defendant. The 1st
defendant took a contention that the suit properties
are the self acquired properties. The trial Court
rejected the contention of the 1st defendant and
granted decree for partition in respect of the suit
schedule properties, except item No.1 to 3 of suit 'D'
schedule property. The trial Court has granted 1/121
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9407
RFA No. 4142 of 2013
share to each of the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 and defendant
No.7 and 13/121 share to plaintiff No.4.
3. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and
decree, the 1st and 3rd defendants are in appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that
the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are
unsustainable and the trial Court failed to appreciate
the contention and evidence of the defendants that
the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired
properties of the defendants. He would also submit
that the share quantified by the trial Court is also not
in accordance with law and accordingly, he would
submit that the appeal is to be allowed and judgment
and decree passed by the trial Court are to be set
aside.
5. Though the respondents are served, there is no
representation.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9407
RFA No. 4142 of 2013
6. This Court has considered the contentions raised at
the bar and also perused the impugned judgment and
decree.
7. Following point arises for consideration:
"Whether the trial Court is justified in holding that
the suit schedule properties are the joint family
properties?
8. There is no dispute relating to the genealogy furnished
by the plaintiffs. Name of the propositus is Muppayya.
The records would also reveal that the properties
originally belonged to Muppayya. Muppayya died in
the year 2002. There is nothing on record to show
that either during the life time of Muppayya or after
the demise of Muppayya, there was partition among
the family members.
9. The contention of the defendants/appellants that the
suit schedule properties are the self-acquired
properties, is not supported by any evidence. This
being the position, this Court is of the view that the
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9407
RFA No. 4142 of 2013
properties held by Muppyya devolve on all the sons
and the daughters of Muppayya equally.
10. The trial Court has rejected the suit in respect of item
No.1 to 3 of suit 'D' schedule properties. Item No.1 to
3 of suit 'D' schedule properties are said to be the
shares in Renuka Sugars, Markandeya Co-op Sugar
Mills, Kakati and Malapragha Sugar Factory, M. K.
Hubballi. Documents are not produced to show that
those share certificates stood in the name of
defendants as on the date of the suit. Accordingly,
the suit in respect of item No. 1 to 3 of suit 'D'
schedule properties is rightly dismissed.
11. As far as quantification of share is concerned, the trial
Court has granted 13/121 share in favour of plaintiff
No.4, which is not supported by any reason as to why
plaintiff No.4 is awarded higher share. In view of the
prevailing law, the daughters, sons and the wife of
Muppayya are entitled to equal share in the suit
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9407
RFA No. 4142 of 2013
schedule properties, except items No.1 to 3 of suit 'D'
schedule properties for which the suit is dismissed.
12. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The judgment and decree dated 28.03.2012,
passed by the Senior Civil Judge,
Bailhongal, in O.S.No.03.2010 are modified.
iii. Each of the sons and the daughters of
Muppayya is entitled to 1/11th share and wife
of Muppayya, namely Patrewwa, is entitled
to 1/11th share in the suit schedule
properties.
iv. Since the son of Muppayya namely,
Madiwalayya died, 1/11th share of
Madiwalayya would be inherited by his wife
Smt. Irawwa.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9407
RFA No. 4142 of 2013
v. Since the son of Muppayya namely,
Mahantesh died, 1/11th share of Mahantesh
would be inherited by his wife Smt.Neelawwa
and their children, Kumari Pooja, Kumari
Jyothi, Kumar Muttayya and Kumar
Shivayya.
vi. Draw decree accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
gab
..
