Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sundaramma vs Sri. R.Bheemoji Rao on 7 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:44987
RSA No. 406 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 406 OF 2016 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SUNDARAMMA
WIFE OF LATE R MUKUNDA RAO
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
2. SRI GOPINATH
SON OF LATE R MUKUNDA RAO
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
3. SRI.M. ANAND,
SON OF LATE R.MUKUNDA RAO
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT HIREKOGALUR VILLAGE,
Digitally CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
signed by
ALBHAGYA DAVANAGAERE DISTRICT - 577001
Location:
HIGH 4. SMT LEELAVATHI
COURT OF WIFE OF SRI RANGANATH
KARNATAKA DAUGHTER OF LATE MUKUNDA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NALLUR VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001
5. SMT MEENAKSHI
WIFE OF SRI SHAMSUNDAR,
DAUGHTER OF LATE R MUKUNDA RAO,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:44987
RSA No. 406 of 2016
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
RESIDING AT SHIVAPURA PEENYA
BANGALORE CITY-560058
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SIDDAMALLAPPA P M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. R.BHEEMOJI RAO
SON OF LATE MINOJI RAO,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT D.NO 1447, BANASHANKARI II STAGE,
22ND MAIN, BANGALORE-560050
2. SRI M SHESHAPPA
SON OF LATE MINOJI RAO,
MAJOR,
RESIDING AT NARENDRA SECRETARY
FLAT NO 12, PLOT NO 36+37
S. NO . 396, SENAPATHIBALOAT ROAD,
PUNE, MAHARASHTRA STATE
3. SRI RAVINDRANATH M MALATESKAR
SON OF LATE MINOJI RAO,
MAJOR,
RESIDING AT D.NO 11/4, MAIN COLONY,
VILACHAND NAGAR,
PUNE DISTRICT, MAHARASTRA STATE
4. SMT SUNANDA
WIFE OF RAVEENDRANATH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESIDING AT C/O D.NO 92,
SREESAI KRUPA, DEFENCE LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA,
BANGALORE-560097
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:44987
RSA No. 406 of 2016
5. SMT RATHNAMMA
WIFE OF LATE TUKARAM, MAJOR,
REISIDING AT M S E B,
DAUND PUNE, MAHARASTRA STATE
6. SRI DAYANANDA
SON OF LATE NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
OCC AGRICULTURIST
7. SRI KUBERAPPA
SON OF LATE NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
OCC AGRICULTURIST
BOTH RESIDING AT DODDAMALLAPURA VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213
8. SMT SUDHA
WIFE OF LATE VEERABHADRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
OCC AGRICULTURIST
9. SRI RUDRESH
SON OF LATE VEERABHADRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
OCC AGRICULTURIST
10. SRI SHARATH
SON OF LATE VEERABHADRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
OCC AGRICULTURIST
ALL ARE RESIDING AT DODDAMALLAPURA VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:44987
RSA No. 406 of 2016
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213
11. SMT INDRABAI
WIFE OF LATE NARAYANA RAO
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
12. SMT GAYATHRI
DAUGHTER OF LATE NARAYANA RAO
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
13. SRI MOHAN
SON OF LATE NARAYANA RAO
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
14. SRI VENKATESH
SON OF LATE NARAYANA RAO
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
15. SMT NANDINI
DAUGHTER OF LATE NARAYANA RAO
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.11 TO 15 ARE
RESIDING AT DOOR NO 1447, BANASHANKARI 2ND
STAGE, 22ND MAIN, BANGALORE-560050
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.JYOTHI B KANGOKAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2 & ALSO
FOR R1 TO 5 & R11 TO 15)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.11.2015 PASSED IN
RA.NO.48/2013 (OLD NO.224/2005) ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHANNAGIRI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL
AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:44987
RSA No. 406 of 2016
06.04.2005 PASSED IN OS.NO.311/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is by the legal heirs of
defendant No.1 who have questioned the concurrent
findings of the Courts below wherein the plaintiff's suit for
partition and separate possession is decreed and the
plaintiff is awarded 8/49th share in all the suit schedule
properties.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties are
referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
3. Plaintiff has filed the present suit by contending
that he along with defendants 1 to 4 and husband of
defendant No.6 constituted an undivided joint Hindu
family. Plaintiff claims that one Minnoji Rao was the
propositus and the suit schedule properties are the joint
family ancestral properties. Plaintiffs have also contended
NC: 2023:KHC:44987
that some of the properties are acquired out of the joint
family nucleus. The present suit is filed alleging that
defendant No.2, who is managing the entire family
properties is not heeding to the request made by the
plaintiff to effect partition and allot his legitimate share
and hence, the present suit for partition.
4. Defendant No.2 contested the suit and stoutly
denied the entire averments made in the plaint.
5. Defendant No.2, on the contrary claimed that
all the suit schedule properties are not the joint family
ancestral properties and on the contrary a claim was made
that plaintiff and defendants have independently
purchased the properties from their self income and hence
prayed for dismissal of the suit.
6. Plaintiff and defendants to substantiate their
claims have let in oral and documentary evidence.
NC: 2023:KHC:44987
7. Both the Courts, in the absence of rebuttal
evidence, have decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff
seeking the relief of partition and separate possession.
8. On examining the record, this Court would find
that neither the original defendant No.1 nor the present
appellants who claims to be the legal representative of
first defendant have chosen to contest the proceedings. It
is only defendant No.2 who has chosen to contest by filing
written statement. Therefore, in the absence of specific
defence, this Court is unable to understand as to what is
the grievance of the present appellants herein. If their
relationships are admitted and the fact that defendant
No.2 has failed to substantiate that the present suit is not
maintainable as plaintiff has not included all the
properties, no indulgence is warranted at the hands of this
Court. Both the Courts have held that plaintiff and
defendant constituted undivided joint Hindu family. Both
the Courts have concurrently held that suit schedule
properties are the joint family ancestral properties .
NC: 2023:KHC:44987
9. In the light of the discussions made supra, no
substantial question of law arises for consideration.
10. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ALB
