Karnataka High Court
Annapurna W/O Chandrareddy Ors vs Parvatamma W/O Hanumanthreddy on 12 July, 2023
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowdapresided Bynssgj
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5257
RSA No. 7372 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 7372 OF 2010 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
1. ANNAPURNA W/O CHANDRAREDDY
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRI
R/O BHAKTMPALLI, TQ. CHINCHOLI
DIST. GULBARGA
2. SHARNAMMA W/O VITHALREDDY
AGE: 51 YEAS, OCC: AGRI
R/O BHAKTMPALLI TQ. CHINCHOLI
DIST. GULBARGA
3. SATAMMA (SATYAMMA)
W/O NARASAREDDY
AGE: 61 YEAS, OCC: AGRI
R/O GARAGAPALLI, TQ. CHINCHOLI
Digitally signed by
RAMESH MATHAPATI
DIST. GULBARGA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 4. SHIVASHARANMMA
W/O JAGANATAREDDY
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRI
R/O TUMKUNTA TQ. CHINCHOLI
DIST. GULBARGA
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI S.B. HANGARKI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
PARVATAMMA W/O HANUMANTHREDDY
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5257
RSA No. 7372 of 2010
R/O MUDHOL, TQ. SEDAM
DIST. GULBARGA
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI H. M. PATEL GULHALLI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;
NOTICE TO PROPOSED R1(A) & R1(C) ARE SERVED);
V/O DATED 23.06.2023 THERE IS NO NEED TO AWAIT
SERVICE OF NOTICE IN RESPECT OF PROPOSED R1(B))
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET-
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.06.2010
PASSED IN R.A.NO.94/2009 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. DIST.
JUDGE AT GULBARGA, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED- 01.04.2009 PASSED IN OS NO.44/2008 ON
THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AT CHINCHOLI AND
THE SUIT BE DISMISSED BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH
COST THROUGHOUT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. Parvatamma, the respondent herein, filed a suit
seeking for partition and separate possession.
2. It was her case that her father Tippareddy had two
wives namely Shankramma and Narasamma. She stated
that Shankramma was her mother who had another
daughter Satamma, who was arrayed as defendant No.3.
3. It was stated that the second wife Narasamma had
three daughters namely Annapurna, Sharanamma and
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5257
RSA No. 7372 of 2010
Shivasharanamma. It was her case that the suit properties
belonged to her father and on his death, all his five
daughters were entitled to a share, but Annapurna, the
first daughter through the second wife Narasamma,
started to claim that it was her properties and therefore,
she was constrained to file a suit seeking for partition.
4. Her half sisters contested the suit. They admitted
that their father Tippareddy had two daughters and
Parvatamma and Satamma i.e., plaintiff and defendant
No.3, who were born through his first wife Shankramma.
They also admitted that they were born to Tippareddy
through his second wife Narasamma. They also admitted
that Tipparedyy died about 13 years ago and during his
life time, he had performed the marriage of all his
daughters.
5. It was, however, stated that after the 1st defendant
Annapurna was given in marriage to one Chandrareddy,
due to marital discord, they were separated and she
started residing with her parents and having regard to her
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5257
RSA No. 7372 of 2010
situation, Tippareddy and all her sisters agreed to give the
suit properties as her maintenance and as a consequence,
she had become the owner of the suit properties and her
name was also mutated accordingly.
6. The Trial Court, on consideration of evidence
adduced before it, came to the conclusion that Annapurna
had failed to establish that her father had given the
properties to her and she had become the absolute owner
thereof.
7. The Trial Court found that the document under which
she claimed the property was given to her i.e., the consent
letter executed on a stamp paper was not produced and
therefore, there was no evidence to substantiate her
contention. The Trial Court accordingly decreed the suit
and granted each of the daughters of Tippareddy, 1/5th
share.
8. On appeal, the Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of
evidence concurred with the findings recorded by the Trial
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5257
RSA No. 7372 of 2010
Court and dismissed the appeal. As a result, this second
appeal has been preferred challenging the concurring
judgments of both the Courts.
9. Sri B.D.Hangarki, learned counsel for the appellant
contended that the revenue records clearly established
that the property belonged to Annapurna and she had
become the absolute owner and in the light of this,
judgments could not be sustained.
10. It is to be stated here that the entire assertion of
Annapurna of her title was on the basis of a consent letter
given by her father and her sisters. Assuming that such a
consent letter was given, the same cannot result in
transfer of title, especially when her sisters disputed the
said document. Both the Courts have taken into
consideration this fact and have come to the conclusion
that Annapurna had failed to establish that the suit
properties were given to her and as a consequence, all the
five daughters of Tippareddy would be entitled to get an
equal share. They have accordingly decreed the suit. I find
NC: 2023:KHC-K:5257
RSA No. 7372 of 2010
no question of law, muchless a substantial question of law
arising for consideration in this appeal and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RK,PKS
