Karnataka High Court
Basangouda S/O Nigangouda vs Muddangouda S/O Ramangouda on 14 March, 2023
Bench: C M Joshi
-1-
RSA No. 7094 of 2010
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M.JOSHI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 7094 OF 2010 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
BASANGOUDA S/O NAGANGOUDA,
AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O DADDY COLONY,
RAICHUR-584101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR KALLOOR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MUDDANGOUDA S/O RAMANGOUDA,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O GARALADINNI, VILLAGE,
TQ. RAICHUR-584103.
2. MURALI S/O BASWARAJ,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,
Digitally signed R/O ASKIHAL VILLAGE,
by SOMANATH
PENTAPPA
TQ. RAICHUR-584101.
MITTE
Location: High 3. SMT. NARSAMMA W/O BASWARAJ,
Court of
Karnataka
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O ASKIHAL VILLAGE,
TQ. RIACHUR-584101.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1 & R2 ARE SERVED;
V/O DTD.16.08.2017 R2 IS TREATED AS LR OF DECEASED R3)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING
TO ALLOW THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.11.2009 PASSED
BY THE PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE RAICHUR IN R.A.NO.28/2008,
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.03.2008
PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION, RAICHUR
-2-
RSA No. 7094 of 2010
IN O.S.NO.20/2006, AND ALLOW THE SUIT O.S.NO.20/2006 ON THE
FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION RAICHUR,
FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD THROUGH PHYSICAL
HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCE AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT
ON 01.03.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree
passed in RA No.28/2008 on the file of the Prl. District
Judge, Raichur arising out of the judgment and decree
passed in O.S.No.20/2006 by the Additional Civil Judge
(Sr.Dn.), Raichur dated 06.03.2008.
2. The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.
No.20/2006. The parties are referred as per their ranking
before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The appellant filed a suit for declaration and
injunction contending that he had married Smt.
Eshwaramma D/o Ramangouda in the year 1960 and his
wife Eshwaramma was owner in possession of suit land
bearing Sy.No.287/A measuring 22 acres 18 guntas
RSA No. 7094 of 2010
situated at Athanur village in Manvi Taluk. It was
contended that after the death of his wife Eshwaramma,
the plaintiff became a exclusive legal heir and the said
Eshwaramma died issueless in the year 1998. It was also
contended that the said Eshwaramma had acquired
ownership over the suit property on the strength of the
oral partition between her father and her brothers namely
Muddanagouda, Sharanappa, Siddanagouda and Shanker
in the year 1968. The partition which was initially oral,
came to be recorded in a memorandum of partition and
the same came to be registered on 21.09.1974. Initially,
the suit survey number which was fallen to the share of
Eshwaramma was measuring 26 acres 28 guntas and later
a portion of it had to be surrendered to the Government in
view of the ceiling limitations under the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act. Ultimately Sy.No.287/A measuring 22 acres
18 guntas which is the suit property came to be retained
by the said Eshwaramma. It was also contended that the
Eshwaramma continued in possession of the said property
till her death. However, there were some discrepancy in
RSA No. 7094 of 2010
the mutation entries and as such the name of
Muddangouda continued in the record of rights. It was
also contended that earlier the name of Eshwaramma was
introduced along with the name of one Muddangouda in
the cultivators column and the name of one Basavaraj
came to be deleted, who died about two years back
leaving behind his son Murali and his wife Narsamma.
Taking advantage of these hollow entry, the defendants
started obstruction in peaceful possession and enjoyment
of the suit land and therefore the plaintiff who is the
husband of Eshwaramma was constrained to file suit for
declaration of his title as well as consequential relief of
injunction.
4. On issuance of summons, the defendants did
appear through their counsel, but they did not choose to
prefer any written statement. The plaintiff was examined
before the Trial Court as PW1 and two witnesses were
examined on his behalf as PW2 and PW3. Ex.P1 to Ex.P4
RSA No. 7094 of 2010
came to be marked and received in evidence. None of
these witnesses were cross examined by the defendants.
5. The Trial Court framed the following points for
consideration.
1. Whether plaintiff proves that he is
the owner and possessor of the suit
land?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves the
interference of the defendants?
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for
rectification of the entries?
4. What order?
6. After hearing the submissions by the counsel
for the plaintiff, the suit came to be dismissed.
7. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the
dismissal, the plaintiff approached the first appellate Court
in R.A.No.28/2008. There also the defendants did not
appear and after hearing the submissions by the learned
counsel for the plaintiff, the first appellate Court by the
impugned judgment dismissed the appeal. It is the said
RSA No. 7094 of 2010
judgment of the first appellate Court which is challenged
before this Court.
8. This Court by order dated 23.04.2010 admitted
the appeal and the following substantial question of law
was formulated.
Whether the lower appellate Court
was justified in holding that Section
15(2) of The Hindu Succession Act
was attracted in respect of the suit
property and the same was allotted to
the share of the wife of the plaintiff
under a partition deed?
9. The records of the Trial Court as well as the first
appellate Court have been secured. Even before this
Court, the defendants, who were arrayed as respondents
did not appear despite service of notice.
10. I have heard the arguments by learned counsel
appearing for the appellant.
RSA No. 7094 of 2010
11. The short point on the question of law that
emanates in the present second appeal is regarding the
nature of the acquisition of the property by deceased
Eshwaramma. The Trial Court as well as the first appellate
Court have come to the conclusion that though there was
a partition among the father of Eshwaramma and her
brothers thereby the suit property came to be allotted to
the share of Eshwaramma, it amounts to inheritance and
therefore in view of the exception carved out in Section
15(2) of Hindu Succession Act, after the demise of
Eshwaramma the property would revert back to her
siblings, but not on the plaintiff. It is relevant to note that
the relationship between the plaintiff and deceased
Eshwaramma and that Eshwaramma died intestate and
issueless is not disputed by anybody.
12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that only if a female Hindu has inherited the
property by way of succession, the exception carved out in
Section 15(2) of Hindu Succession Act would come in play
RSA No. 7094 of 2010
and it would not be applicable if the acquisition of the
property by a female Hindu is by way of gift sale or such
other modes. He submits that the deceased Eshwaramma
had acquired the property on the basis of the registered
memorandum of partition and by virtue of such partition,
she had become absolute owner of the suit property. He
submits that such acquisition property by Eshwaramma
could not have been considered to be by way of
inheritance and therefore both the Courts below have
erred in holding that the suit property would revert back to
this siblings of deceased Eshwaramma. In this regard, he
relies on several decisions.
13. The provisions of Section 15(1) and 15(2) of
Hindu Succession Act reproduced below for better
understanding:
15(1) The property of a female Hindu dying
intestate shall devolve according to the rules
set out in section 16,-
RSA No. 7094 of 2010
(a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters
(including the children of any pre-
deceased son or daughter) and the
husband;
(b) secondly, upon the heirs of the
husband;
(c) thirdly, upon the mother and father;
(d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father;
and
(e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother.
15(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in
sub-section (1),-
(a) any property inherited by a female
Hindu from her father or mother shall
devolve, in the absence of any son or
daughter of the deceased (including
the children of any pre-deceased son
or daughter) not upon the other heirs
referred to in sub-section (1) in the
order specified therein, but upon the
heirs of the father; and
(b) any property inherited by a female
Hindu from her husband or from her
father-in-law shall devolve, in the
absence of any son or daughter of the
deceased (including the children of
any pre-deceased son or daughter)
not upon the other heirs referred to in
sub-section (1) in the order specified
therein, but upon the heirs of the
husband.
- 10 -
RSA No. 7094 of 2010
14. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
has placed reliance on the decision in the case of
S.Padamavathamma V/s S.R.Srinivasa and Others1,
wherein it was held that the provisions of Section 15(2)
applies only when the property is acquired by a female by
way of intestate succession, otherwise, the property will
devolve as directed under Section 15(1) of the Hindu
Succession Act. It was held that the word "inherited"
employed in Section 15(2) does not include in its fold
acquisition of right by other modes and devices like inter-
vivos transfer of the right or by Will. The learned counsel
appearing for the appellant also relied on the decision in
the case of Bhagat Ram (dead) V/s Teja Singh2,
wherein it was held that the property of female Hindu can
be classified under two heads and every property of
female Hindu dying intestate is a general class by itself
covering all the properties but sub- section (2) excludes
out of the aforesaid properties the property inherited by
2004(1) KCCR 508
AIR 1989 SC 1944
- 11 -
RSA No. 7094 of 2010
her from her father or mother. On the basis of the above
decisions, it is submitted that the suit schedule property
was owned by Eshwaramma and she had acquired the said
property in a partition among her siblings and her father
and therefore he contends that it is not a acquisition of
property by inheritance, but it is otherwise than
inheritance and as such the exception of Section 15(2) is
not applicable.
15. The decision in the case of Bobballapati
Kameswararao V/s Kavuri Vasudevarao3, rendered by
Andhra Pradesh High Court, gives an interpretation of
Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. In para 10, 11
and 12 it was observed as below:
"10. If these requirements are complied
with then the property of such a female
Hindu intestate shall devolve upon the heirs
of her father and not upon the other heirs
referred to in sub-section (1) and in the
order specified therein. It is a common
AIR 1972 AP 189
- 12 -
RSA No. 7094 of 2010
ground that K.Mahalakshmamma died
intestate that she was not survived by any
son or daughter of children by any
predeceased son or daughter. The only
question which was agitated before us was
that though K.Mahalakshamma got by will
from her mother Raghavamma the property
is inherited by her from her mother within
the meaning of section 15(2)(a) and as
admittedly the 1st defendant is the heir of
the father of K.Mahalakshmamma, he is
entitled to the property and not the plaintiff.
On the other hand it was contended by the
plaintiff that K.Mahalakshmamma has not
inherited the suit property from her mother
but it was bequeathed to her. Therefore
sub-section (2) is not applicable and since
the plaintiff is the heir of the husband of
Mahalakshmamma he comes within the
purview of Section 15(b) and in the absence
of persons referred to in clause (a) he
would inherit the property under clause (b).
The fate of the case therefore ultimately
hangs upon the decision whether
K.Mahalakshmamma had inherited the suit
property from her mother.
- 13 -
RSA No. 7094 of 2010
11. The term 'inherited' employed in sub-
section (2) is not defined in the Act. A
reading of Section 14(1) of the Act would
indicate that the words 'device' meaning
'bequest' under the will and 'inheritance' are
used separately. They are distinct
expressions and therefore must convey two
separate meanings. The term 'inheritance'
therefore would have to be given a meaning
which would not include 'device' or a
'bequest under the will'. The term
'inheritance' therefore acquires a restricted
meaning and not a wide one though in
other Acts or Constitution the word
'inheritance' may have been given a
broader meaning. It accords well with the
principles enunciated above that as sub-
section (2) is an exception to sub-section
(1) it must be taken to have limited the
generality of sub-section(1) and
consequently the word 'inheritance' will
have to be given a narrow meaning because
it is in accord with the legislative intent. If
that term is given the widest possible
meaning so as to include within it a will, gift
or any transfer inter vivos as is urged by
the learned advocate for the appellant, then
- 14 -
RSA No. 7094 of 2010
sub-section (2) ceases to serve as an
exception to sub-section (1) and would be
so general as to make sub-section (1)
ineffective and it would almost destroy it to
that extent. It would mean that property
acquired by a female from her mother,
father, husband or father-in-law by
whatever means, would devolve after the
death of the female intestate dying
issueless in all cases under Section 15(2)
only, sub-section (1) being applicable to
other kinds of acquisition by the female
from other persons than the one mentioned
in sub-section (2), thus there would be two
distinct provisions for devolution of property
according to the source from which the
property is acquired by the female. And in
such a case the transfer in whatever form
may have been made by the persons
mentioned in sub-section (2) in favour of
the female would be meaningless and
ineffective. Sub-section (2) then would be
enlarged in its scope and would function as
an independent provision and not strictly as
an exception to sub-section (1).
12. It is manifest that Section 14
abolishes the various kinds of stridhana and
- 15 -
RSA No. 7094 of 2010
property of every kind possessed by a
female Hindu however acquired and
whenever acquired now becomes her
absolute property. She can effect any
transfer inter vivos like anyone else and can
also bequeath the property by will. She can
thus prevent the property without allowing
(sic) it to go back to the heirs of her father,
mother, husband or father-in-law. If all
such transfers are brought within the
meaning of inheritance in Sec.15(2), then in
spite of such transfers if she dies issueless
and if the case is otherwise coming under
sub-section (2) then the property will
devolve upon her father's or husband's
heirs although they may have transferred
the property inter vivos or by a will. We do
not think that the legislature intended to
produce such a result We are clear in our
view that sub-section (2) provides for an
exception only with regard to one source of
acquisition viz. the inheritance and then
again the exception is confined to the
property inherited by her either from her
father or mother or husband or father-in-
law and from none else. There is therefore,
no justification to clothe the word
'inheritance' with wider meaning than what
- 16 -
RSA No. 7094 of 2010
it is capable of in the context in which it is
used. It means only the acquisition of the
property by succession and not be device
under a will. The word 'inherit' thus can in
the context only mean 'to receive property
as heir' or 'succession by descent'."
16. I fully agree with the above interpretation made
by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Coming to the
question whether the acquisition of the property by
Eshwaramma falls within the interpretation made in
respect of Section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, it is
necessary to look into the memorandum of partition which
has been got registered in the year 1974. The certified
copy of the memorandum of partition is produced at
Ex.P1. On page No.2, it is stated as below:
"Whereas certain disputes and
differences arise between the parties in the
year 1968 and party No.3, began to demand
his legal share in Schedule 'A' properties and
in order to avoid unpleasant invidents, and to
keep harmony and maintain cordial
relationship between the parties, at the
- 17 -
RSA No. 7094 of 2010
intervention of elders and well-wishers of the
parties the parties 1 to 5 divided and
partitioned all the Schedule 'A' properties
and divided them into five parts as per
schedule 'B' 'C' 'D' 'E' 'F' and 'G' of this deed
and allotted the lands shown in schedule 'B'
to party No.I., Schedule 'C' to party No.2,
and Schedule 'D' to Party No.3, Schedule 'E'
to party No.4, Schedule 'F' to party No.5,
and Schedule 'G' to party No.6, and this
division of the property took place at
Garaldinni village taluk Raichur in the month
of April 1968."
Further on page No.3 it is stated as below:
"That, each of the parties to this deed
had accepted the partition as final and
binding on the following terms:-
1) Each of the parties to this deed has
relinquished all his rights and interests
whatsoever over the properties allotted and
gone to the share of other parties and has
recognised the other parties as the absolute
and exclusive owner and possessors of the
lands taken to their shares.
- 18 -
RSA No. 7094 of 2010
That each of the parties to this deed
had recognised the rights of each of other
parties to get their names entered into
relevant revenue and other records in
respect of the lands got to their shares.
That, each of the parties to this deed
had agreed to do and execute all such lawful
acts and deeds so as to constitute the lands
fallen to the share of other party, his
absolute property."
17. Thus, it is evident that by registering the
memorandum of partition, they have given effect to the
partition they entered into between them. They have
declared that the property fallen to their respective shares
would be absolute property belonging to them and the
rights and interests have also been relinquished. Such
kind of oral partition recorded in the form of memorandum
of partition is permissible under the Hindu Law. Therefore,
it is evident that by virtue of memorandum of partition,
the parties agreed that the shares allotted to them will be
enjoyed as an absolute property.
- 19 -
RSA No. 7094 of 2010
18. Now the question is whether the partition as per
the Ex.P1 has to be construed to be inheritance. In a
considered opinion of this Court, it is not possible to hold
that the acquisition of the property by virtue of Ex.P1 by
the deceased Eshwaramma cannot be construed to be a
inheritance within the meaning of Section 15(2) of the
Hindu Succession Act. Though the provisions of Section
15(2) do not use the word intestate succession, the word
used being inheritance, it has to be construed in the
narrow sense as discussed by Andhra Pradesh High Court
in Bobballapati's case. Therefore, it is evident that
deceased Eshwaramma had acquired the property on the
basis of an instrument i.e. Ex.P1 by way of partition and
such partition cannot be construed to be an acquisition by
way of inheritance. It is also pertinent to note that the
legislature has used the word inheritance in the light of the
intestate succession and Section 15(2) carved out and
exception to the general rule mentioned in Section 15(1)
of the Act. Therefore, the acquisition of the property by a
female Hindu either by Will, Gift will also include the
- 20 -
RSA No. 7094 of 2010
acquisition by way of a partition in the family. Once there
is a partition and properties have been divided by metes
and bounds, it becomes absolute property of such sharer.
If the sharer had any surviving heirs at the time of
partition, the property may become the joint family
property of the acquirer and his family members.
Therefore, the Ex.P1 cannot be construed to convey the
property by way of inheritance at any stretch of
imagination.
19. It is also to be noted that the provisions of
Section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act deal with
inheritance from the parental family of a female Hindu.
Such inheritance cannot be by virtue of a instrument, but
it is by way of intestate succession only. Under these
circumstances combined reading of the interpretation of
Section 15(2) of Hindu Succession Act coupled with the
Ex.P1 memorandum of partition would go to show that the
deceased Eshwaramma had become an absolute owner of
the property and after her demise, the property would
- 21 -
RSA No. 7094 of 2010
devolve by way of general succession under Section 15(1),
but not as provided under Section 15(2) of the Act.
20. For these reasons, the substantial question of
law raised by this Court is answered in the negative.
21. Soon after the partition as per Ex.P1, the
concerned registering authority should have entered the
name of Eshwaramma in respect of the Sy.No.287 and if it
has not been done, it is only an error on their part. It is
not in dispute that 4 acres 20 guntas of the surplus land
was surrendered to the Government and the remaining
portion of the land was renumbered as a Sy.No.287/A.
The said portion of a land in Sy.No.287/A was owned by
the deceased Eshwaramma and after her death, it would
devolve by way of succession and as such the plaintiff
herein would acquire the rights held by Eshwaramma at
the time of her death. Therefore it has to be declared that
the plaintiff become owner of the property bearing
Sy.No.287/A soon after the death of deceased
Eshwaramma by way of intestate succession. If the
- 22 -
RSA No. 7094 of 2010
revenue records do not reflect the name of the plaintiff, it
is for the revenue authority to make necessary
rectifications in the revenue records based on the
declaration of the ownership rights of the plaintiff by this
Court. Therefore it is not necessary for this Court to give
specific directions to the revenue authority as claimed by
the plaintiff.
,
22. It is also necessary to note that either the Trial
Court or the first appellate Court have not taken pains to
look into the averments made in Ex.P1, memorandum of
partition. The memorandum of partition at Ex.P1 clearly
and categorically mentioned that the sharers thereof are
the absolute owners of the property. Both the Courts
below did not critically examine the provisions of Section
15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act vis-a-vis the Ex.P1.
They went under the presumption that a partition deed do
not create the rights, but it only recognizes that
inheritance of the property. It is pertinent to note that the
inheritance of the property need not be the metes and
- 23 -
RSA No. 7094 of 2010
bounds and only the rights are inherited. If it is testatory
disposition in whatever mode it may be, it over rides the
rule of intestate succession and therefore the impugned
judgment is not sustainable under law. Hence, in the light
of the discussions made above, the appeal deserves to be
allowed. Hence, the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed.
The judgment and decree of both the Courts
below passed in RA No.28/2008 dated 24.11.2009
and in O.S.No.20/2006 dated 06.03.2008 are hereby
set aside.
The suit of the plaintiff is decreed. Plaintiff is
declared to be the owner of the suit schedule property
and consequently the defendants are restrained from
interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment
of the suit property by the plaintiff.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMP
