Karnataka High Court
Sri. Mohan Kumar vs Smt. Susheelamma on 27 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:42725
RSA No. 965 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 965 OF 2016 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MOHAN KUMAR
S/O LATE NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
SINCE WAS MINOR REP BY HIS MOTHER
SMT. GANGALAKSHMAMMA
(NOW ATTAINED MAJORITY)
2. SMT.GANGALAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT HOSAPETE
HULIYURDURGA HOBLI-572123
KUNIGAL TALUK
Digitally TUMKUR DISTRICT
signed by
ALBHAGYA ...APPELLANTS
Location: (BY SRI. T GOVINDARAJA, ADVOCATE)
HIGH COURT
OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA
W/O LATE NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
2. SRI.CHIKKATHIMMAIAH
S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:42725
RSA No. 965 of 2016
BOTH ARE R/AT HULIYURDURGA VILLAGE-572123
HULIYURDURGA HOBLI
KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
3. SRI.H.K.CHELUVARAJU
S/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RA/T HULIYURDURGA VILLAGE & POST-572123
HULIYURDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT
4. SMT.GANGALAKSHMAMMA
W/O GIRIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT HONAGARAHALLI VILLAGE,
HULIYURDURGA HOBLI-572123
KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.J.SATISH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI.MANJUNATH.G.V, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
R1 & R2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.09.2015 PASSED IN
RA NO.129/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT
JUDGE, TUMKUR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.03.10 PASSED IN OS
NO.43/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN)
KUNIGAL.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:42725
RSA No. 965 of 2016
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is filed by plaintiffs
assailing the judgment and decree rendered by the
appellate Court wherein the appellate Court has re-
determined the shares equally and a share is allotted to
Gangalakshmamma, who is defendant No.4.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties are
referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
3. The family tree is as under:
wªÉÄäÃUËqÀ GgÀÄ¥ï CtÚ (¥ÀªÀw)
1£Éà ºÉAqÀw (¥ÀªÀw)
|
-----------------------------------------------
| | |
1£Éà ºÉAqÀw (¥ÀªÀw) 2£Éà ºÉAqÀw (¥ÀªÀw) 3£Éà ºÉAqÀw (¥ÀªÀw)
| | |
®Qëöäà (¥ÀªÀw) ZÉ£ÀߪÀÄä (¥ÀªÀw) UÀÄAqÀªÀÄä (¥ÀªÀw)
(¸ÀAvÀw EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è) (¸ÀAvÀw EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è) |
|
------------------------------------------------
| | | |
UÀAUÀ®PÀëöäªÀÄä (ªÀµÀð 50) £ÁUÀgÁdÄ (¥ÀªÀw) aPÀÌwªÀÄä (ªÀµÀð 40) £ÀAd¥Àà (¥ÀªÀw)
| |
(UÀAqÀ£ÀªÀÄ£É ªÁ¸À) ¸ÀIJ®ªÀÄä (ªÀµÀð 35) PÀ«vÁ (ªÀµÀð 36) UÀAUÀ®PÀëöäªÀÄä
(35 ªÀµÀð)
(CfðzÁgÀ¼ÀÄ)
NC: 2023:KHC:42725
The plaintiffs are questioning the preliminary decree
on the ground defendant No.4, who is the daughter of
proposed Thimme Gowda cannot be conferred the status
of a coparcener and therefore, the captioned second
appeal is filed contending that daughter cannot be allotted
equal share under the provisions of the Hindu Succession
(Amendment) Act, 2005 on the ground that father of
defendant No.4-Thimme gowda was not alive as on the
date of filing of the suit.
4. The controversy relating to right of a daughter
in an ancestral property is given a quietus by the Full
Bench of the Apex Court in the case of VINEETHA
SHARMA .VS. RAKESH SHARMA AND OTHERS 1. The
appellate Court has allotted equal share to defendant No.4
i.e. 1/4th share. The grievance of the plaintiffs is that
defendant No.4 being a daughter is entitled to take share
notionally and not on par with the coparceners. The
AIR 2020 SC 3717
NC: 2023:KHC:42725
appellate Court over-ruling the objections raised by the
plaintiffs has modified the preliminary decree and equal
share is granted to defendant No.4. The quantification
done by the appellate Court is found to be strictly in
consonance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in
the judgment cited supra.
5. The contention of the plaintiff that the suit was
filed in 2003 and therefore, defendant No.4 is not entitled
to claim share on par with sons cannot be acceded to.
Such a contention runs contrary to the law laid down by
the Apex Court in the judgment cited supra. No
substantial question of law arises for consideration.
6. The appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly,
stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ALB
