Karnataka High Court
Smt Saraswathamma vs Smt Lakshmamma on 29 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43328
RSA No. 299 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 299 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SARASWATHAMMA
W/O LATE VENKATARAMAREDDY
AGED 55 YEARS
R/A KAGATHI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK-563125
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
2. SRI SHIVARAJU
S/O LATE VENKATARAMAREDDY
AGED 30 YEARS
R/A KAGATHI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI
CHINTAMANI TALUK-563125
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
Digitally ...APPELLANTS
signed by
CHAITHRA A (BY SRI. AMARESH N, ADVOCATE)
Location:
HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE VENKATARAMAREDDY
SINCE REP BY
HER LRS RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3
1. SRI RAVINDRA REDDY
S/O LATE VENKATARAMAREDDY
AGED 60 YEARS
R/A PATUR VILLAGE
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43328
RSA No. 299 of 2022
DIBBUR HOBLI
CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DIST - 563215
2. SMT. SUJATHA
W/O LATE RAMACHANDRAREDDY
AGED 57 YEARS
R/A CHANDRAHALLI AMBAJI DURGA HOBLI
CHINTAMANI TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPUR DIST - 563215
SMT. REDDAMMA
W/O VENKATARAMAREDDY
SINCE REP BY HER DAUGHTER LRs
3. SMT. SHOBHA
W/O NARAYANAREDDY
AGED 38 YEARS
4TH CROSS, NEAR OLD SHILPA SCHOOL
TANK BOUND ROAD, CHINTAMANI
CHIKKABALLAPUR DIST - 563215
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF
CPC.,AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
30.03.2021 PASSED IN RA.No.66/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHIKKABALLAPURA, SITTING AT CHINTAMANI, ALLOWING THE
APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
22.07.2015 PASSED IN OS No.131/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHINTAMANI.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:43328
RSA No. 299 of 2022
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is filed by the third
wife/defendant No.2 and her son assailing the judgment
and decree rendered by the appellate Court wherein the
appellate Court taking note of the fact that second
appellant before this Court is the son born out of a void
marriage is allotted share in the properties left behind by
his father Venkataramareddy notionally and accordingly,
1/9th share is allotted. The said judgment and decree
passed by the appellate Court is under challenge by the
appellants herein.
2. The plaintiff No.1 claiming to be the wife of
Venkataramareddy along with plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 who
are the sons instituted a suit by contending that defendant
No.1 is the second wife and defendant No.2 is the third
wife of deceased Venkataramareddy. The suit is filed by
contending that they alone are entitled to inherit the
properties left behind by Venkataramareddy and hence,
prayed to declare that plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 are jointly
NC: 2023:KHC:43328
entitled for entire properties left behind by the said
Venkataramareddy.
3. The plaintiffs and defendants to substantiate
their respective their claim have let in oral and
documentary evidence.
4. The trial Court having examined the records
held that plaintiff No.1 is the legally wedded wife and
proceeded to decree the suit thereby declaring that
plaintiffs alone are entitled for a share in the suit schedule
properties.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the preliminary decree
drawn by the trial Court, the defendant No.2 along with
her son who is not party to the suit preferred appeal.
6. The appellate Court having reassessed the
entire evidence on record, however, was not inclined to
concur with the findings recorded by the trial Court insofar
as the rights of appellant No.2 is concerned. While
reassessing the evidence on record, appellate Court was of
NC: 2023:KHC:43328
the view that appellant No.2 is the son born out of void
marriage between defendant No.2-Saraswathamma and
Venkataramareddy. It is in this background, appellate
Court was of the view that appellant No.2 is entitled for a
share in the share of Venkataramareddy. Therefore, by
allotting share notionally, the appeal is allowed and
appellant No.2 is granted 1/9th share in the properties.
The said judgment is challenged by the third wife and the
son born out of a void marriage.
7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
appellants. Perused the judgment rendered by the
appellate Court.
8. In the light of law laid down by the Full Bench
in the case of Revanasiddappa & Another vs.
Mallikarjun & Others1, the controversy relating to rights
of a children born out of a void marriage is given a
quietus. The Apex Court in the reported judgment has
Civil Appeal No.2884 of 2011 Dtd: 01.09.2023
NC: 2023:KHC:43328
held that the children born out of a void marriage are
entitled for a share in the share of their parents and not
independently. On examining the findings recorded by the
appellate Court at para 40, this Court is of the view that
quantification done by the appellate Court is strictly in
consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Revanasiddappa. If
Venkataramareddy is survived by two sons born through
legally wedded wife, the property has to be divided into
three parts and in 1/3rd share of Venkataramareddy, the
plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 and appellant No.2 would further take
1/3rd share each out of 1/3rd share i.e., notionally allotted
to Venkataramareddy. Therefore, plaintiffs would take
1/3rd share independently and 1/9th out of their father's
share which would work out to 4/9th share each, while
appellant No.2 is entitled notionally to an extent of 1/9th
share. The quantification done by the appellate Court is
strictly in consonance with the law laid down by the Apex
Court in the case of Revanasiddappa (supra).
NC: 2023:KHC:43328
9. No substantial question of law arises for
consideration. The second appeal is devoid of merits and
accordingly, stands dismissed.
The pending interlocutory application, if any, does
not survive for consideration and stands disposed of
accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CA
