Karnataka High Court
Sanjeevareddy vs Adivakka on 13 September, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:33229
RSA No. 458 of 2020
C/W RSA No. 232 of 2020
RSA No. 246 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.458 OF 2020 (PAR)
C/W
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 232 OF 2020 (MON)
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 246 OF 2020 (DEC)
IN R.S.A.NO.458/2020:
BETWEEN:
SANJEEVAREDDY
S/O. SUBBAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT BODARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
PAVAGADA TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101.
Digitally signed ...APPELLANT
by SHARANYA T (BY SRI. HARISH H.V., ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. SUBBAREDDY
S/O. SANJEEVAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS,
REP. BY ITS HIS NATURAL MOTHER,
ADIVAKKA
W/O. SANJEEVAREDDY
R/AT BODARAHALLY VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
PAVAGADA TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:33229
RSA No. 458 of 2020
C/W RSA No. 232 of 2020
RSA No. 246 of 2020
SUBBA REDDY
S/O. LATE HANUMANTHAPPA,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.,
2. SUNADAMMA
W/O. ASHWATHAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT GANTHALAPALLI VILLAGE,
MADAKASIRA MANDALAM,
ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, A.P.
3. PADMAKKA
W/O. RAMANJINAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT MANDLI,
SOMANDEPALLI MANDALAM,
ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, A.P.
4. SMT. ANJAKKA
W/O. KRISHNA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/O. BRAHMASAMUDRAM,
SOMANDEPALLI MANDALAM,
ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, A.P.
5. SMT. GANGAMMA
W/O. LATE SUBBA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/AT BODARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101.
6. JAYARAMA REDDY
S/O. SUBBA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT BODARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
PAVAGADA TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101.
7. HANUMANTHAREDDY
S/O. SUBBAREDDY,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:33229
RSA No. 458 of 2020
C/W RSA No. 232 of 2020
RSA No. 246 of 2020
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT BODARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
PAVAGADA TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC 1908
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.10.2018
PASSED IN R.A.NO.69/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AN JMFC, PAVAGADA AND ETC.
IN R.S.A.No.232/2020:
BETWEEN
SANJEEVAREDDY
S/O SUBBAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT BODARAHALLI VILLGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
PAVAGADA TALUK,
TUMKUR-572101
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI HARISH H.V., ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . ADIVAKKA
D/O LATE ADIVENNA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT BODARAHALLI VILLGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
PAVAGADA TALUK,
TUMKUR-572101
SUBBA REDDY
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:33229
RSA No. 458 of 2020
C/W RSA No. 232 of 2020
RSA No. 246 of 2020
2 . JAYARAMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O SUBBA REDDY,
R/AT BODARAHALLI VILLGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
PAVAGADA TALUK,
TUMKUR-572101
3 . HANUMANTHAREDDY
S/O SUBBAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT BODARAHALLI VILLGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
PAVAGADA TALUK,
TUMKUR-572101
4 . SUNANDAMMA
W/O ASHWATHAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT GANTHALAPALLI VILLAGE,
MADAKASIRA MANDALAM,
ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT-A.P.
5 . PADMAKKA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
W/O RAMANJINAREDDY,
R/O MANLI SOMANDEPALLI,
MANDALAM,
ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT- A.P.
6 . ANJAKKA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
W/I KRISHNA REDDY,
R/O BRAHMASAMUDRAM,
SOMANDEPALLI MANDALAM,
ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT-A.P.
7 . GANGAMMA
W/ LATE SUBBA REDDY,
R/AT BODARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:33229
RSA No. 458 of 2020
C/W RSA No. 232 of 2020
RSA No. 246 of 2020
PAVAGADA TALUK,
TUMKUR DIST-572101
... RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.12.2018 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.67/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC., PAVAGADA AND ETC.
IN R.S.A.No.246/2020:
BETWEEN
SANJEEVAREDDY
S/O SUBBAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT BODARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI
PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMKUR DIST-572101
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI HARISH H.V., ADVOCATE)
AND
ADIVAKKA
D/O ADIVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT DOMMATHAMARI VILLAGE
KASABA TALUK
PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101
...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC 1908
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.10.2018
PASSED IN R.A.NO.93/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PAVAGADA AND ETC.
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC:33229
RSA No. 458 of 2020
C/W RSA No. 232 of 2020
RSA No. 246 of 2020
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These appeals are listed for admission. Heard the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the
respective appeals.
2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff who was aged
about one year representing through his natural guardian
i.e., the mother against the grandfather, grandmother,
uncles and father (defendant No.5) contending that the
plaintiff is the son of defendant No.5 and constituted a
Hindu Joint Family and he has got half share in the 1/4th
share of his father in the suit schedule properties and the
properties are the joint family properties. Defendants
appeared before the Trial Court and filed the written
statement contending that there is no cause of action to
file the suit and also disputed the very relationship
between the plaintiff and defendant No.5. The Trial Court
having considered both oral and documentary evidence
NC: 2023:KHC:33229
RSA No. 458 of 2020
C/W RSA No. 232 of 2020
RSA No. 246 of 2020
placed on record answered point Nos.1, 2 and 5 as
affirmative in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff
has establishes that he is the son of defendant No.5 and
he along with the defendants has constituted joint family
and also proved the cause of action and point Nos.3, 4 and
6 as partly in the affirmative in coming to the conclusion
that the plaintiff is entitled for half share in the 1/4th share
of defendant No.5 in respect of suit schedule properties
item Nos.1, 3 and 5 and in respect of item Nos.2 and 4,
the suit was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the judgment
and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred by
defendant No.5 and the First Appellate Court also did not
accept the contention of the appellant and dismissed the
appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial
Court. Hence, the present R.S.A.No.458/2020 is filed
before this Court by defendant No.5.
3. The other R.S.A.No.232/2020 is arising out of
O.S.No.25/2007 filed by the wife of the appellant seeking
for the relief of maintenance and for creation of charge in
NC: 2023:KHC:33229
RSA No. 458 of 2020
C/W RSA No. 232 of 2020
RSA No. 246 of 2020
respect of the suit schedule properties and the suit of the
plaintiff is decreed in part granting maintenance of
Rs.1,500/- per month to the plaintiff from the date of the
suit till the date of decree and Rs.2,000/- per month from
the date of the disposal of the suit till her lifetime and the
same is also challenged by defendant No.1 before the First
Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court also
dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the
Trial Court. Hence, the present R.S.A.No.232/2020 is filed
before this Court.
4. The other suit is filed by the plaintiff/husband in
O.S.No.336/2005 praying the Court for the relief of
declaration of nullity of the registered marriage certificate
and the defendant who is the wife has filed written
statement contending that the marriage was took place in
the temple and thereafter the marriage was registered in
the office of the Sub-Registrar and the Trial Court having
considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on
record comes to the conclusion that subsequent to the
NC: 2023:KHC:33229
RSA No. 458 of 2020
C/W RSA No. 232 of 2020
RSA No. 246 of 2020
marriage, the marriage was also registered and no
grounds are made out to comes to the conclusion that
marriage was registered by force, coercion and threat but
the same is not substantiated by the plaintiff and hence,
the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Being aggrieved by
the judgment of the Trial Court, the plaintiff preferred an
appeal before the First Appellate Court and the First
Appellate Court also having reassessed the material on
record dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present
R.S.A.No.246/2020 is filed before this Court.
5. The very contention of the appellant in
R.S.A.No.246/2020 is that marriage was registered by
force, coercion and no such marriage was solemnized in
the temple as contended by the respondent. The counsel
also would vehemently contend that the Court has to take
note of the date of the marriage i.e., 25.01.2003 and
though the marriage was solemnized at Chintamani in
Eshwara temple, marriage was registered in Pavagada.
The counsel also brought to notice of this Court Rule 4,
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33229
RSA No. 458 of 2020
C/W RSA No. 232 of 2020
RSA No. 246 of 2020
7(2) of the Registration of Hindu Marriage (Karnataka)
Rules, 1966 and when an application is filed before the
outside the jurisdiction of the marriage, the Trial Court
ought to have taken note of the same but not taken and
hence, this Court has to frame the substantial question of
law and admit the appeal. The counsel also would
vehemently contend that when the very marriage is
disputed, the question of granting any share in favour of
his alleged son in the original suit which is filed for the
relief of partition does not arise. The counsel also submits
that the maintenance awarded by the Trial Court is also in
the absence of documentary evidence in proving the
marriage, hence, the question of granting maintenance
does not arise and this Court has to frame the substantial
question of law and admit the appeals.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant and also on perusal of the material on
record, it discloses that the marriage was taken place on
25.01.2003 according to the plaintiff/wife and the same is
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33229
RSA No. 458 of 2020
C/W RSA No. 232 of 2020
RSA No. 246 of 2020
disputed by the appellant herein. No doubt, the
respondent also not produced any documents to show that
marriage was taken place in the temple or any of the
witnesses have been examined in this regard. But, the
very appellant himself has filed the suit for the relief of
declaration of nullity of registered marriage certificate.
Hence, it is clear that the marriage was registered in the
office of the Sub-Registrar. The appellant has filed the suit
in the year 2005 i.e., after the initiation of the suit by his
son and wife and also the material discloses that it is not
an arranged marriage and even at the time of marriage
also, the respondent was minor and took her to the temple
and got married on 25.01.2003 and thereafter, the
marriage was registered in the month of November 2003.
But it is the contention of the appellant that by forcibly,
the marriage was registered. But no complaint was given
in this regard. Even it is assumed that forcibly the
marriage was registered, what prevented him in filing a
complaint immediately after the registration. He has not
given any complaint. But only he had issued legal notice
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33229
RSA No. 458 of 2020
C/W RSA No. 232 of 2020
RSA No. 246 of 2020
before filing of the suit that too after the filing of the suits
by his wife and son hence, the suit of the appellant is an
after thought suit and all these factors were taken note by
the Trial Court while considering the matters on merits for
the relief of partition and while granting half share in
respect of item Nos.1, 3 and 5, the Trial Court comes to
the conclusion that the minor son is not entitled for the
relief in respect of the entire suit schedule properties and
against that judgment, the minor son who had
represented through his mother not filed any appeal and
hence, the same has attained its finality. Both the Courts
have taken note of the material on record while decreeing
the suit of the son as well as the wife of the appellant.
7. The contention of the appellant that forcibly the
marriage was registered but in order to substantiate the
same, no material is placed before the Court. The
appellant has kept quiet till 2005 since the marriage was
took place in the month of January 2003 and registered
the same in the month of November, 2023 itself and he
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33229
RSA No. 458 of 2020
C/W RSA No. 232 of 2020
RSA No. 246 of 2020
has filed the suit against the said marriage in the year
2005 that is after filing of the suits by his son and wife and
the same discloses that it is an after thought suit and the
same will not annul the marriage when already marriage
was registered at the instance of the appellant who himself
has signed the application along with his wife and the
same cannot be considered on technicality regarding
jurisdiction of the office of the Registrar. The Court has
taken note of the fact that substantial justice has to be
done to the parties when the parities have approached the
Court and not on mere technicality and hence, I am of the
opinion that no grounds are made out by the appellant to
admit the appeals and to frame the substantial question of
law as prayed when both the Courts have given finding
based on the material on record and in the absence of any
perversity, the question of framing the substantial
question of law as contended by the appellant counsel
does not arise in all the matters.
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:33229
RSA No. 458 of 2020
C/W RSA No. 232 of 2020
RSA No. 246 of 2020
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The appeals are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
