Karnataka High Court
Revansiddappa vs Shashikala And Ors on 16 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1578
RFA No. 200042 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 200042 OF 2018
(PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
REVANSIDDAPPA
S/O BANDAPPA YENEGUR,
AGE:62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND
EX-POLICE CONSTABLE,
R/O: NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE, MAHAGAON,
TQ & DIST: KALABURAGI-585102.
...APPELLANT
(REVANSIDDAPPA - APPELLANT)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. SHASHIKALA
by SACHIN
Location: HIGH
D/O BANDAPPA YENEGUR,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
W/O BASAWARAJ GOUDAR,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND
AGRICULTURE,
R/O H.NO.1/110,
DOCTOR'S COLONY, JAYANAGAR,
KALABURAGI-585102.
2. SHEELA D/O BANDAPPA YENEGUR,
W/O JAGADEVAPPA MUGALI,
AGE: 48 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE,
R/O H.NO.8-1305/32/E,
HANUMAN ROAD,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1578
RFA No. 200042 of 2018
NEAR T.V. STATION,
REVANSIDDESHWAR COLONY,
KALABURAGI-585102.
3. MAHADEVI
W/O MALLESHAPPA AFZALPUR,
D/O BANDAPPA YENEGUR,
AGE: 72 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: NEAR GOURISHANKAR TEMPLE,
STATEMENT ADAM SCHOOL ROAD,
GUBBI COLONY, KALABURAGI-585102.
4. CHANDRAKALA
W/O. SHARANAPPA DABALLI,
D/O BANDAPPA YENEGUR,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O H.NO.37-85/1,
1ST CROSS, S.G.R DENTAL COLLEGE ROAD,
MUNNAKALAL, MARTHALLI,
BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.ANAND V TURE, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
R1 AND R4-SERVED, UNREPRESENTED; R3-NOTICE HELD
SUFFICIENT)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, PRAYING
TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
02.03.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.184/2013 BY THE
II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KALABURAGI, AND
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFFS.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In this appeal, the Appellant/defendant No.1 is
assailing the judgment and decree dated 02.03.2018 in
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1578
O.S.No.184/2013 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Kalaburagi, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs
holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/5th share each
in the suit schedule properties.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in the
appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and
ranking before the Trial Court.
3. The plaint averments are that defendant No.1 is
the brother of plaintiffs as well as defendant Nos.2 and 3.
It is stated in the plaint that father of the plaintiffs died
leaving behind the plaintiffs to succeed to the estate of the
deceased and as the mother of the plaintiffs died on
28.11.2010, the plaintiffs have sought for share in the
schedule property, and accordingly the plaintiffs have filed
O.S. No.184/2013.
4. After service of notice, the defendant No.1 and
3 have filed written statement and defendant No.2 placed
exparte. It is the case of defendant No.1 that the schedule
properties are the ancestral properties and it is contended
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1578
that a family arrangement was made during the year 1992
and suit schedule properties were allotted to defendant
No.1 and accordingly, it is the defence of defendant No.1
that the plaintiffs are not entitled for share in the suit
schedule properties.
5. Defendant No.3 has filed written statement
seeking decree of the suit to allot a share in the suit
schedule properties.
6. The Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings,
framed the following issues for its consideration :-
i) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit
properties are their ancestral joint family
properties ?
ii) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they
are having share in the suit properties ?
iii) Whether the defendant No.1 proves the
earlier family arrangement as alleged in
his written statement ?
iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for
partition as sought ?
v) What order or decree ?
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1578
7. In order to establish their case, plaintiff No.1
was examined as PW.1 and got marked nine documents
and same were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. Defendant
No.1 was examined as DW.1 and no documents were
produced.
8. The Trial Court after considering the material on
record, vide judgment and decree dated 02.03.2018,
decreed the suit of the plaintiffs holding that the plaintiffs
are entitled for 1/5th share each in the suit schedule
properties and being aggrieved by the same, the
defendant No.1 has preferred this Regular First Appeal.
9. No representation has been made on behalf of
the appellant. Accordingly, as the records are received
from the Trial Court and on other hand, respondent No.1,
3 and 4 are served and they remained absent, heard
Sri Anand V.Ture, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2. Appeal was taken on board. Perused the
records.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1578
10. It is urged in the memorandum of appeal that
granting of 1/5th share each to the plaintiffs is incorrect as
the father of the plaintiffs died in the year 2002 and
therefore, it is contended that plaintiffs are not the
coparceners in the schedule properties.
11. It is also stated in the grounds of the
memorandum of appeal that there was family
arrangement during 1992 and therefore the defendant
No.1/appellant sought for setting aside the judgment and
decree passed by the Trial Court.
12. Per contra, Sri Anand Ture, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.2, sought to justify the
impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court
stating that the allotment of shares made by the Trial
Court is just and proper and accordingly sought for
dismissal of the appeal.
13. Having taken note of the arguments of the
respondent No.2 and the grounds urged in the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1578
memorandum of appeal, the point for consideration is as
follows :-
i) Whether the judgment and decree
passed by the Trial Court requires
reconsideration in this appeal under
Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure ?
ii) What order ?
14. Having noticed the grounds urged in the
memorandum of appeal and the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, it is not in
dispute with regard to the relationship between the
parties. Family pedigree is shown as follows :-
Revansiddappa
Bandappa Shivabasappa
Ratnabai
Revansiddappa Mahadevi Chandrakala Shashikala Sheela
D-1 D-2 D-3 P-1 P-2
15. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs and
defendants are the children of Bandappa Yenagur. Father
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1578
of the parties died intestate and it is not in dispute with
regard to the fact that the schedule properties are the
joint family properties of the parties. Though the
defendant No.1/appellant herein has stated that there was
family arrangement during the year 1992, however, no
material has been produced before the Trial Court and on
other hand, no independent witnesses were examined by
defendant No.1 to prove the family arrangement as stated
in the written statement. In that view of the matter, taking
into account the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh
Sharma and others1, the plaintiffs as well as the
defendants are entitled for 1/5th share each in the
schedule property. Therefore, I do not find any perversity
or material illegality in the judgment and decree passed by
the Courts below. In the result, I pass the following order:
i) Appeal is dismissed.
AIR 2020 SC 3717
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1578
ii) The judgment and decree dated
02.03.2018 in O.S.No.184/2013 passed
by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Kalaburagi is hereby confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
