Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ningappa S/O Neelappa Guddaraddi vs Sri. Vishnappa S/O Neelappa Guddaraddi on 20 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4043
RSA No. 100278 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100278/2021(PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
SRI NINGAPPA S/O. NEELAPPA GUDDARADDI,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL.,
R/O: LAKAMAPURA, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI, PIN: 581115.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI VISHNAPPA S/O. NEELAPPA GUDDARADDI,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL.,
R/O: ANKASAPURA, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
NOW AT: LINGADAHALLI,
RANEBENNUR TQ, PIN - 581 119.
2. SMT. TIRUKAVVA W/O. RAMAPPA RANGARADDI,
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: MANAKUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
Digitally
signed by PIN: 581 115.
VINAYAKA
BV
3. SMT. SHIVAMMA W/O. SHEKAPPA BANAKAR,
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: TIRUMALADEVARAKOPPA,
TQ. RANEBENNUR, PIN 581 115.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.10.2020 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.04/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,
RANEBENNUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.12.2019, PASSED IN O.S.
NO.230/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, RANEBENNUR,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4043
RSA No. 100278 of 2021
PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE
POSSESSION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The defendant in O.S.No.230/2017 on the file of the
Principal Civil Judge & 1st Addl. JMFC., Ranebennur
(hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court' for short) has
filed this regular second appeal challenging the judgment
and decree dated 13.12.2019 passed therein, as well as
the confirming judgment and decree passed by the III
Addl. Sr.Civil Judge & JMFC., Ranebennur (hereinafter
referred to as the 'First Appellate Court' for short) in
R.A.No.4/2020 vide judgment and decree dated
23.10.2020.
2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as
they were arrayed before the trial Court. The appellant
herein was defendant while the respondent No.1 was the
plaintiff and respondents No.2 and 3 are his sisters.
3. The suit in O.S.No.230/2017 was filed for
partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's share in
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4043
the suit properties. The plaintiff claimed that he and the
defendant were the children of Neelappa and Rindavva. He
claimed that Shivakka and Tirukavva were his sisters. He
claimed that all of them constituted a joint family and that
the suit properties were their ancestral properties. He
claimed that Shivakka was given suitable property towards
her share while Tirukavva was given cash and gold at the
time of her marriage and therefore they were not entitled
for share in the suit properties. He claimed that the
defendant, being his brother had got his name entered in
revenue records without his notice and knowledge.
Therefore, he sought for partition and separate possession
of his lawful share in the suit properties.
4. The defendant entered appearance and
admitted the relationship. He claimed that Neelappa did
not possess any ancestral properties and claimed that the
suit without including Shivakka and Tirukavva was not
maintainable. He also claimed that the lands bearing
Sy.Nos.135A and 135B that stood in the name of the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4043
plaintiff were not included. He claimed that the suit Item
No.1 belonged to Hanumappa which was granted to him
by the Land Tribunal. However, the revenue records were
entered in the name of his father, as he was the eldest
male member. After his death, the mother of the plaintiff
and defendant submitted a Varadi to transfer the revenue
records of the suit Item No.1 to the name of the
defendant. Accordingly, ME.No.627 was certified on
12.03.1983. He claimed that the Item Nos.2, 3 and 4 were
his self acquisition as it was neither owned nor possessed
by any of the members of the family but were possessed
by Halappa Hanumanahalli, Shivanagoudra who executed
relinquishment deeds in favour of the defendant.
5. Based on these rival contentions, the suit was
set down for trial. The plaintiff was examined as PW1 and
he marked Exs.P1 to P6. He examined one witness as
PW2. Defendant was examined as DW1 and marked
Exs.D1 to D5. He also examined one witness as DW2.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4043
6. Based on the oral and documentary evidence,
the trial Court held that the suit Item No.1 was granted to
the propositus of the family and that he having died
intestate, the plaintiff, defendant as well as their sisters
were entitled to an equal share in the suit Item No.1.
Insofar as suit Item Nos.2 to 4 are concerned, it was found
that the suit properties were neither owned nor possessed
by any of the members of the family but on the contrary,
belonged to strangers to the family through whom the
defendant claimed title. The trial Court therefore, decreed
the suit in part and held that the plaintiff, defendant as
well as Shivakka and Tirukavva are entitled to 1/12th share
in the suit Item No.1 and dismissed the suit in respect of
the suit Item Nos.2 to 4.
7. The defendant being aggrieved by the said
judgment and decree, filed R.A.No.4/2020 which too was
dismissed.
8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and
decree, the defendant has filed this regular second appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4043
9. The learned counsel for the defendant
submitted that the daughters were not entitled to a share
in the suit Item No.1 as they were married and were not
part of the family as defined under Section 2(12) of the
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. He therefore,
contends that the judgment and decree of the trial Court
allotting 1/12th share each to the sisters of the plaintiff and
defendant is improper and not correct. In this regard, he
relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of NIMBAVVA AND OTHERS Vs.
CHANNAVEERAYYA AND OTHERS .
10. The fact that the suit Item No.1 was granted to
Hanumappa and after his death was transferred to the
name of the father of the plaintiff and defendant is not
much in dispute. The question whether the daughters are
entitled to share in the suit Item No.1 is no longer res
integra. In view of the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court to which I was a party where it was held that,
(2015) 1 KCCR 205
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4043
once the land is granted by the Tribunal, the provisions of
the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 kicks in and therefore,
even daughters are entitled to the suit Item No.1. The
contention of the learned counsel for the defendant that
the issue is fully covered by the judgment of the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of NIMBAVVA
AND OTHERS Vs. CHANNAVEERAYYA AND OTHERS is
therefore rejected.
11. As the trial court has considered the claim of
the plaintiff insofar as Item No.1 is concerned, there is no
error apparent on the face of the records warranting
interference of this Court in this regular second appeal.
Consequently, the appeal lacks merits and is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE
RH
CT-ASC
