Karnataka High Court
Ramareddy vs Ajayakumar And Ors on 10 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:496
RSA No. 200345 of 2017
C/W RSA No. 200371 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 200345 OF 2017 (PAR)
C/W
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 200371 OF 2017
IN RSA No.200345 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
RAMAREDDY
S/O LATE SHANKAR PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O SUGURAL VILLAGE,
TQ: DEODURGA,
DIST: RAICHUR-584101.
...APPELLANT
Digitally (BY SRI. R S LAGALI, ADVOCATE)
signed by
SACHIN
Location: AND:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
1. AJAYAKUMAR
S/O RAMAREDDY PATIL,
AGED ABOUT: 19 YEARS,
OCC.NIL.
2. SHARANAKUMAR
S/O RAMAREDDY
AGED ABOUT: 18 YEARS,
OCC.NIL.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:496
RSA No. 200345 of 2017
C/W RSA No. 200371 of 2017
3. SMT. KALAVATHI
W/O RAMAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT: 46 YEARS,
OCC: GOVT TEACHER,
ALL R/O SHASTRI NAGAR WARD NO.51,
KALABURAGI DIST: KALABURAGI-585102.
4. SMT. LAXMI DEVI
W/O VERUPANNA GOUDA,
AGE:MAJOR,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD,
R/O RATNADGI VILLAGE,
TQ:SHAHAPUR,
DIST: YADGIR-585201.
5. SMT. MALLAMMA
W/O ESHANNA,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC:HOUSEHOLD,
R/O ANSUR VILLAGE,
TQ: SHAHAPUR,
DIST: YADGIR-585201.
6. SMT. SHARANAMMA
W/O BHIMAREDDY,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HANMAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ:DIST: RAICHUR-584101.
7. SMT. ANUSUYA
W/O RAMAREDDY,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD.
8. SHIVAKUMAR S/O RAMAREDDY
AGE: MINOR
9. SHASHANK
S/O RAMAREDDY,
AGE:MAJOR,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:496
RSA No. 200345 of 2017
C/W RSA No. 200371 of 2017
U/G OF THEIR NATURAL MOTHER,
SMT. ANUSUYA RESPONDENT NO.7,
ALL R/O SUGURAL VILLAGE TQ: DEODURGA DIST:
RAICHUR-584101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.AJAYKUMAR A.K, SMT.RATNA N SHIVAYOGIMATH,
ADVOCATE FOR R-1,2 AND C/R-3,
SRI.S.S.MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-7 TO 9
NOTICE FOR R-4 TO 6 SERVED UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CPC,
PRAYING TO REGULAR SECOND APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.08.2017
PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
DEODURGA IN R.A. NO. 11/2016, CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.12.2012, PASSED BY CIVIL
JUDGE, DEODURGA IN O.S. No.2/2009 AND DISMISS THE SUIT
O.S.NO.2/2009 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS NO.1
TO 3, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
IN RSA No.200371 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.ANUSUYA
W/O RAMAREDDY,
AGE MAJOR,
OCC HOUSEHOLD.
2. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O RAMAREDDY PATIL,
AGE: 21 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:496
RSA No. 200345 of 2017
C/W RSA No. 200371 of 2017
3 SHASHANK
S/O RAMAREDDY,
AGE: 1815 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT.
APPELLANT NO.3 IS MINOR OF THEIR NATURAL
MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1
ALL ARE R/O SUGURAL VILLAGE,
TQ: DEVADURGA,
DIST: RAICHUR-584101
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S S MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. AJAYA KUMAR
S/O RAMAREDDY PATIL,
AGE: 16 YEARS,
OCC: NIL.
2. SHARANA KUMAR
S/O RAMAREDDY,
AGE: 15 YEARS,
OCC:
BOTH ARE U/G OF THEIR NATURAL MOTHER
SMT. KALAVATHI W/O RAMAREDDY, RESP.3.
3. KALAVATHI
W/O RAMAREDDY PATIL,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC:TEACHER,
ALL ARE R/O SHASTRINAGAR WARD NO.51,
GULBARGA, TQ: DIST: GULBARGA-585103
4. RAMAREDDY
S/O LATE SHANKAR PATIL,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O SUGURAL VILLAGE,
TQ: DEVADURGA DIST: RAICHUR-584101
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:496
RSA No. 200345 of 2017
C/W RSA No. 200371 of 2017
5. LAXMIDEVI
W/O VERUPANNAGOUDA
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O RATNADGI VILLAGE,
TQ. SHAHPUR,
DIST: YADGIRI-584101
6. MALLAMMA
W/O ESHANNA,
AGE: MAJOR,
R/O ANSUR VILLAGE,
TQ: SHAHPUR,
DIST: YADGIRI-584101.
7. SMT. SHARNAMMA
W/O BHIMAREDDY,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HANMAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST: RAICHUR-584101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.AJAYKUMAR A.K, ADVOCATE,
SMT.RATNA N.SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1,2 &3 AND
SRI.SHIVAKUMAR KALLOOR, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL
AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEODURGA IN
R.A.NO.105/2016 DATED 30.8.2017, FURTHER CONFIRMING
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AT
DEODURGA DATED 15/12/2012 IN OS NO.02/2009 IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:496
RSA No. 200345 of 2017
C/W RSA No. 200371 of 2017
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. These appeals are filed by the defendants 1 and 5 to
7, challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2017
passed in RA.No.11 of 2016 and judgment and decree
passed in RA No.105 of 2016 on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC, Devadurga, dismissing the appeals and
confirming the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2012
passed in OS.No.2 of 2009 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr
Dn.) and JMFC, Devadurga, decreeing the suit of the
plaintiffs holding that, the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/3rd
share in the suit schedule property.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this
appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and
ranking before the trial Court.
3. The plaint averments are that the plaintiffs 1 and 2
are the children of plaintiff No.3 and defendant No.1. It is
the case of the plaintiffs that, defendant No.1 and his
NC: 2024:KHC-K:496
brothers have got partitioned their property and the suit
schedule property are fallen to the share of defendant
No.1 and as there is rift in the family, the plaintiffs have
filed suit in OS No.2 of 2009 on the file of the Trial Court
seeking relief of partition and separate possession in
respect of the subject land.
4. After service of summons, defendants entered
appearance and admitted the nature of the property as
joint family property, however, denied the share claimed
by the plaintiffs. It is the case of the defendant No.1 that
defendants 6 and 7 are born to him through his second
wife-Anasuya (defendant No.5) and accordingly, disputed
the share claimed by the plaintiffs and accordingly, sought
for dismissal of the suit.
5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the trial Court has
formulated issues for its consideration.
6. In order to establish their case, plaintiffs examined
three witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and got marked 09
NC: 2024:KHC-K:496
documents as Exs.P1 to P9. On the other hand, defendants
examined five witnesses as DW1 to DW5 and produced 01
document as Ex.D1.
7. The Trial Court, after considering the material on
record, by its judgment and decree dated 15.12.2012
decreed the suit of the plaintiffs in part holding that the
plaintiffs 1 and 2 are entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit
schedule property and being aggrieved by the same, the
defendant No.1 has preferred Regular Appeal in RA.No.11
of 2016 and defendants 5 to 7 preferred RA No.105 of
2016 on the file of First Appellate Court and the said
appeals were resisted by the plaintiffs. The First Appellate
Court, after re-appreciating the facts on record, by its
judgment and decree dated 30.08.2017 dismissed the
appeals and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by
the trial Court in OS.No.2 of 2009. Being aggrieved by the
same, the appellant/defendant Nos.1 and 5 to 7 have
preferred this Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of
CPC.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:496
8. I have heard Sri R.S. Lagali, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant in RSA No.200345 of 2017 and
Sri S.S.Mamadapur, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants in RSA No.200371 of 2017 and Sri Ajay Kumar
learned counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Ratna N.
Shivayogimath, for the plaintiffs.
9. Sri R.S.Lagali, learned counsel for the
defendant/appellant in RSA NO. 200345 of 2017
contended that the both the Courts below have not
considered the factual aspects on record that, the subject
matter of the suit has not been allotted to the appellant
herein and was given to his sister-Lakshmi and
accordingly, sought for interference of this court on the
ground that the devolution of the property has not been
made as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act.
10. Sri S.S. Mamadapur, learned counsel for the
appellants in RSA No.200371 of 2017 argued that, the
claim made by the defendants 6 and 7 being the sons of
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:496
second wife of the defendant No.1, and their relationship
was not disputed by the plaintiffs and as such, Trial Court
ought to have framed issues relating to the shares to be
allotted in favour of defendants 6 and 7 and accordingly,
sought for interference of the court.
11. Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
plaintiffs/ contesting respondents submitted that the
contentions raised by the defendant No.1 disputing the
partition effected between his brothers and sisters as
reached finality as the suit filed by one Laxmidevi, one of
sisters of defendant No.1 in OS No.77 of 2015 was
dismissed and therefore, sought to justify the impugned
judgment and decree passed by the courts below.
12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the
parties and perused the material on records. In order to
understand the relationship between the parties, following
Genealogical Tree of the plaintiffs and defendants is
relevant and same is extracted below:
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:496
Shankerappa Patil (dead)
Vishwanathreddy Ramareddy Smt Laxmidevi Smt. Mallamma Sharanamma
(Df-1) (Df-2) (Df-3) (Df-4)
Kalavathi Anasuya
(Pf-3) (Df-5)
Ajay Kumar Sharankumar Shivkumar Shashank
(Pf-1) (Pf-2) (Df-6) (Df-7)
13. On careful perusal of the Genealogical Tree would
indicate that the original propositus-Shankerappa Patil,
had five children namely, Vishwanathreddy, Ramareddy,
(defendant No.1), Laxmidevi, (defendant No.2), Mallamma
(defendant No.3) and Sharanamma, (Defendant No.4).
Defendant No.1-Ramareddy, had two wives, Kalavathi
(plaintiff No.3) and Anasuya, (defendant No.5).
Ramareddy and Kalavathi had two children namely Sri
Ajay Kumar (plaintiff No.1) and Sri Sharan Kumar (plaintiff
No.2). Ramareddy with Anasuya, who is second wife,
(defendant No.7) had two children Sri Shivakumar
(defendant No.6) and Sri Shashank (Defendant No.7). The
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:496
relationship between the parties is not disputed. Having
taken note of the fact that, though the defendant No.1
pleaded that, the partition between himself and his sisters
and brothers, dated 05.03.2001 has not reached finality
on account of fact that his sisters have disputed the share
however, the said aspect has reached finality on account
of the dismissal of the suit filed by the defendant No.2-
Laxmidevi in OS No.77 of 2015. In that view of the matter,
taking into consideration the fact that the allotment share
made in favour of defendant No.1 has been acted upon
and in view of the fact that the parties to the suit are
residents of Hyderabad Karnataka Area, Kalavati-plaintiff
No.3 is not entitled for the share during the life time of
defendant No.1. In that view of the matter, the allotment
share made by the Trial Court that the plaintiffs 1 and 2
with the defendant No.1 are entitled for 1/3rd share each
in the suit schedule property is just and proper and no
interference is called for in these appeals. Needless to say
that, in view of the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Revanasiddappa and
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:496
another, vs. Mallikarjun and others, reported in 2023
SCC Online 1087, the share of the defendants 6 and 7 in
the properties shall not be ascertained during the life time
of defendant No.1. Therefore, I do not find material
irregularity or perversity in the judgments and decree
passed by the Courts below and accordingly, the Regular
Second Appeals are liable to be dismissed. Since, the
defendants 1, 5 to 7/appellants have not made out a
ground for formulation of substantial question of law as
required under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure,
Regular Second Appeals are dismissed at the Admission
stage itself.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SB
