Karnataka High Court
Veeramma And Anr vs Chanderkala And Ors on 30 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5459
RSA No. 200019 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.200019 OF 2024 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. VEERAMMA W/O BASWANAPPA,
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE-HOLD,
2. BASWANAPPA S/O VEERBHADRAPPA,
AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
BOTH R/O H.NO.12-3-17,
HAROORGERI, BVB COLLEGE ROAD,
BIDAR-585 401.
...APPELLANTS
Digitally signed
by RENUKA (BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA K. BABSHETTY, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. CHANDERKALA W/O ASHOK,
AGE: 54 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE-HOLD AND AGRICULTURE,
R/O HAROORGERI, BVB COLLEGE ROAD,
BIDAR-585 401.
2. THE BANK MANAGER,
STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD,
ADB BR., BIDAR-585 401.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5459
RSA No. 200019 of 2024
3. ARUNA TAI SWAMY W/O RAVINDRA SWAMY,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE-HOLD,
R/O H.NO.8-11-254, RAGHAVENDRA COLONY,
BIDAR-585 401.
4. RAVINDRA SWAMY S/O KALLAYYA SWAMY,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O H.NO.8-11-254, RAGHAVENDRA COLONY,
BIDAR-585 401.
5. JADHAV PATEL S/O AMRUTHLAL PATEL,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O H.NO.12-3-70, HAROORGERI,
BIDAR-585 401.
6. ABDUL ALEEM S/O LATE ABDUL RASHEED,
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O H.NO.2-3-39, LALEEFPURA,
BIDAR-585 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI RAVI B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
PRAYING TO, CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW THE
APPEAL AND SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
20.09.2023, PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC AT BIDAR IN R.A.NO.23/2020 AND THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.08.2020 PASSED BY THE
II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-II AT BIDAR IN
OS.NO.178/2009.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5459
RSA No. 200019 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH
HEGDE
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
The concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court
as well as the First Appellate Court in a suit for partition
filed by the sister against her sister and sister's husband is
called in question before this Court in this regular second
appeal.
2. The admitted factual position would reveal that
one Manikappa was the propositus and he had wife by
name Nagamma. The couple had three daughters namely,
Veeramma, Kamalamma and Chandrakala. Kamalamma,
the second daughter died issueless. It is an admitted
position that Nagamma owned the suit schedule
properties. After her death, Veeramma and Chandrakala
inherited the properties. Chandrakala claims that she has
half share in the suit schedule properties, as such, filed a
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5459
suit against her sister-Veeramma and Veeramma's
husband - Baswanappa.
3. Apart from the aforementioned two defendants,
defendant No.3 - State Bank of Hyderabad is also arrayed
as party and defendants No.4 to 8 are also arrayed as
parties on the premise that those defendants No.4 to 8
claim to be the agreement holders under the first
defendant.
4. The defendants took a stand that the properties
belonged to Nagamma and during the lifetime of
Nagamma, with the consent of Chandrakala, the
properties were transferred in the name of elder daughter
Veeramma. It is the further defence of defendants No.1
and 2 that all the properties stood transferred in the name
of Veeramma with the consent of the plaintiff, as such, the
plaintiff has no right over the suit schedule properties.
5. Defendants No.6 and 8 have led evidence. They
have taken a stand that the properties belonged to
Nagamma and Nagamma has transferred the properties to
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5459
Veeramma and they have entered into an agreement for
sale with Veeramma, as such, prayed for dismissal of the
suit. In addition, they have also taken a stand that
Nagamma has bequeathed the properties in favour of
Veeramma.
6. Both the Courts below have concluded that
there is no division of the properties between Veeramma
and Chandrakala after the demise of Nagamma and both
the Courts have also concluded that Nagamma has not
transferred the properties in favour of Veeramma in the
manner known to law.
7. Admittedly, the alleged bequeath in favour of
Veeramma is not established, as Veeramma did not lead
any evidence. Even defendants No.6 and 8 who led
evidence did not produce any testament of late Nagamma.
This being a position, this Court has to hold that there is
no error in the impugned judgments and decrees given the
fact that the plaintiff's status as daughter of Nagamma is
not in dispute. Also given the fact that the properties once
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5459
belonged to Nagamma, after the demise of Nagamma, the
properties devolved upon Chandrakala, the plaintiff and
Veeramma, the first defendant, who are the only two
Class-I heirs of late Nagamma.
8. Under these circumstances, no substantial
question of law would arise for consideration and
accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
LG
