Karnataka High Court
Sri Kalappa vs Smt Anjanamma on 26 June, 2024
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:24343
RSA No. 717 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 717 OF 2015 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SRI. KALAPPA,
S/O LATE KARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT: HAROHALLI VILLAGE,
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST,
YALAHANKA HOBLI,
PIN - 560 064,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. DEEPAK J., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. ANJANAMMA,
Digitally signed W/O PATELAPPA,
by AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
NARAYANAPPA R/AT: HAROHALLI VILLAGE,
LAKSHMAMMA
Location: HIGH SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST,
COURT OF YALAHANKA HOBLI - 560 064,
KARNATAKA BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.
2. SMT. K. MANJULA,
W/O NARASIMHARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT: NO.80, 11TH CROSS,
BINNY BADAVANE,
VIJAYANAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:24343
RSA No. 717 of 2015
3. SMT. SAVITHRI,
W/O H. ANAND MURTHY,
AGED ABIYT 46 YEARS,
R/AT: NO. 37/5-LF,
ESIC STAFF QUARTERS,
NANDINI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 096.
4. SMT. RAMA DEVI,
W/O NARENDRA KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT: NO. 12/1, 8TH CROSS,
NEAR TAMIL BAPUJI SCHOOL,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
KUMPAPURA AGRAHARA,
BENGALURU - 560 023.
5. SMT. SHANTHAMMA,
W/O SHIVAKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT: CHUNCHANAKUPPE VILLAGE,
(POST OFFICE OPPOSITE HOUSE),
TAVAREKERE HOBLI - 562 130.
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.
6. SMT. PADMA,
W/O RADHA KRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT: NO. 12/1, 8TH CROSS,
NEAR TAMIL BAPUJI SCHOOL,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
KEMPAPURA AGRAHARA
BENGALURU - 560 023.
7. SMT. THIRUMALAMMA,
W/O LATE. KRIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
R/AT: HARAHOLLI VILLAGE,
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST,
YALAHANKA HOBLI
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:24343
RSA No. 717 of 2015
PIN - 560 064,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.
8. SRI. LAKSHMANA,
S/O LATE KARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT: HAROHALLI VILLAGE,
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST,
YALAHANKA HOBLI
PIN -560 064
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. THAMMAIAH B. G. ADVOCATE FOR C/R1-R6,
R2 SERVED AND UNREPRSENTED,
SRI.D.C. PARAMESHWARAIAH FOR R8.)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN
O.S.NO.705/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT AT BANGALORE
AND R.A.NO.145/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL
DISTRICT AT BANGALORE AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant, who appeared as defendant No.3
before the Trial Court and the appellant before the
First Appellate Court is before this Court seeking for
the following reliefs:
NC: 2024:KHC:24343
WHEREFORE, the appellant above
named most humbly prays that this Hon'ble
High Court may be pleased to:-
(1) Call for the records in O.S.No.705/2009
on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Bangalore Rural District at Bangalore
and R.A.No.145/2013 on the file of the I
Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Bangalore Rural District at Bangalore and
(2) SET ASIDE the judgment and decree
passed in R.A.No.145/2013 on the file of the
I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Bangalore Rural District at Banga;pre and
dismiss the suit in O.S.No.705/2009 on the
file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Bangalore Rural District at Bangalore.
(3) PASS any other order/s as this Hon'ble
Court deems fit to be granted in the
circumstances of the case in the interest of
justice and equity.
2. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 had filed a suit in O.S.No.
705/2009 seeking for partition of the suit schedule
property therein contending that the properties are
joint family properties acquired by their mother
defendant No.1 from her father, and the suit came to
be decreed vide judgment and decree dated
28.02.2013. Defendant No.3, who is the appellant
herein had challenged the same in RA.No.145/2013
before the First Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Bangalore Rural District and the said appeal
NC: 2024:KHC:24343
came to be dismissed. Challenging the same the
appellant is before this Court seeking for the
aforesaid reliefs.
3. The contention of Sri.Deepak J, learned counsel for
the appellant is that the properties having been
acquired by defendant No.1 - Smt.Thirumalamma
from her father would become her self acquired
property in terms of Section 14 of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 (for short 'The Act') and as
such, it would become a Stridhana properties and
therefore, is a self acquired property in terms of
Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 and as
such, the plaintiffs, who are the daughters, would not
have any right, title or interest in the property. His
submission is that this aspect has not been
considered by the Trial Court or the First Appellate
Court.
4. A perusal of both the judgments would indicate that
the judgments are based on the evidence, written
NC: 2024:KHC:24343
statement and evidence tendered by
Smt. Thirumalamma/defendant No.1 stating that she
has no objection for the partition of the properties. It
is only the woman, who can assert a right under
Section 14 of the Act of her absolute ownership of
the property irrespective of the manner of acquisition
of title as indicated in sub Section 14 of the Act. In
the present matter, when defendant No.1/mother
has not asserted her independent individual title, but
has come forward to state in unequivocal terms that
the property may be divided and partitioned amongst
all her children. There being no assertion made under
Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, the
submission made by Sri.Deepak J., learned counsel
which is being made now and which had earlier been
made before the Trial Court and First Appellate
Court, in my considered opinion has been rightly
rejected.
NC: 2024:KHC:24343
5. In that view of the matter, there is no substantial
question of law, which has been raised in the present
appeal, since there is no assertion made by
Smt.Thirumalamma/defendant No.1 that she is the
absolute owner and that the plaintiffs have no
interest in the property. In fact, the facts are
contrary, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court
having decided the matter on admission of defendant
No.1 on facts there would be no substantial question
which arises for consideration in the matter. Hence,
the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage
itself.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RMS
