Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sharadamma vs Smt. Devamma on 4 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9046
WP No. 55254 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 55254 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHARADAMMA
W/O LAKSHMEGOWDA
AGED 70 YEARS
2. SRI. KUMARA
S/O LAKSHMEGOWDA
AGED 48 YEARS
3. SMT. GIRIJA
W/O SRINIVASA
D/O LAKSHMEGOWDA
AGED 41 YEARS
R/A KEREBEEDHI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573116.
4. SRI. ASHOK
Digitally S/O LAKSHMEGOWDA
signed by BS
RAVIKUMAR AGED 41 YEARS
Location:
HIGH 5. SRI. RAJEGOWDA
COURT OF S/O LAKSHMEGOWDA
KARNATAKA
AGED 39 YEARS
PETITIONER NO.1, 2, 4 AND 5
RESIDING AT SALAGAME VILLAGE AND HOBLI, HASSAN
TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT- 573219
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K.N.NITISH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. DEVAMMA
W/O KARIGOWDA
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9046
WP No. 55254 of 2018
D/O BOMMARAYIGOWDA,
AGED 76 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SALAGAME VILLAGE AND HOBLI,
HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT- 573219
2. SMT. SHANKARAMMA
W/O JAVAREGOWDA
D/O BOMMARAYIGOWDA
AGED 66 YEARS
RESIDING R/A KEREBEEDHI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573116
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 16.11.2018 PASSED IN F.D.P. NO.7/2007 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HASSAN AT ANNEXURE-
E.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The defendant Nos.1 to 5 in FDP No.7/2007 on the file of
the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan (henceforth referred
to as 'Final Decree Court') have filed this writ petition
challenging the correctness of an order dated 16.11.2018, by
which an application (I.A.V) filed by them to drop final decree
proceedings by holding that the petitioners therein/plaintiffs
were not entitled to schedule 'A' and 'B' properties in view of
amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was
rejected.
NC: 2024:KHC:9046
2. The suit in O.S.No.422/1997 was filed by the
daughters/plaintiffs claiming their share in the suit schedule
properties. The said suit was decreed and it was declared that
the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit schedule
properties. The plaintiffs initiated final decree proceedings in
FDP No.7/2007. The defendant Nos.1 to 5 filed an application
under Section 151 of CPC to drop final decree proceedings by
holding that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in the
suit schedule properties in view of the amended Section 6 of
the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. They relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prakash
and others vs. Phulavathi and others [(2016) 2 SCC 36]
and contended that the plaintiffs being married daughters are
not coparceners and were not entitled to claim as coparceners
as their father was not alive as on the date of the amendment
to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
3. The Trial Court after considering this application
held that the plaintiffs were coparceners and were entitled to a
share in the suit properties. It also held that the petitioners
had filed an application seeking enhancement of their share and
thereafter, had approached this Court in W.P.Nos.24516-
NC: 2024:KHC:9046
517/2012 and that this Court in terms of the order dated
26.03.2014 had observed that the plaintiffs are entitled to 2/3rd
share together in the suit schedule properties. Therefore, it
held that the right of the plaintiffs to an extent of 2/3rd share
together in the suit schedule properties was confirmed by this
Court and hence, the defendants cannot claim that the plaintiffs
are not entitled to any share in the suit schedule properties.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition
is filed.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners/defendant
Nos.1 to 5 submits that the instant application was justified in
view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Prakash and others, supra. However, he does not dispute
the fact that the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Prakash and others, supra, is held to be not good law
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs.
Rakesh Sharma and others [(2020) 9 SCC 1], where it was
held that the daughters are also entitled to claim as
coparceners provided the suit properties are not partitioned or
alienated before 20.12.2004.
NC: 2024:KHC:9046
6. In that view of the matter, there is no error
committed by the Final Decree Court warranting interference by
this Court.
7. Hence, this writ petition lacks merit and is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PMR
