Karnataka High Court
Padmawati And Ors vs Sugamma And Ors on 5 March, 2024
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1970-DB
RFA No. 200048 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 200048 OF 2018
(PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
1. PADMAWATI W/O BASWANTHRAO,
AGE: 65 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD & AGRICULTURE,
R/O VILLAGE SIRSI-A,
TQ & DIST: BIDAR-58411.
2. PUNYAVATHI W/O ISHWAR
Digitally signed by
AGE: 55 YEARS,
VARSHA N
RASALKAR OCC: HOUSEHOLD & AGRICULTURE,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA R/O VILLAGE T-MIRJAPUR,
TQ & DIST: BIDAR-58411.
3. IRAMMA W/O SHARANAPPA
AGE: 51 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O YADLAPUR TQ & DIST: BIDAR-58411.
4. LAXMI W/O LATE TUKARAM
AGE: 51 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O VILLAGE T-MIRJAPUR,
TQ & DIST: BIDAR-58411.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1970-DB
RFA No. 200048 of 2018
5. MAHADEVI W/O SHIVASHETTY
AGE: 48 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD & AGRICULTURE,
R/O VILLAGE T-MIRJAPUR,
TQ & DIST: BIDAR-58411.
6. PURSHPAWATI W/O BAMSHETTY
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD & AGRICULTURE,
R/O VILLAGE KADLABAD,
TQ: BHALKI,
DIST: BIDAR-58411
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SUGAMMA
W/O LATE CHANABASAPPA,
AGE: 85 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD & AGRICULTURE,
R/O VILLAGE T-MIRJAPUR,
TQ & DIST: BIDAR-58411.
2. MALLIKARJUN
S/O LATE CHANABASAPPA
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O VILLAGE T-MIRJAPUR,
TQ & DIST: BIDAR-58411.
3. KASHINATH
S/O LATE CHANABASAPPA
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O VILLAGE T-MIRJAPUR,
TQ & DIST: BIDAR-58411.
4. KIRAN
S/O LATE VIJAYAKUMAR
AGE: 9 YEARS MINOR U/G OF HER MOTHER
DEFENDANT NO.5 R/O VILLAGE,
T-MIRJAPUR TQ & DIST: BIDAR-58411.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1970-DB
RFA No. 200048 of 2018
5. MANGALA
W/O LATE VIJAYAKUMAR
AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD & AGRICUALTURE,
R/O VILLAGE T-MIRJAPUR,
TQ & DIST: BIDAR-58411.
6. GURUNATH
S/O NAGSHETTY BUTTE
AGE: 51 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD & AGRICUALTURE,
R/O KHB COLONY,
BIDAR-58411.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. JYOTI S KULKARNI AND
SRI. SACHIN M MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 & R5;
SRI. A.M.BIRADAR, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, PRAYING
TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.80/2013 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, BIDAR AND ALLOW
THE REGULAR FIRST APPEAL, AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED: 22.01.2018 AND FURTHER DECREE THE
SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS WITH THROUGHOUT
COST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1970-DB
RFA No. 200048 of 2018
ORDER
This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs under Section 96
of the CPC, challenging the judgment and decree in OS
No.80/2013, dated 22.01.2018 passed by Prl. Sr. Civil
Judge and CJM Court, Bidar, wherein the suit filed by the
plaintiffs is dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the suit schedule
properties are ancestral properties, succeeded by
deceased Chanbasappa during his lifetime. Defendant No.1
is the wife of Chanbasappa, defendants No.2 and 3 are the
sons of Chanbasappa, defendant No.4 is the son of
Vijayakumar, who is the son of Chanbasappa, defendant
No.5 is the wife of Vijayakumar and plaintiffs No.1 to 6 are
the daughters of Chanbasappa. The case of the plaintiffs
is that the suit schedule property is a joint family property,
which they are cultivating jointly and they are in joint
possession. Since, the plaintiffs have legitimate share in
the suit schedule property, they have demanded for
partition. The defendants have denied the legitimate
share of the plaintiffs and then the plaintiffs have filed a
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1970-DB
suit for partition and separate possession. The Trial Court
has dismissed the suit on the ground that the father of the
plaintiff has died before 2005, that means before Hindu
Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, came into force.
Hence, they do not become coparceners along with the
male members of the family. Hence, the suit for partition
has been dismissed.
3. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have
filed this appeal.
4. Sri.Manvendra Reddy, learned counsel for plaintiffs
contended that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma And
Others, (2020) 9 SCC 1, held that the daughters are
coparceners by birth. Therefore, they are entitled for their
share in the coparcener property. The finding of the Trial
Court is contrary to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in
the judgment of 'Vineeta Sharma' (Supra). He further
contends that he seeks for partition.
5. Sri.A.M.Biradar, learned counsel for defendant
No.6 contended that he is not disputing the law laid down
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1970-DB
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of 'Vineeta
Sharma'(Supra) and contended that the daughters are
coparceners by birth and they are entitled for a share in
joint family properties. He further contended that the suit
filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable, since they have
not included all joint family properties. In support of his
contention, he has filed application under Order XLI rule
27 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., producing documents
to show that other joint family properties has not been
included in the suit schedule properties.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the plaintiffs and
learned counsel for the defendants and on perusing the
records, the points that would arise for our consideration
are:
a. Whether the judgment and decree passed
by the Trial Court is contrary to the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of 'Vineeta Sharma'(Supra)?
b. Whether the matter requires to be
remitted back to the Trial Court with
liberty to the parties to include all joint
family properties?
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1970-DB
7. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs are the
daughters of one Sri.Chanabasappa. In view of the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'Vineeta
Sharma'(Supra), the daughters become coparceners by
birth and they are entitled for a share in the joint family
properties. In view of the said judgment, the finding of
the Trial Court that as on the date of Hindu Succession
(Amendment) Act, 2005 coming to force, the father of
the plaintiffs was not alive is contrary to the law.
Therefore, in view of the said judgment, the finding of
the Trial Court that the plaintiffs are not coparceners
along with male members in the joint family properties,
is not sustainable.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 herein has
filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 read with
Section 151 of C.P.C., producing documents to show
that there are other joint family properties, which are
not included in the suit schedule properties.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1970-DB
9. To give one more opportunity to the parties to
produce all necessary documents to claim their share in
the joint family property, the matter is remitted back to
the Trial Court for fresh consideration.
10. Accordingly, we pass the following:
ORDER
a. The appeal is allowed.
b. The judgment and decree passed by the
Trial Court dated 22.01.2018 in
O.S.No.80/2013, passed by the Prl. Sr.
Civil Judge and CJM Court, Bidar, is set
aside. The matter is remitted back to the
Trial Court for fresh consideration, with
liberty to the parties to produce additional
documents and additional evidences.
c. The Trial Court is directed to dispose off
that suit as expeditiously as possible, not
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1970-DB
later that one year from the date of receipt
of copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
NJ
CT: CS
