Karnataka High Court
Smt.Neelawwa W/O Kenchanagouda Police ... vs Smt.Neelawwa W/O Rudragouda Police ... on 6 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16239
RSA No. 100346 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
RSA NO. 100346 OF 2018 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SMT. NEELAWWA
W/O. KENCHANAGOUDA POLICE PATIL,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KOLIHALLI,
NOW RESIDING AT HUNASIHAL,
TQ. YELBURGA, DIST. KOPPAL-583237.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ANAND R KOLLI,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
VISHAL
signed by
VISHAL
NINGAPPA
1. SMT. NEELAWWA
NINGAPPA PATTIHAL
PATTIHAL Date:
2024.11.13
11:33:34
W/O. RUDRAGOUDA POLICE PATIL,
+0530
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HUNASIHAL, TQ. YELBURGA,
DIST. KOPPAL-583237.
SMT. SHIVAWWA
W/O. ISHAPPA GADIGERI,
AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.,
2. SMT. NEELAPPA S/O. ISHAPPA GEDGERI,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KOLIHAL, TQ. YELBURGA,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16239
RSA No. 100346 of 2018
DIST. KOPPAL-583237.
3. SMT. SHANTAWWA
W/O. IRAPPA KABBINNADUR,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KAKKUR, TQ. MUNDARGI,
DIST. GADAG-582118.
4. SHRI. VEERABHADRAPPA
S/O. IRAPPA KABBINNADUR,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KAKKUR, TQ. MUNDARGI,
DIST. GADAG-582118.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.G.MOGALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2, R3 AND R4 ARE NOTICE SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC.100 OF CPC, 1908, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.04.2018 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.05/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, YELBURGA,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 03.12.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.18/2010
ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS, YELBURGA, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR
PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DISMISSSAL, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16239
RSA No. 100346 of 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA)
1. Since the learned counsel for the appellant has
appeared and argued the matter, the matter directing to be
listed for "dismissal" would not arise.
2. Heard the matter on merits.
3. Assailing the concurrent findings of facts recorded
by the Courts below, defendant No.4 is before this Court in
this Regular Second Appeal.
4. Plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the sisters
born to one Ningappa S/o. Neelappa Gadigeri, the original
propositus. Suit land is Sy. No.85 (new) 64 (old) measuring
16 acres 09 guntas, situated at Kolihal Village. The case of
the plaintiff is that, the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2
have jointly inherited the suit land after the death of
Ningappa and their mother namely Iramma; that defendant
Nos.1 and 2 have got their names entered in the revenue
records without the consent of the plaintiff. It is the case of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16239
the plaintiff that they have not relinquished their rights in
respect of the suit land in favor of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and
a mere entry in the revenue records, would not deprive the
right of the plaintiff over the suit land. It is further stated
that defendant No.2 changed the khata of the portion of the
suit land, which was standing in her name in favour of her
son Veerabhadrappa - defendant No.3 to an extent of 4 acres
and another portion to an extent of 4 acres 5 guntas in
favour of defendant No.4, without there being a transfer of
valid title. The plaintiff sought for partition and separate
possession of his 1/3rd share and to declare that defendant
Nos.3 and 4 are not the owners in possession of the suit land
to an extent of 4 acres and 4 acres 5 guntas.
5. The defendants filed written statement inter alia
contending that the father of the plaintiff and defendant
Nos.1 and 2 and other family members have effected the
partition and in the said partition, the suit land fell to the
share of defendant Nos.1 and 2, and in the family
arrangements, the elders of the family have orally decided to
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16239
give up the land to an extent of 4 acres 5 guntas to Neelappa
Mallappa Gedigeri as his share in the share of defendant No.2
- Shantawwa and the name of defendant No.4 has been
entered in the revenue records to an extent of 4 acres 5
guntas with the consent of Neelappa, the father of defendant
No.4. It is further stated that the plaintiff has received
Rs.20,000/- and five tolas of gold from the deceased
Ningappa, and she had relinquished her share in the suit
land.
6. The trial Court based on the pleadings, framed
necessary issues. In order to substantiate their claim, plaintiff
examined herself as PW1, marked documents at Exs.P1 to
P10. On the other hand, defendant No.2 examined herself as
DW1; defendant No.4 examined herself as DW3 and also
examined two witnesses as DW2 and DW4 and marked
documents at Exs.D1 to D13.
7. The trial Court based on the pleadings, oral and
documentary evidence arrived at a conclusion that the
plaintiff is entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit land along with
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16239
defendant Nos.1 and 2. Further declared that defendant
Nos.3 and 4 are not the owner and possessor of the suit land
to an extent of 4 acres 5 guntas.
8. Aggrieved, defendant No.4 preferred appeal before
the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court while re-
appreciating the entire oral and documentary evidence
affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
Aggrieved by which, defendant No.4 is before this Court in
this Regular Second Appeal.
9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents and
perused the materials available on record.
10. The relationship between the plaintiff and
defendant Nos.1 and 2 is not in dispute. It is also not in
dispute that the suit land is the land of Ningappa, the original
propositus. According to the defendants, there was a family
arrangement and the suit land fell to the share of defendant
Nos.1 and 2 and in the presence of the elders, the family
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16239
orally decided to give up the suit land to an extent of 4 acres
5 guntas to one Neelappa, who is the father of defendant
No.4. The claim of the defendants is based on the revenue
records, other than the entry of the name of defendant No.4
in the revenue records, no materials are forthcoming as to
the right, title and interest of defendant No.4 and any
evidence to indicate any registered document in favour of
defendant No.4. In the absence of any registered document,
mere entry in the revenue records would not confer any
right, title and interest in the immovable property. The trial
Court and the First Appellate Court held that there is no valid
transfer in favour of defendant No.4 only on the basis of the
revenue entry, which is at Ex.P10. The plaintiff and defendant
Nos.1 and 2 are the daughters of Ningappa and as per the
amended provision of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act,
1956, daughter by birth becomes a coparcener and she has
the same right in the coparcener property. The law is well
settled in light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and others1.
ILR 2020 KAR 4370
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16239
11. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court have
rightly arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff and defendant
Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit land. The
manner in which the Courts below have assessed the entire
oral and documentary evidence, this Court is of the
considered view that the same does not warrant any
interference under Section 100 CPC and there arises no
substantial question of law for consideration in this Regular
Second Appeal. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Regular Second Appeal is hereby
dismissed.
(ii) The judgment and decree of the First
Appellate Court stands confirmed.
Sd/-
_____________________
(JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA)
Vnp / CT: PA
