Karnataka High Court
Smt.Tungamma W/O Ramaraddi Kiresur vs Smt.Jayalakshmi W/O Balakrishnagouda ... on 12 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16502
RSA No. 100031 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
RSA NO. 100031 OF 2016 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. TUNGAMMA W/O. RAMARADDI KIRESUR,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. SOTAKANAL, TQ. NAVALGUND-581205.
2. SMT. RASHMI W/O. SHRINIVAS KOPPAD,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. SOTAKANAL, TQ. NAVALGUND-581205.
3. ANAND S/O. RAMARADDI KIRESUR,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SOTAKANAL, TQ. NAVALGUND-581205.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. B. V. SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. JAYALAKSHMI
W/O. BALAKRISHNAGOUDA TIMMANAGOUDRA,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK AND AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KONDIKOPPA, TQ. NAVALGUND-581205.
Digitally signed
by VISHAL
...RESPONDENT
VISHAL NINGAPPA
NINGAPPA PATTIHAL
PATTIHAL Date:
(BY SRI. S. R. HEDGE, AND
2024.11.25
10:38:15 +0530
SRI. P.K.SANNINGANNAVAR , ADVOCATES)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.10.2015 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.119/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE AT DHARWAD. PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.09.2013, PASSED IN
O.S.NO.242/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND CJM, DHARWAD SITTING AT NAVALGUND, DISMISSING
THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16502
RSA No. 100031 of 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA)
Defendants are before this Court in the regular
second appeal assailing the concurrent findings of facts
recorded by the Courts below, wherein, the suit for
partition and separate possession came to be decreed
awarding 1/5th share in the suit property.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent and perused the material on record.
3. The genealogy of the parties is culled out as
under:
Timmaraddi
(Dead)
Padmavva Jayalakshmi Ramaraddi Yashodha Radha
(Wife) (daughter) (son) (daughter) (daughter)
(Pltf.1) (pltf.2) (dead) (pltf.3) (pltf.4)
Tungamma Rashmi Anand
(wife) (daughter) (Son)
(deft.1) (deft.2) (deft.3)
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16502
4. Plaintiff is the wife of Thimaraddi and mother of
Plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 and one Ramaraddi, defendant Nos.1 to
3 are the children of Ramaraddi. The case of the plaintiffs
is that, after the death of Timmaraddi, his son Ramaraddi
was managing the family properties, and entered his name
in the revenue records exclusively and on his death,
defendants name has been entered, there is no partition
between the sons of Thimaraddi, entry of the name of
Ramaraddi and his sons in the revenue records is without
partition, plaintiffs are entitled for 1/5th share each in the
suit schedule property.
5. Defendants plea is that the name of Ramaraddi
i.e., the father of the defendants was entered in respect of
the suit properties pursuant to a consent Varadi given by
the legal heirs of Thimaraddi to enter the name of
Ramaraddi in the revenue records and the mutation has
been affected and Ramaraddi was in possession, after his
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16502
death, the defendants are in possession of the suit
property.
6. Before the trial Court, plaintiff Nos.1, 3 and 4
compromised and filed a memo to that effect on
02.04.2013 and accordingly, dismissed the suit as not
pressed against plaintiff Nos.1, 3 and 4 and considering
the oral and documentary evidence, decreed suit in
respect of plaintiff No.2 and held that the plaintiffs are
entitled for 1/5th share in the suit schedule property.
Aggrieved, the defendants preferred an appeal before the
First Appellate Court.
7. The First Appellate Court while re-appreciating
and re-considering the entire oral and documentary
evidence, confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial
Court. Aggrieved the defendants are before this Court in
this second appeal.
8. Suit for partition and separate possession, the
relationship between the parties is not in disputed. It is
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16502
also not in dispute that the suit properties are the
ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiffs and
defendants. The defendants contended that a mutation
entry has been effected in the name of the Ramaraddi,
wherein, the legal heirs of Timmaraddi consented to enter
his name and as such Ramaraddi is the exclusive owner of
the suit properties, on his death, the defendants are the
owners in possession. The law is well settled that the
revenue entries would not confer any title in respect of
any particular person in the absence of any registered
document. There being no registered document in favor of
the Ramaraddi, mere varadi to enter his name would not
confer any right, the Courts below were justified in arriving
at a conclusion that there was no partition and there is no
relinquishment of rights of the legal heirs of Timmaraddi in
favor of the Ramaraddi and analyzing and appreciating the
entire oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court
arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff No.2 is entitled for
1/5th share in the suit property.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16502
9. In light of the decision of the Apex Court in the
case of VINEETA SHARMA vs. RAKESH SHARMA1, the law
is well settled that the daughters are coparceners and
entitled for equal share equal to that of sons. 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. Accordingly, this Court pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The Regular Second Appeal is hereby
dismissed.
(ii) The judgment and decree of the Courts
below stands confirmed.
Sd/-
(JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA)
PJ
(2020) 9 SCC 1
