Karnataka High Court
Sri Ramanna (Since Deceased By Lrs) vs Sri Thimmaiah on 5 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:36621
RFA No. 985 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 985 OF 2012 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI RAMANNA
(SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS)
(a) SMT. JAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
W/O LATE RAMANNA
(b) SMT.BHAGYALAKSHMI
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS
D/O LATE RAMANNA
(c) SMT.CHOODAMANI
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS
D/O LATE RAMANNA
Digitally signed LRS (b) AND (c) ARE MINORS AND
by ALBHAGYA REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND
Location: HIGH NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. JAYAMMA,
COURT OF AND ALL ARE RESIDING AT
KARNATAKA
NAGADEVANAHALLI,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK AND
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-560060.
2. SRI PUTTARAJU
S/O THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
RESIDING AT NAGADEVANAHALLI,
KENGERI HOBLI,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:36621
RFA No. 985 of 2012
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK AND
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-560060.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI A.R.HOLLA & SRI P.RAVINDRA, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SRI THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
S/O LATE YELIAPPA
2. SMT. VENKATAMMA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
W/O LINGAPPA
BOTH ARE
R/AT NAGADEVANAHALLI,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
3. SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA
MAJOR,
D/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH
SINCE DECEASED
REP. BY HER LRS.
(a) SRI VENKATESH
S/O LATE JAYALAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
(b) SRI KANTHESH
S/O LATE JAYALAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
(AMENDED AS PER THE ORDER
DATED 11.12.2023)
4. SMT. VENKATAMMA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
W/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:36621
RFA No. 985 of 2012
5. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
MAJOR,
D/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH
6. SRI GOVINDAPPA
MAJOR,
S/O LATE PUTTAIAH
7. SMT. RENUKA
MAJOR,
W/O K.VENKATASWAMY
8. SRI VENKATASWAMY
MAJOR,
S/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH
RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 8 ARE
RESIDING AT MARIYAPPANAPALYA,
NEAR BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
BANGALORE-560056.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.NAGALINGAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R3(a), R3(b), R7, R8 SERVED,
VIDE ORDER DATED 27.01.2021,
NOTICE TO R2, R4, R5, R6 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96, R/W, O-XLI,
RULE-1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 05.04.2012 PASSED IN O.S.2057/2003 ON THE FILE OF
THE III ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING
THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiffs assailing the
judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.2057/2003, wherein
NC: 2024:KHC:36621
plaintiffs' suit seeking the relief of partition is dismissed. The
plaintiffs' assailing the judgment and decree rendered in
O.S.No.2057/2003, have filed the captioned appeal.
2. For the sake of brevity, rank of the parties is
referred to as per the ranking before the Trial Court.
3. The family tree at Ex.P2 is as below:
UÁæªÀÄ:- £ÁUÀzÉêÀ£ÀºÀ½î zÁR¯É ºÉÆç½:PÉAUÉÃj vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ:¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ zÀQët
aPÀÌUÉÆ®ègÀºÀnÖ
ªÀA±ÀªÀÈPÀë
AiÀĽîAiÀÄ¥Àà (¥sÀªÀw)
aPĄ̀Á®ªÀÄä ºÉAqÀw (¥sÀªÀw)
1£Éà aPÀÌtÚ (¥sÀªÀw) 2£Éà PÀ®èAiÀÄå 68 ªÀµÀð 3£Éà wªÀÄäAiÀÄå 62 ªÀµÀð
vÁAiÀĪÀÄä 58 ªÀµÀð
¨Á®ªÀÄä 56 ªÀµÀð
1£Éà gÁªÀÄtÚ 34 ªÀµÀð
2£Éà ¥ÀÄlÖgÁdÄ 12 ªÀµÀð
F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ªÀA±ÀªÀÈPÀëzÀ°è£À CA±ÀUÀ¼É¯Áè ¸ÀvÀåªÁVgÀÄvÉÛ, ºÉý §gɹ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÉÛAzÀÄ M¦à
¸À» ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
¸ÁQëUÀ¼ÀÄ:
1. ¸À»/- £À£Àß ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ (J¯ï.n.JA.) D¥sï
r. ªÀiÁgÀ¥Àà ¸À»/- gÁªÀÄtÚ
UÁæªÀįÉPÁÌ¢üPÁj
¸ÀÆ°PÉgÉ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw
2. ¸À»/- PÉAUÉÃj ºÉÆç½, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ zÀQët vÁ:
NC: 2024:KHC:36621
4. One Ramanna, who is the son of first defendant-
Thimmaiah instituted the suit seeking the relief of partition and
separate possession. The original plaintiff contended that suit
schedule property is joint family and ancestral property and
hence, asserted that he has got legitimate share in the suit
schedule property. Plaintiff alleged in the plaint that defendant
No.1/his father is mismanaging the income generated from the
suit schedule property and inspite of repeated demand by
plaintiffs', his father declined to effect partition by metes and
bounds. The plaintiffs' also alleged that though first defendant
assured that he would effect partition and grant half share,
however, went on postponing on one or the other pretext.
Hence, the present suit for partition.
5. The first defendant on receipt of summons, entered
appearance and filed written statement and stoutly denied the
entire averments made in the plaint. First defendant admitted
the relationship. However, specifically denied that plaintiffs'
along with first defendant constitute an undivided Joint Hindu
family and further disputed that they are co-parceners. The
first defendant however admitted that the property is acquired
by his father Yaliappa. First defendant disputed that he is the
NC: 2024:KHC:36621
kartha of the family. On the contrary, it is contended that suit
schedule property is self-acquired property and after the death
of Yaliappa, first defendant has succeeded as he has inherited
the property left behind by his father and since, the property
held by Yaliappa is his self-acquired property, the first
defendant contended that plaintiff being the son is not entitled
for any share in the suit schedule property. The first defendant
also contended that suit schedule property primarily being an
agricultural land, has lost his agricultural character and that he
has alienated the suit schedule property to various persons and
therefore, has raised the contention that the family has lost
possession and therefore, plaintiff cannot maintain the present
partition suit.
6. During the pendency of the suit, the
plaintiff/Ramanna died and his widow and children were
brought on record. The plaintiffs' and first defendant to
substantiate their respective claims, led in oral and
documentary evidence. The Trial Court having assessed oral
and documentary evidence, answered issue No.1 in the
'negative' and proceeded to dismiss the suit.
NC: 2024:KHC:36621
7. Heard the learned counsels on record.
8. This Court has independently examined the
pleadings of the parties. This Court has meticulously examined
the oral and documentary evidence led in by plaintiffs' and the
defendants. Accordingly, the following points would arise for
consideration:
(1) Whether the finding of the Trial Court that
plaintiffs' have failed to prove that the suit
schedule property is joint family ancestral
property is erroneous and warrants
interference?
(2) Whether the judgment and decree rendered
by the Trial Court in dismissing the suit is
erroneous and warrants interference at the
hands of this Court?
Finding on point Nos.(1) and (2):
9. Before this Court delves upon the claim made by
the plaintiffs' in the case on hand, this Court having taken
cognizance of the pleadings in the plaint, more particularly,
paragraph No.4 of the plaint, this Court is of the view that the
plaintiffs' right to enforce partition during the life time of first
NC: 2024:KHC:36621
defendant has to be assertably 'negative' in the light of
pleadings formed in paragraph No.4 of the plaint. This Court
deems it fit to cull out paragraph No.4 of the plaint, which
reads as hereunder:
"4. The plaintiff submits that his grand
father Sri Yaliyappa has acquired the property
bearing Sy.No.53 measuring 3 Acres and 37 guntas
through registered sale deed dated 24.0.1944.
From the date of purchase his grand father Sri
Yaliyappa was in possession and enjoyment of the
said property. The said Yaliyappa apart from the
above said property he has acquired other
properties in his name. He was enjoying all the
properties as absolute owner in possession and
enjoyment of the schedule property. The said
Yaliyappa had three sons namely (1) Chikkanna (2)
Kallyaiah and (3) Thimmaiah i.e., defendant No.1 in
the instant suit. After his death the afore-said
Chikkanna, Kallyaiah and Thimmaiah was in
possession and enjoyment of the afore-said
property bearing No.53 and other properties. Due
to the misunderstanding between themselves, the
afore-said Chikkanna and his brothers had entered
into oral partition. In the oral partition the property
bearing Sy.No.53 measuring 1 Acre 38 guntas
which is fallen to the share of the first defendant
and the said property is morefully described in the
schedule hereunder and hereinafter referred to as
the SCHEDULE PROPERTY".
NC: 2024:KHC:36621
10. The culled out pleadings at paragraph No.4 of the
plaint clearly clinches as to whether plaintiffs' can enforce
partition in the property held by first defendant. On reading
paragraph No.4, it is clearly evident that plaintiffs' have
admitted in unequivocal terms that the suit schedule property
is admittedly owned by Yaliappa. Paragraph No.4 of the plaint
clearly indicates that propositus Yaliappa purchased suit
schedule properties under registered sale deed dated
24.04.1944. The plaintiffs' admit in unequivocal terms that this
is the absolute property of Yaliappa.
11. The Apex Court has consistently held that a
grandson has no automatic right to claim a share in the self-
acquired property of the grandfather during the lifetime of the
father. This principle has been emphasized in several
judgments, with the court differentiating between ancestral
property and self-acquired property. According to the Hindu
law, property can be classified as either ancestral or self-
acquired. Ancestral property is inherited by a Hindu male from
his father, grandfather, or great-grandfather, and the male
descendants automatically acquire a right to a share in such
property by birth. In contrast, self-acquired property refers to
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36621
property acquired by a person through their own means. The
property remains under the absolute control of the acquirer,
and the heirs, including sons and grandsons, do not have a
birthright over it during the acquirer's lifetime.
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C.N.
Arunachala Mudaliar vs. C.A. Muruganatha Mudaliar1 has
clarified that property inherited by a son from his father does
not automatically become ancestral property for his
descendants. If the father inherits property from his father
(i.e., the grandfather), it will be treated as his self-acquired
property if he does not treat it as part of a coparcenary.
Therefore, the son or grandson cannot claim a share during the
father's lifetime.
13. In the landmark judgment in the case of
Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur vs. Chander Sen2,
the Apex Court ruled that property inherited by a Hindu male
after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956,
would be treated as his absolute and individual property, and
1953 SCR 955
1986 AIR 1753
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36621
not as ancestral property. This judgment reinforces the
principle that the property inherited by the father will not be
ancestral property for the grandson, and the grandson cannot
claim a share during the father's lifetime.
14. The Apex Court in the case of Yudhishter vs.
Ashok Kumar3, following the Chander Sen ruling (supra),
held that if the father inherits property from his father (i.e., the
grandfather) after the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act,
1956, it becomes his self-acquired property. Consequently, the
grandson has no claim over such property during the father's
lifetime, unless the father chooses to treat it as ancestral
property by blending it with the joint family property.
15. In the case at hand, it is admitted in paragraph
No.4 of the plaint that the suit schedule property was self-
acquired by Yaliappa through a registered sale deed in 1944.
After his death, his three sons, including the first defendant,
inherited the property under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession
Act. As per Section 8, property inherited by a male Hindu from
his father is treated as his individual property. Thus, the
1987 AIR 558
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36621
property inherited by the first defendant is not ancestral, but
self-acquired in his hands.
16. Under Section 8, inheritance is passed down based
on legal heirship, and not as part of a coparcenary
system. Grandsons are explicitly excluded from claiming any
share of the property while their fathers (Class I heirs) are
alive. In other words, the plaintiff/Ramanna, who is the son of
Thimmaiah (Defendant No.1), has no birthright in the suit
schedule property as it is treated as self-acquired property in
the hands of Thimmaiah.
17. As per the schedule, grandsons are not listed as
Class I heirs. They inherit only when their fathers (who are
Class I heirs) have predeceased the grandfather. Since, the
plaintiff's father, Thimmaiah, is alive and has inherited the
property, the plaintiff has no right to seek partition of the
property during his father's lifetime.
18. Based on the clear legal position established by the
Apex Court, it is evident that the plaintiffs' cannot claim a right
to partition in the self-acquired property of Yaliappa, as
inherited by the first defendant. The property inherited by the
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36621
first defendant is to be treated as his individual property under
Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, and the plaintiffs' (being
the son and legal heirs of the first defendant) do not have a
right to enforce partition during the first defendant's lifetime.
The findings of this Court are accordingly 'negative'.
19. In view of the discussion made supra, point Nos.(1)
and (2) are answered accordingly in the 'negative'. For the
foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that the first appeal
being devoid of merits accordingly stands dismissed.
SD/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
ST
