Karnataka High Court
Channabasappa S/O Basavannappa ... vs Kallavva W/O. Channabasappa Madlur on 18 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3233
RSA No. 100024 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100024 OF 2014 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
CHANNABASAPPA
S/O BASAVANNAPPA DODDANNAVAR
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: RYOT,
R/O. KOLAGI VILLAGE,
TQ: MUNDGOD,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581349.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI DINESH M.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. KALLAVVA
W/O CHANNABASAPPA MADLUR
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O.KOLAGI VILLAGE, TQ: MUNDGOD,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581349.
2. SMT. NAGAVVA W/O. TELAPPA CHIKANSHI
Digitally AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
signed by
VN R/O.LAKKAVALLI VILLAGE,
BADIGER
TQ: SORAB, DIST: SHIMOGGA,
Location:
High PIN-577429.
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad 3. MANJUNATH S/O.SHIVAPPA SOBAR
Bench
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: RYOT,
R/O. ANDAGI VILLAGE, TQ: SIRSI,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581401.
4. SMT. BANGARI W/O. SURESH SANKANAVALLI
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLDWORK
R/O. ANDAGI VILLAGE, TQ: SIRSI
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S.KORISHETTER, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1,
SRI. S.G.KADAKATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3233
RSA No. 100024 of 2014
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN RA NO.65/2008
DATED 26.09.2013 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, YELLAPUR
BY MODIFYUING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN
O.S.NO.42/2008 DATED 03.11.2008 PASSED BY CIVIL JUDGE
(JR.DN.), MUNDGOD AND DISMISS THE SUIT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH)
This appeal is preferred by the defendant No.1 assailing
the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2013 in R.A.No.65/2008
passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Yellapur (for short "the First
Appellate Court") allowing the appeal in part and modifying the
judgment and decree dated 03.11.2008 in O.S.No.42/2008 on
the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Mundgod (for short "the Trial
Court") decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule
property is belonged to the father of the plaintiff and defendant
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3233
No.1 and 2 viz., Basavanneppa. The suit schedule property is
the joint family property and as such, after the demise of their
father-Basavanneppa on 30.08.1960, the plaintiff is also
entitled for share in the suit schedule property and accordingly,
plaintiff has filed O.S.No.42/2008 before the Trial Court seeking
the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the
suit schedule property.
3.1. Upon service of notice, the defendants entered
appearance and filed their written statement. It is the
contention of defendant No.1 that the suit schedule property is
the self-acquired property of late Basavanneppa, having
acquired the same through gift deed and further, the plaintiff
and her sisters were settled in their matrimonial homes and
therefore, the defendant No.1 sought for dismissal of the suit
even on the ground of limitation. Accordingly, sought for
dismissal of the suit.
3.2. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the
parties, framed the issues for its consideration. In order to
establish their case, the plaintiff has examined herself as PW1
and produced 9 documents, which were marked as Ex.P1 to
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3233
Ex.P9. The defendants have examined two witnesses as DW1
and DW2 and produced 6 documents, which were marked as
Ex.D1 to Ex.D6. The Trial Court after considering the material
on record, by its judgment and decree dated 03.11.2008
decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th
share in the suit schedule property. Being aggrieved by the
same, the defendant No.1 preferred R.A.No.65/2008 before the
First Appellate Court and same was resisted by the respondents
herein. The First Appellate Court, after considering the material
on record, by its judgment and decree dated 26.09.2013 partly
allowed the appeal holding that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th
share in the suit schedule property. Feeling aggrieved by the
same, defendant No.1 has preferred this appeal.
4. I have heard Sri. Dinesh M Kulkarni, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. S.G.Kadadakatti,
learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4.
5. This Court vide its order dated 19.06.2019
formulated the following substantial question of law.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3233
"Whether the Courts below are justified in
granting share to married sisters who are born
prior to 1956?"
6. Sri. Dinesh M Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant contended that the finding recorded by both
the Courts below requires to be set aside on the sole ground
that the suit schedule property was donated to the father of the
plaintiff-Basavanneppa as a gift and therefore, the said
property has to be considered as a self-acquired property of the
plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 2 and therefore, the plaintiff is
not entitled for share in the suit schedule property in view of
Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Accordingly,
sought for interference of this Court.
7. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. S. G. Kadadakatti,
appearing for the respondent No.2 to 4 sought to justify the
impugned judgment and decree by referring to the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma v.
Rakesh Sharma and others1.
AIR 2020 SC 3717
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3233
8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties and in order to understand
the relationship between the parties, the genealogy of the
parties is extracted, which reads as under:
Basavanneppa (Dead)
Kallavva Channabasappa Nagavva Susheela Girija
(Plaintiff) (Def.1) (Def-2) (Dead) (Dead)
Manjunath Bangari
(Deft-3) (Deft-4)
9. It is not in dispute with regard to the relationship
between the parties. The plaintiff, defendant No.1 and
defendant No.2 are the children of Basavanneppa and
defendant No.3 and 4 are the grandchildren of Basavanneppa,
who died on 30.08.1960 leaving behind the parties to succeed
to the estate. It is also not in dispute that the suit schedule
property was gifted to the father of the plaintiff as per the gift
deed. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the
amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956,
the daughters have to be considered on par with the sons and
therefore, applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3233
Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma (supra), the plaintiff
and defendant No.1 and 2 are entitled to 1/4th share each in
the suit schedule property and defendant No.3 and 4 together
are entitled for 1/4th share in the suit schedule property. In that
view of the matter, both the Courts below have taken into
consideration the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case referred to above, rightly decreed
the suit holding that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share in
the suit schedule property and same is required to be affirmed
by this Court in this appeal. Accordingly, the substantial
question of law framed favours the plaintiff. In the result, the
appeal stands dismissed.
10. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
YAN
CT:GSM
