Karnataka High Court
Smt. Devamma vs Thimmanagouda And Ors on 3 June, 2025
-1-
RFA No. 200036 of 2017
C/W RFA No. 200032 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
RFA NO. 200036 OF 2017
C/W
RFA NO. 200032 OF 2020
IN RFA NO.200036/2017
BETWEEN:
SMT. DEVAMMA
W/O NAGAPPA @ NAGANAGOUDA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O K.HOSALLI VILLAGE
TQ: SINDHANUR
DIST: RAICHUR-584101
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.RAVI B PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THIMMANAGOUDA
S/O RAMANGOUDA METI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O K.HOSAHALLI VILLAGE
TQ: SINDHANUR, DIST: RAICHUR-584101
2. BASANAGOUDA
S/O RAMANGOUDA METI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O K.HOSAHALLI VILLAGE
TQ: SINDHANUR, DIST: RAICHUR-584101
-2-
RFA No. 200036 of 2017
C/W RFA No. 200032 of 2020
3. SMT. MAHANTHAMMA
W/O RAMANGOUDA METI
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O K.HOSAHALLI VILLAGE
TQ: SINDHANUR, DIST: RAICHUR-584101
4. SMT. LAXAMI
W/O BASAVARAJ SAHUKAR
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O K.HOSAHALLI VILLAGE
NOW R/O KURKUNDA VILLAGE
TQ: SINDHANUR, DIST: RAICHUR-584101
5. KUMARI SHARNAMMA
D/O RAMANGOUDA METI
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O K.HOSAHALLI VILLAGE
TQ: SINDHANUR, DIST: RAICHUR-584101
6. SMT. RATNAMMA
W/O DEVAREDDY METI
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O K.HOSAHALLI VILLAGE
NOW R/O HIRE KADABUR VILLAGE
TQ: SINDHANUR, DIST: RAICHUR-584101
7. KUMAR MALLIKARJUN
S/O DEVAREDDY METI
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS
SINCE MINOR, REP. THROUGH HIS
NATURAL MOTHER SMT. RATNAMMA
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5;
V/O DATED: 08.11.2017 NOTICE TO R6 D/W;
R7 IS SERVED)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC AT SINDHANUR IN O.S.NO.130/2014
-3-
RFA No. 200036 of 2017
C/W RFA No. 200032 of 2020
(OLD NO.67/2011) DATED: 31.08.2016 AND
CONSEQUENTIALLY ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL BY
DECREEING THE SUIT OF THE APPELLANT IN ENTIRETY.
IN RFA NO.200032/2020
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. DEVAMMA
W/O NAGAPPA @ NAGANGOUDA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O K.HOSALLI VILLAGE
TQ. SINDHHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR
2. SMT. YANKAMMA
SINCE DECEASED
REP. THROUGH APPELANT NO.1
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.RAVI B PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . THIMMANAGOUDA
S/O RAMANGOUDA METI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O K.HOSAHALLI VILLAGE
TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR
2 . BASANAGOUDA
S/O RAMANGOUDA METI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O K.HOSAHALLI VILLAGE
TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR
3 . SMT. MAHANTHAMMA
W/O RAMANGOUDA METI
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O K.HOSAHALLI VILLAGE
-4-
RFA No. 200036 of 2017
C/W RFA No. 200032 of 2020
TQ. SINDHANUR
DIST. RAICHUR
4 . SMT. LAXAMI
W/O BASAVARAJ SAHUKAR
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O K.HOSAHALLI VILLAGE
TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR
5 . KUMARI SHARNAMMA
D/O RAMANGOUDA METI
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O K.HOSAHALLI VILLAGE
TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR
6 . SMT. RATNAMMA
W/O DEVAREDDY METI
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O K.HOSAHALLI VILLAGE
TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR
7 . KUMAR MALLIKARJUN
S/O DEVAREDDY METI
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS
SINCE MINOR, REP. THROUGH HIS NATURAL MOTHER
SMT. RATNAMMA
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5;
V/O DATED: 20.02.2020 NOTICE TO R6 IS D/W)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AT SINDHANUR IN O.S.NO.193/2014 DATED:
31.08.2016 AND CONSEQUENTIALLY ALLOW THE PRESENT
APPEAL BY DISMISSING THE SUIT OF THE RESPONDENT NOS.1
TO 5 AND ETC.,
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 11.02.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
-5-
RFA No. 200036 of 2017
C/W RFA No. 200032 of 2020
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI)
In these two Regular First Appeals, plaintiffs in
O.S.No.130/2014, who are defendants in
O.S.No.193/2014 have challenged the dismissal of their
suit filed for partition and separate possession of half
share in the suit schedule properties and grant of decree
for relief of permanent injunction against them.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are
referred to by their ranks before the trial Court, in
O.S.No.130/2014.
3. One Basanna @ Basanagouda and Ramana
Gowda were true brothers. Plaintiff are respectively the
daughter and wife of Basanna @ Basanagouda. Defendant
No.3 is the wife, defendant Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and Devareddy
Meti are the children of Ramanagowda. Defendant No.6 is
the wife and defendant No.7 is the Son of Devareddy Meti.
Plaintiffs and defendants constitute a Hindu joint family
and suit schedule properties are their ancestral and joint
family properties. Both Basanna @ Basanagouda and
Ramanagouda are no more. Devareddy Meti also died in
2006. Plaintiffs are having half share in the suit schedule
properties. Of late they could not continue to live jointly
and therefore plaintiffs demanded their share, but
defendants flatly refused and hence the suit.
4. Defendants appeared through counsel and filed
written statement, admitting the relationship between the
parties. However, they have denied that plaintiffs and
defendants constitute a joint family and suit properties are
their joint family properties. They have specifically pleaded
that during 1954-55, partition has taken place between
Basanna @ Basanagouda and Ramanagouda.
5. In the said partition in Sy.No.127/A, 11 acres
35 guntas, in Sy.No.187/A, 13 acres 35 guntas, in
Sy.No.186/A, 6 acres 30 guntas and in Sy.No.202, 5 acres
10 guntas fell to the share of Basanna @ Basanagouda.
6. Similarly in the said partition in Sy.No.127/A,
11 acres 36 guntas, in Sy.No.187/A, 11 acres 39 guntas,
in Sy.No.186/A, 6 acres 34 guntas and in lieu of land in
Sy.No.202, the family residential house fell to the share of
Ramanagouda.
7. Since from the time of partition, plaintiffs and
defendants got mutated migrated properties fallen to their
share and are living separately. In fact, they have
borrowed loan on the basis of the properties fallen to their
share and dealt with them independently. Plaintiff No.2
has sold land in Sy.No.187/A to an extent of 3 acres 10
guntas to one Palayya. Out of love and affection, plaintiff
No.2 has relinquished her right over Sy.No.187/A
measuring 10 acres 25 guntas in favour of defendant No.1
and since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the
same. In 1982-83, Ramanagouda sold 3 acres 10 guntas
in Sy.No.187/A through registered sale deed. After the
said sale, defendant Nos.1 to 7 are joint owners and
possessor of 10 acres 29 guntas in Sy.No.187/A.
8. During the year 2000, Ramana Gowda has
purchased 2 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.187/2 in the name
of his wife, i.e, defendant No.3 Mahanthamma out of his
self acquisition. House plot Nos.19 and 20 shown in serial
No.6 of the plaint are purchased by Ramanagouda out of
his self acquisition, in the name of defendant No.1 and
Late Devareddy Meti. In fact, plaintiff No.1 is married in a
very well to do family. However, they are high handed,
preventing defendants from enjoying the properties fallen
to their share and also acquired through their self
acquisition and sought for dismissal of the suit.
9. Defendants filed O.S.No.193/2014 against the
plaintiffs alleging illegal interference in respect of the
properties, fallen to their share and also the properties
acquired through self acquisition.
10. Of course, plaintiffs filed written statement
reiterating the plaint averments and sought for dismissal of
the suit filed against them.
11. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court has
framed issues.
12. In O.S.No.130/2014, on behalf of plaintiffs, 3
witnesses are examined as PWs-1 to 3 including plaintiff
No.1. Ex.P1 to 25 are marked. On behalf of defendants, 3
witnesses are examined as DWs-1 to 3 including
defendant No.1. Exs.D1 to 52 are marked.
13. In O.S.No.193/2014, defendant No.1 is
examined as PW-1 and Ex.P1 to 7 are marked.
14. By virtue of the orders passed on I.A.13, both
suits were clubbed together and disposed off by common
judgment.
15. The trial Court dismissed O.S.No.130/2014,
which was a suit filed by plaintiffs for partition and
decreed the suit in O.S.No.193/2014, which was a suit
filed by the defendants for permanent injunction.
- 10 -
16. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed
in both suits, plaintiffs have come up with these Regular
First Appeals, contending that the same suffers from
serious regularities and there is no application of judicial
mind. They are not sustainable in law or on facts. The trial
Court has proceeded in a mechanical manner without
appreciating case put forth by the plaintiffs and their
defence in the other suit. The trial Court has not
appreciated the oral and documentary evidence placed on
record in right perspective and as such its findings are
perverse. It has wrongly relied upon Ex.D15 to hold that
plaintiff No.2 has relinquished her right in respect of
Sy.No.187/A measuring 10 acres 25 guntas mearly on the
basis of mutation entry. Viewed from any angle, the
impugned judgments and orders are not sustainable and
liable to be interfered with.
17. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing
for defendants supported the judgment and decree passed
by the trial Court. He would submit that in the light of the
- 11 -
oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the trial
Court has rightly held that partition has taken place during
the lifetime of Basanna @ Basanagouda and
Ramanagouda and the same was acted upon by all the
parties. They have enjoyed the suit schedule properties
separately and have also availed loan. They have also
disposed of some of the properties and acquired new
properties. In the light of the same, the trial Court has
rightly refused to grant decree for partition and also
restrained the plaintiffs from interfering with the
properties, fallen into the share of defendants and sought
for dismissal of the appeal.
18. In support of his arguments, learned counsel
for respondents have relied the following decisions:
(i) Ram Swaroop & Ors. Vs. Mahindru and Ors.
(Ram Swaroop)1
(ii) Chairman State Bank of India and Anr. Vs.
M.J.James (M.J.James)2
(iii) B.L.Shreedhar and Ors. Vs. Km.Muni Reddy
(dead) and Anr. (Shreedhar)3
(2003) 12 SCC 436
(2022) 2 SCC 301
- 12 -
19. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the
record.
20. Thus plaintiffs are claiming partition of half
share in the suit schedule properties contending that
plaintiffs and defendants constitute a Hindu joint family
and suit properties are their ancestral and joint family
properties. Defendants admit the blood relationship
between them and have claimed that partition has taken
place as long back as during 1954-55 and the parties have
acted upon the partition. They have alleged that after the
marriage of plaintiff No.1 in a very well to do family,
plaintiffs are preventing defendants from enjoying the
properties fallen to their share and accordingly they have
sought for permanent injunction. Of course, presumption
is that the family is joint, unless the contrary is proved
and the burden is on the defendants to establish that
already partition has taken place and the respective
shares are being enjoyed separately.
(2003) 2 SCC 355
- 13 -
21. Though PWs-1 to 3 have denied the
suggestion that already a partition has taken place, PW-1
has admitted that Khata of the respective properties have
been changed and separate pahani is made out. PW-1 has
stated that about 10-12 years of the death of her father,
her mother left the matrimonial home. PW-1 has claimed
that she remained with the defendants, having regard to
the fact that she was only 15 years old, it is doubtful
whether plaintiff No.2 allowed her to remain with
defendants when her relationship with them had become
stained, forcing her to leave the matrimonial home.
However, plaintiffs have not produced any evidence to
establish that even after plaintiff No.2 left the matrimonial
home, plaintiff No.1 - PW1 stayed back.
22. When suggested that her mother has sold 3
acres in Sy.No.187/A, PW-1 has admitted the said fact,
but claimed that it is sold by all of them. But plaintiffs
have not produced any document to show that the said
alienation was made by all the parties to the suit. PW-1
- 14 -
has admitted that 5 acres of suit schedule properties
standing in her name and she has secured loan on it. She
expressed ignorance to the suggestion that defendant
No.1 Ramanagouda has availed loan on 10 acres fallen to
his share. She has admitted that Ramanagouda has
purchased land in the name of his son and wife, but
volunteer that it is purchased by all. When suggested that
plaintiff No.2 out of love and affection has transferred
Khatha of 10 acres of land in the name of defendant No.1,
PW-1 has stated that she came to know about it after
dispute arose between them. However, she has not taken
any steps to get the same re-transferred to the name of
plaintiff No.2.
23. The admission given by PW-1 establish the fact
that she was married in a well off family having around
hundred acres of land. After the marriage, she and her
husband stayed with her mother to take care of properties
fallen to the share of plaintiffs, though PW-1 has claimed
that she came back to Hosahalli as it was better suited to
- 15 -
her than Chikkaberige where she was married. She has
also admitted that plaintiff No.2 has sold 3 acres of suit
schedule property, but claimed that it was sold by all of
them. She has also admitted that during 1982-83, her
mother has sold 3 acres 10 guntas to one Padmavati and
in all 6 acres of land is sold. PW-1 has also admitted that
before the suit was filed, a Panchayat was held and they
were advised to enjoy the properties as per the division
between them. PW-1 has claimed that her mother i.e.,
plaintiff No.2 has executed a Will in her favour. She has
denied that in the said Will the properties fallen to the
share of defendant No.1 are not included. However, the
plaintiffs have not chosen to produce the said will.
24. Defendant No.1 who is examined as DW-1 has
reiterated that already partition has taken place and they
are enjoying the property separately by availing loan and
also some of the properties are alienated and new
properties have been acquired as per the partition. Khatha
has been changed. Off late after plaintiff No.1 is married,
- 16 -
at the instance of the son of plaintiff No.1 and members of
her matrimonial family interference is being made. The
villagers are not ready to mediate as they are not ready to
face the high handed attitude of the son of plaintiff No.1.
25. It is pertinent to note that DW-2 Mahantamma
is defendant No.3. She is no other than the real sister of
plaintiff No.2. They have married real brothers. She has
clearly deposed with regard to the partition that has taken
place in the family. Speaking with regard to the
interference, she has deposed that since defendant No.1 is
very mild person, plaintiffs at the instance of members of
matrimonial family of plaintiff No.1 are acting in a high
handed manner and preventing defendants from enjoying
the properties fallen to their share.
26. Perusal of the oral and documentary evidence
placed on record clearly indicate that already a partition
has taken place in the family and the parties are enjoying
their properties separately. As per the said partition and
Khatha and RTC are also changed. In fact, both parties
- 17 -
have alienated number of properties fallen to their shares.
They have also acquired separate properties. After getting
support from the members of the matrimonial home of
plaintiff No.1, plaintiff started demanding share in the suit
schedule properties and also caused interference to the
defendants in enjoying the properties fallen to their share.
The trial Court after appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence by both parties has rightly
dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs for partition and
decreed the suit filed by defendants for permanent
injunction. The findings given and conclusions arrived at
by the trial Court is consistent with the evidence. This
Court finds no perversity calling for interference. In the
result, both appeals are failed and accordingly the
following:
ORDER
(i) Appeals filed by the plaintiffs under Section
96 of C.P.C are hereby dismissed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated
31.08.2016 in O.S.Nos.130/2014 and
- 18 -
193/2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge,
Sindhanur and judgment and decree is
confirmed.
(iii) The Registry is directed to send back the
entire court records along with copy of this
judgment.
Sd/-
(J.M.KHAZI)
JUDGE
RR
