Karnataka High Court
Sadanand S/O. Narayan Deshbhandari vs Gangadhar S/O. Narayan Deshbhandari on 4 June, 2025
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7297
RSA No. 6090 of 2012
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.6090 OF 2012 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SHRI SADANAND S/O. NARAYAN DESHBHANDARI,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: HONDAKKALA ANTRAVALLI VILLAGE,
TQ: KUMTA - 581 343, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GANGADHAR S/O. NARAYAN DESHBHANDARI,
AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HONDAKKALA ANTRAVALLI VILLAGE,
TQ: KUMTA - 581 343, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
Digitally signed by
SAROJA
HANGARAKI 2. GANAPATI S/O. NARAYAN DESHBHANDARI,
Location: High
Court of AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench, R/O: HONDAKALA ANTRAVALLI VILLAGE,
Dharwad
TQ: KUMTA - 581 343,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
3. SMT. SARASI KOM VASUDEVA DESHBHANDARI
THROUGH HER LEGAL HEIR
UFM CHANDRAKANTA
S/O. VASUDEVA DESHBHANDARI,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: SALEKERI, HALDIPUR VILLAGE,
TQ:HONNAVAR - 581 343,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7297
RSA No. 6090 of 2012
HC-KAR
4. SMT. SALI W/O. RAMACHANDRA DESHBHANDARI,
AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: SANTEGULI HINDABAIL,
TQ: KUMTA - 581 343, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
5. RAMABAI W/O. GANESH DESHBANDARI,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: HONDAKKALA, ANTRAVALLI VILLAGE,
TQ: KUMTA - 581 343, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
6. MALINI W/O. SHRIDHARA DESHBHANDARI,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: HONDAKKALA, ANTRAVALLI VILLAGE,
TQ: KUMTA - 581 343, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
7. SHANTI W/O. RAVI DESHBHANDARI ,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: HONDAKKALA, ANTRAVALLI VILLAGE,
TQ: KUMTA - 581 343, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
8. SMT. MUKTA
W/O. CHANDRAKANT DESHBHANDARI,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: HONDAKKALA, ANTRAVALLI VILLAGE,
TQ: KUMTA - 581 343, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
9. SADASHIVA S/O. ISHWARA DESAI,
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: HONDAKKALA, ANTRAVALLI VILLAGE,
TQ: KUMTA - 581 343, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
10. RAMCHANDRA S/O. ISHWARA DESAI,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: HONDAKKALA, ANTRAVALLI VILLAGE,
TQ: KUMTA - 581 343, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 TO R10 ARE SERVED)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100
OF C.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
29.02.2012 PASSED IN RA 18/2009 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE KUMTA CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
20.12.2007 PASSED IN OS 88/2006 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE JR.DN KUMTA BY ALLOWING THE TOP NOTED APPEAL TO
MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7297
RSA No. 6090 of 2012
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL)
1. The present appeal is by the defendant No.1
aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2007
passed in O.S. No.88 of 2006 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge
(Jr. Dn.) Kumta (for short "the trial Court"), which is
confirmed by the judgment and decree dated 29.02.2012,
passed in R.A. No.18/2009 on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge, Kumta (for short "the First Appellate Court") by
which the said suit is decreed granting 1/9th share each to
the plaintiff and the defendants.
2. The above suit is filed by the plaintiff -
respondent No.1 herein for partition and separate
possession of the suit schedule properties consisting of
landed and house properties (suit schedule properties). It is
claimed that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 8 are the
brothers and sisters. The schedule properties originally
belonged to their father by name Narayan Devagya
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7297
HC-KAR
Deshbhandari, and were his self acquired properties. That
plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 8, being his children, are
therefore entitled to equal share in the suit properties.
Defendant Nos.9 and 10, though not members of the family
of the plaintiff, were impleaded as parties to the suit since
their names were reflected in the revenue records. The
plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 had earlier partitioned
the property orally in the presence of the elders and had
constructed separate residential houses in the portions
allotted to them. When the plaintiff demanded and called
upon defendant Nos.1 and 2 to effect the partition in
respect of the remaining properties, they refused, thereby
constraining the plaintiff to file the present suit.
3. Defendant Nos.2 to 8 were represented through
the counsel. Defendant Nos.1, 2, 3, 6 and 8 filed their
written statement. Defendant Nos. 9 and 10 have adopted
the written statement of defendant No.1. Defendant Nos.5
and 7 did not file any written statement.
4. The trial Court decreed the suit, granting a 1/9th
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7297
HC-KAR
share each to the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 8 in the
suit A schedule property. The claim of the plaintiff in respect
of suit B Schedule property was rejected, apparently based
on a memo dated 07.12.2007 filed by the plaintiff, wherein
he gave up the relief sought in respect of suit B Schedule
property.
5. Defendant No.1, being one of the brothers of
plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 8, preferred appeal in R.A.
No.18/2009 contending that the suit schedule properties
were granted in favour of their father, and as such, the
sisters namely defendant Nos.4, 5, 6 and 8 are not entitled
for any share in the land granted to the joint family. The
said contention of defendant No.1 has been negated by the
First Appellate Court while rejecting the appeal and
confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal by
defendant No.1.
6. The grounds urged in the memorandum of
appeal is that defendant Nos.4, 5, 6 and 8 being the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7297
HC-KAR
daughters are not at all entitled for share in the property.
7. The other contention urged is that though the
plaintiff had given up his claim in respect of residential
houses described in B schedule property, the First Appellate
Court without taking the same into consideration has
modified the order of the Trial Court allotting the share
even in the suit B Schedule property. On these two
grounds, the appellant - defendant is before this Court.
8. The First Appellate Court has taken note of
these contentions urged by the defendants and has
answered the same in the negative by holding that
originally the suit properties were belonged to one Narayan
Devagya Deshbhandari and upon his demise, the property
has been devolved upon to his children. Further no records
have been produced to show that the tenency was inherited
by Narayan from his ancestors. The trial Court and the First
Appellate Court have come to the conclusion that the
property having been granted in favour of the father of the
plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 to 8. The plaintiff and the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7297
HC-KAR
defendant Nos.1 to 8 and they being class-I heirs, are
entitled for equal share under Section 8 of the Hindu
Succession Act.
9. Be that as it may. Even if the said properties
were to be ancestral, by virtue of amended Section 6 of
Hindu Succession Act and in light of the judgment in the
case of Vinita Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma1, the
daughters would also be entitled to an equal share in the
joint family properties.
10. As regards the contention of the First Appellate
Court modifying the judgment and decree of the trial Court
with regard to the suit B schedule property is concerned as
seen at para 25 of the judgment of the First Appellate
Court, it is observed that notwithstanding the filing of such
memo, equities could be worked out with regard to the
residential houses which are constructed on the suit A
schedule property.
(2020) 9 SCC 1
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7297
HC-KAR
11. In that view of the matter no substantial
question of law would arise for consideration in the matter
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and
decree passed by the trial Court and the First Appellate
Court stands confirmed.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE
VNP / CT-ASC
