Karnataka High Court
Smt D Thanuja vs Smt Triveni on 24 June, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:21972
RSA No. 607 of 2023
C/W RSA No. 620 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.607 OF 2023 (PAR)
C/W
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 620 OF 2023 (PAR)
IN RSA No.607/2023
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. D. THANUJA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
W/O LATE UMESHA
2. KUM. LAKSHMI
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS
by DEVIKA M D/O LATE UMESHA
Location: HIGH SINCE MINOR, REP BY
COURT OF HER NATURAL GUARDIAN
KARNATAKA
MOTHER - SMT. D THANUJA
APPELLANTS 1 AND 2 ARE
R/AT CHIKKANAIKANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK - 573 116
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MANJUNATHA H R, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:21972
RSA No. 607 of 2023
C/W RSA No. 620 of 2023
HC-KAR
AND:
1. SMT TRIVENI
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
D/O LATE MALAIGOWDA
W/O MANJUNATHA
R/O YACHENAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK - 573 116
2. SRI MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O LATE MALALIGOWDA
R/O CHIKKANAIKANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK - 573 116
[ DEFENDANT No.1 BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT &
RESPONDENT No.2 BEFORE THE FIRST
APPELLATE COURT DIED LEAVING BEHIND THE
PLAINTIFFS AND OTHER DEFENDANTS, HENCE,
NOT MADE AS PARTY]
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.12.2022
PASSED IN R.A.No.120/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
CHANNARAYAPATNA AND ETC.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:21972
RSA No. 607 of 2023
C/W RSA No. 620 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN RSA NO.620/2023
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. D. THANUJA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
W/O LATE UMESHA
2. KUM. LAKSHMI
AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS
D/O LATE UMESHA
SINCE MINOR, REP BY
HER NATURAL GUARDIAN
MOTHER - SMT. D THANUJA
APPELLANTS 1 AND 2 ARE
R/AT CHIKKANAIKANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK - 573 116
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MANJUNATHA H R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. TRIVENI
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
D/O LATE MALAIGOWDA
W/O MANJUNATHA
R/O YACHENAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK - 573 116
2. SRI MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O LATE MALALIGOWDA
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:21972
RSA No. 607 of 2023
C/W RSA No. 620 of 2023
HC-KAR
R/O CHIKKANAIKANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK - 573 116
[ DEFENDANT No.1 BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT &
RESPONDENT No.2 BEFORE THE FIRST
APPELLATE COURT DIED LEAVING BEHIND THE
PLAINTIFFS AND OTHER DEFENDANTS, HENCE,
NOT MADE AS PARTY]
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.12.2022
PASSED IN R.A.No.75/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE
DDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
CHANNARAYAPATNA AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:21972
RSA No. 607 of 2023
C/W RSA No. 620 of 2023
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in
both the appeals.
2. These appeals are arising out of the judgment and
decree passed in O.S.No.593/2014 wherein suit is filed for the
relief of partition and separate possession and 1/4th share was
given out of 1/3rd share of the plaintiff's father in respect of the
suit schedule property. The same has been challenged before
the First Appellate Court by the plaintiff as well as the
defendants granting of share 1/4th share out of 1/3rd share and
the First Appellate Court having considered the grounds which
have been urged in both the appeals i.e., R.A. Nos.120/2019
and 75/2020 and also considering material on record, appeal
filed by the plaintiff was allowed granting 1/3rd share by
modifying the judgment of the Trial Court and dismissed the
appeal filed by the defendants/appellants in view of the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of VINEETA SHARMA
vs RAKESH SHARMA reported in (2019) 6 SCC 164 wherein
the Apex Court specifically held that daughter is also having
equal share by partition even though father is alive or not
NC: 2025:KHC:21972
HC-KAR
before 01.01.2005. Being aggrieved by the judgments and
decree of both the Courts, the present appeals are filed by the
defendants questioning the allowing of the appeal and
modifying the judgment as well as granting the share in favour
of respondent No.1.
3. The learned counsel of the appellant would
vehemently contend that when there was a document of Ex.D1
and the said document has been signed by the plaintiff, she
cannot claim any partition knowingfully well that there was a
document of partition and she gave a consent for that partition
deed and the same was not considered by both the Courts.
Hence, this Court has to admit the appeal framing the
substantive question of law since the plaintiff has admitted the
Palupatti dated 03.06.2012.
4. Having considered the submission of the learned
counsel for the appellant, the fact that the suit was filed for the
relief of partition and also there is no dispute with regard to
the fact that the property is belongs to the family and same is
an ancestral property and same is also admitted by the
NC: 2025:KHC:21972
HC-KAR
witnesses before the Trial Court. The Trial Court taken note of
the fact that the property is an ancestral property and said fact
is also admitted by DW1 in his cross-examination and the Trial
Court also considered the admission on the part of DW1
wherein though DW1 contented that an amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- was given to the plaintiff and clear admission
was given that the same is not stated in the document of
Ex.D1 and Ex.D1 is also between defendant No.2 and his
children. No doubt, the plaintiff has signed the document of
partition but there is a clear admission at Ex.D1 that no share
is given to the plaintiff and payment of Rs.2,00,000/- also not
mentioned in Ex.D1. When such admission is given, both the
Courts have considered both oral and documentary evidence
placed on record in a proper perspective and rightly comes to
the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of
partition having considered the principles laid down in the
judgment of VINEETA SHARMA referred supra. Hence, I do
not find any error committed by both the Courts in considering
both oral and documentary evidence placed on record. Unless,
there is a perversity in the finding of both the Courts, the
question of framing substantive question of law admitting the
NC: 2025:KHC:21972
HC-KAR
second appeal does not arise. Hence, there is no ground to
frame the substantive question of law and to admit the appeal.
5. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The second appeals are dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the main appeals, I.As. if any, do
not survive for consideration and the same stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
