Karnataka High Court
Sri B L Bettegowda vs Smt Narasamma on 18 November, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47470
WP No. 6379 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 6379 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI B.L. BETTEGOWDA
S/O LATE LINGAIAH @ DODDANNA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
RESIDING AT BYRANAHALLI VILLAGE
SATHANURU POST MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 126.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S. SREEVATSA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI SUBBA SHASTRY N, ADV.)
AND:
1. SMT. NARASAMMA
S/O LINGAIAH @ DODDANNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT KALLIPALYA VILLAGE
SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 127.
Digitally
signed by
NANDINI M S 2. SRI B.L. NAGARAJU
Location: S/O LINGAIAH @ DODDANNA
HIGH COURT AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
OF R/AT BYRANAHALLI VILLAGE
KARNATAKA
SATHANURU POST MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 126.
3. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O BETTASWAMAIAH
D/O LINGAIAH @ DODDANNA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT HODAGHATTA HULLIYUR DURGA HOBLI
YELAHGOWDA POST KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 130.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47470
WP No. 6379 of 2024
HC-KAR
BETTAMMA
(DEAD BY HER LRS)
4. SRI NANJAPPA
S/O LINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
5. SMT. PREMA
W/O NARYANA
D/O NANJAPPA AND BETTAMMA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
6. SRI KUMAR
S/O NANJAPPA AND BETTAMMA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.
7. SMT. KUMARI SUNANDA
D/O NANJAPPA AND BETTAMMA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
8. SRI PRASANNA
S/O NANJAPPA AND BETTAMMA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 8
ARE RESIDENTS OF HALESETTYHALLY
KASABA HOBLI SATHANURU POST
MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA
DISTRICT - 562 126.
9. SMT. GANGAMMA
D/O LINGAIAH @ DODDANNA
W/O GOVINDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT NERLAVADI MADABAL HOBLI
GEJJAGARGUPPE POST
MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA
DISTRICT - 562 120.
10. SMT. KEMPAMMA @ BHAGYAMMA
W/O MANJUNATHA
D/O LINGAIAH @ DODDANAN
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT C/O GADI PUTTANNA
BADDIHALLI KYATHASANDRA POST
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:47470
WP No. 6379 of 2024
HC-KAR
TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572 104.
11. SRI GANGANNA
S/O SRI BASAVAIAH
MAJOR IN AGE
R/AT BYRRANAHALLY VILLAGE
HEMLET OF SATHANUR
KASABA HOBLI MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 126.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI UMESH S. MOOLIMANI, ADV., FOR
SRI S.V. PRAKASH, ADV., FOR C/R-1,
NOTICE TO R-2 TO R-11 IS D/W
V/O DTD 19.06.2024)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTILCE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
PERTAINING TO DISPOSAL OF I.A. NO.6 IN F.D.P NO.3/2020
WHEREIN THE R-1 FILED THE APPLICATION NO.6 SEEKING THE
PRAYER FOR MODIFICATION OF SHARE BY INVOKING UNDER ORDER
VI RULE 17 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
AT MAGADI.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is filed with a prayer to set aside the order
dated 13.02.2024 passed on I.A.No.VI in FDP No.3 of 2020 by
the Court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
NC: 2025:KHC:47470
HC-KAR
3. Suit in O.S.No.440 of 1997 was filed by respondent
no.1 herein before the Jurisdictional Civil Court at Magadi
seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the
suit schedule property. The said suit was decreed and the
plaintiff was held entitled for 8/35th share in the suit schedule
properties. Petitioner herein who was defendant no.1 in
O.S.No.440 of 1997 had filed R.A.No.104 of 2011 (old No.13 of
2011) before the First Appellate Court and by Judgment and
Decree dated 26.07.2019, R.A.No.104 of 2011 was partly
allowed and the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.440 of
1997 was modified and it was held that plaintiff in the said suit
was entitled for 1/21 share in the suit schedule 'A' and 'B'
properties. Subsequently, the plaintiff had initiated final decree
proceedings in FDP No.3 of 2020 before the trial Court and in
the said proceedings, I.A.No.VI was filed on behalf of the
plaintiff to amend the petition in FDP No.3 of 2020 in view of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
VINEETA SHARMA v. RAKESH SHARMA & OTHERS -
(2020) 9 SCC 1 and thereby enlarge the share of the plaintiff.
The said application was opposed by the contesting
respondents by filing of objection. The trial Court vide the order
NC: 2025:KHC:47470
HC-KAR
impugned has allowed I.A.No.VI and being aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits
that, the trial Court was not justified in holding that plaintiff is
entitled for enlargement of her share without there being any
adjudication in the matter. Accordingly, he prays to allow the
petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
contesting respondents submits that the trial Court has only
permitted the petitioner in FDP No.3 of 2020 to amend the
petition and her rights for enlargement of share is yet to be
decided. It is always open for the contesting respondents to file
their objections in the final decree proceedings based on which
the trial Court is required to adjudicate the dispute between the
parties. I find force in the contention urged on behalf of the
respondents.
6. Perusal of the order impugned would go to show
that trial Court has only permitted the petitioner in FDP No.3 of
NC: 2025:KHC:47470
HC-KAR
2020 to amend the petition in view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VINEETA SHARMA
(supra) wherein it is held that daughters are also entitled for
equal share and it is held in the said case that notwithstanding
that a preliminary decree has been passed, the daughters are
to be given share in proportionate equal to that of son in
pending proceedings for final decree or in an appeal. Under the
circumstances, I am of the opinion that trial Court was justified
in allowing I.A.No.VI.
7. Accordingly, the following :-
ORDER
i. Writ petition is dismissed.
ii. It is open to the contesting respondents in
FDP No.3 of 2020 to file their objections in
the said proceedings and oppose the
prayer made in the petition and in the said
event it is for the trial Court to adjudicate
the dispute that arises between the
parties.
iii. Since the suit is of the year 1997 and final
decree proceedings is of the year 2020,
NC: 2025:KHC:47470
HC-KAR
the trial Court is directed to expeditiously
dispose of FDP No.3 of 2020 on merits
I.A.No.1 of 2025 does not survive for consideration.
Accordingly, the same is disposed of.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
NMS
