Karnataka High Court
Jayaram vs M. Papaiah Reddy on 20 November, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48267
WP No. 47994 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 47994 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. JAYARAM
S/O LATE SRI M. VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
2. V. DASARATHA
S/O LATE SRI M. VENKTASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
PETITIONER 1 & 2 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.577
THIMMAREDDY COLONY
NEW THIPPASNDR POST
J.B.NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 075.
3. SMT. V. VIJAYALAXMI
W/O M. BLAKARISHNA REDDY
R/AT SAKKANAHALLI FARM HOUSE
MAGUNDI POST, BANGARPET
Digitally signed
by NANDINI M TALUK - 563 114, KOLAR DISTRICT.
S ...PETITIONERS
Location: HIGH (BY SRI K.V. SATISH, ADV., FOR
COURT OF
KARNATAKA SRI B. HEMANTH KUMAR, ADV., FOR P-2 & P-3;)
AND:
1. M. PAPAIAH REDDY
S/O SRI P. MUNISWAMAPPA
RESIDING AT NO.11
L.B.SHASTRY NAGAR
VIMANAPURA POST
BANGALORE - 560 017.
SRI NAGAPPA DEAD
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48267
WP No. 47994 of 2019
HC-KAR
2. SMT. PARVATHAMMA,
DIVORCED W/O LATE NAGAPAP REDDY
RESIDING AT NO.63, NEAR UDAYA BAR
JAKKASANDRA, SARJAPUA MAIN ROAD
KORAMANGALA LAYOUT
BENGALURU - 560 095.
3. SMT. AMMAYYMMA
D/O SRI P. MUNISWAMAPPA
R/AT.NO.136, L.B. SHASTRY NAGAR
VIMANAPURA POST
BANGALORE - 560 017.
4. SMT. MEENAKAHAMMA
W/O SRI M. GULLAPPA
R/AT NO.101, VIMANAPURA POST
BANGALORE - 560 017.
G. MUNIREDDY, DEAD BY LRS
5. SMT. NEELAMMA
W/O G. MUNIREDDY
AGED ABOUT 48 YARS.
6. M. MOHAN
S/O G. MUNIREDDY
AGED 19 YEARS.
7. MASTER M LOKESH
S/O G. MUNIREDDY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
5, 6, 7 R/AT NO.52, NANJAREDDY
LAYOUT, BEHIND GOVERNMENT
SCHOOL, KORAMANGALA VILLAGE
BANGALORE - 560 095.
8. SMT. SUNANDA
D/O SRI M. GULLAPPA
R/AT.NO.451, L.B.SHASHTRY
NAGAR, VIMANAPUA POST
BANGALORE - 560 017.
9. SMT. SUJATHA
S/O SRI M. GULLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT.NO.158/1
JAKKASANDRA EXTENSION
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:48267
WP No. 47994 of 2019
HC-KAR
1ST BLOCK, KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE - 560 034.
10. SMT. RADHA
D/O SRI M. GULLAPPA
R/AT.NO.39, MARUTHIMANTAPPA
4TH CROSS, DODDABANASWADI
BANGALORE - 560 043.
11. SRI R. RAJSHANKAR REDDY
S/O SRI RAMA REDDY
AGED 33 YEARS.
12. R. RAJAPRAKASH REDDY
S/O SRI M. RAMA REDDY
AGED 31 YEARS.
13. R. RAJESH REDDY
S/O SRI M. RAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS.
11 TO 13 RESIDING AT
ANNASANDRAPALYA,
VIMANAPRUA POST
BANGALORE - 560 017.
14. SMT. PUTTAMMA
W/O M. VENKTASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
15. V. MANOHARA
S/O LATE SRI M. VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
16. V. GOPALAKRISHNA
S/O M. VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS 14 TO 16
RESIDING AT NO.577
THIMMAREDDY COLONY
NEW THIPPASANDRA POST
J.B.NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 075.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.D.SURANA, ADV., FOR R-1;
SRI M.D. RAGHUNATH, ADV., FOR R-14 TO R-16;
SRI ABHINAY Y.T, ADV., FOR R-2;
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:48267
WP No. 47994 of 2019
HC-KAR
SRI BALACHANDRA, Y.S, ADV., FOR R-5, R-6, R-8 TO R-10;
V/O DTD:24.10.2019, NOTICE TO R-3, R-4, R-7, R-11 TO R-13 D/W)
THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE XXVIII
ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (MAYO HALL) (CCH.29) IN
FDP NO.15016/2004 ON I.A.NO.1/2017 DTD.20.8.2019 AS PER
ANNEXURE.A TO THE PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B
GROUP, 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
20.08.2019 passed on IA.no.1/2017 in FDP.No.15016/2004 by
the Court of XXVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. Suit in O.S.No.15197/1999 was filed before the
jurisdictional Civil Court at Bengaluru by Smt. Puttamma and
others, seeking the relief of partition and separate possession
of the suit schedule properties and also for declaration that
plaintiffs are entitled for 1/5th share in the suit schedule
properties, and further to declare that the alleged sale deed
NC: 2025:KHC:48267
HC-KAR
executed by late Gullappa and defendant no.5 pertaining to
Item no.2 of the suit schedule properties, as null and void.
4. One Nagappa Reddy was defendant no.2 in
O.S.No.15197/1999. The said suit was partly decreed and it
was held that plaintiffs are entitled for 4/15th share in Item
nos.1 to 3 of the suit schedule properties and plaintiffs are not
entitled for any share in Item no.4 of the suit schedule
property.
5. Final Decree Proceedings in FDP.No.15016/2004 was
initiated by plaintiff no.1 before the Trial Court. In the said
proceedings, IA-1/2017 was filed by the petitioners under
Section 151 CPC for modifying the share of the parties, in view
of the death of respondent no.2/defendant no.2. The divorced
wife of defendant no.2 - late Nagappa Reddy who was brought
on record as his legal representative, filed objections to IA-
1/2017 stating that she had no knowledge about the decree of
divorce passed against her. She also stated that she was
awarded maintenance under Section 125 Cr.PC, and therefore,
she is entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties on
NC: 2025:KHC:48267
HC-KAR
behalf of her late husband. Therefore, the prayer made in IA-
1/2017 was liable to be dismissed.
6. The Trial Court vide the order impugned allowed IA-
1/2017 in part and it was held that respondent no.2(a) i.e.,
divorced wife of Nagappa Reddy, will also get equal share in the
share of deceased Nagappa Reddy allotted to him in the
preliminary decree along with the other parties to the final
decree proceedings. Assailing the said order, petitioners are
before this Court.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that marriage
of respondent no.2 in this petition, with late Nagappa Reddy
was dissolved by a decree of divorce granted in M.C.No.7/1971
on 27.07.1972. The same has attained finality. Thereafter,
respondent no.2 herein has initiated proceedings under Section
125 Cr.pC before the jurisdictional Family Court and in a
revision petition filed before this Court in CRP.No.1765/1996
c/w CRP.No.260/1996, the maintenance awarded to respondent
no.2 herein was modified to Rs.300/- per month. Merely for the
reason that the divorced wife has been granted maintenance at
the rate of Rs.300/- per month, the Trial Court was not justified
NC: 2025:KHC:48267
HC-KAR
in allotting a share in the share of deceased defendant no.2
viz., Nagappa Reddy. He submits that at best a charge could
have been created over the share which was allotted to
Nagappa Reddy, and a share in the said property could not
have been allotted to respondent no.2 who is the divorced wife
of Nagappa Reddy. In support of his arguments, he has placed
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of SADHU SINGH VS. GURDWARA SAHIB NARIKE AND
OTHERS - (2006)8 SCC 75.
8. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for respondent
no.2 submits that undisputedly respondent no.2 has been
awarded maintenance in the proceedings initiated by her under
Section 125 Cr.PC before the competent court. She is entitled
to recover the said amount from the property of deceased
respondent no.2 - Nagappa Reddy. The Trial Court considering
the aforesaid aspect of the matter, has allotted a share in the
share of defendant no.2/respondent no.2 - Nagappa Reddy
which was allotted to him in the preliminary decree passed in
O.S.No.15197/1999, thereby a right is created on respondent
no.2 in the property of deceased defendant no.2 - Nagappa
NC: 2025:KHC:48267
HC-KAR
Reddy and in view of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession
Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act'), the right of respondent no.2
over the share allotted to her by the Trial Court has become
absolute. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.TULASAMMA AND
OTHERS VS. SESHA REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. - 1977(3) SCC 99
and also in the case of MUNNI DEVI ALIAS NATHI DEVI
(DEAD) THR LRS. AND ORS. VS. RAJENDRA ALIAS LALLU LAL
(DEAD) THR LRS. AND ORS. - AIR 2022 SC 2596. He further
submits that in the case of TEJ BHAN (D) THROUGH LR. AND
ORS. VS. RAM KISHAN (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS. - CIVIL
APPEAL No.6557/2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
considering the inconsistent views taken in various judgments,
after the judgment in Tulasamma's case supra and also Sadhu
Singh's case supra, with a view that there should be clarity and
certainty in interpretation of Section 14 of the Act, has referred
the matter to a larger bench for re-conciling the principles laid
down in various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He
submits that, therefore, till the larger bench decides the
matter, consideration of this writ petition be deferred.
NC: 2025:KHC:48267
HC-KAR
9. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that
the marriage of respondent no.2 herein with deceased
respondent no.2/defendant no.2 - Nagappa Reddy was
dissolved by a decree of divorce granted in M.C.No.7/1971 by
the Court of Prl. Civil Judge, Bengaluru District, on 27.07.1972.
Perusal of the order passed in M.C.No.7/1971 would go to show
that Nagappa Reddy had earlier filed M.C.No.1/1968 seeking a
decree of restitution of conjugal rights and inspite of there
being a decree passed in his favour, his wife had failed to join
him, and therefore, M.C.No.7/1971 was filed with a prayer to
dissolve the marriage.
10. Though a contention is urged on behalf of respondent
no.2 that she was not aware of the order passed in
M.C.No.7/1971, the copy of the order passed in M.C.No.7/1971
which is made available to this Court would go to show that she
was represented by an advocate in the said proceedings and
she also had led evidence on her behalf in the said proceedings.
It appears that subsequently, she had filed Crl. Misc.
No.128/1987 under Section 125 Cr.PC before the jurisdictional
Family Court at Bengaluru, seeking maintenance and the Trial
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48267
HC-KAR
Court had granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.400/- per
month by order dated 05.12.1995. The said order was
challenged by Nagappa Reddy as well as respondent no.2
herein before this Court in CRP.No.1765/1996 and
CRP.No.260/1996 which were disposed of on 11.08.1998 and
the maintenance amount awarded by the Trial Court was
reduced to Rs.300/- from Rs.400/- per month.
11. It appears that Nagappa Reddy who was arrayed as
respondent no.2 in FDP.No.15016/2004 had died during the
pendency of the said petition on 22.01.2016, and thereafter,
respondent no.2 herein was brought on record as his legal
representative. IA.no.1/2017 was filed on behalf of the
petitioners in FDP.No.15016/2004 after the death of Nagappa
Reddy to modify the share of the parties in view of his death.
This application was opposed by respondent no.2 herein
contending that since she was awarded maintenance under
Section 125 Cr.PC, she is also entitled for a share in the
property of her husband.
12. It is relevant to note here that respondent no.2 was not
put in possession of any extent of land belonging to her
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48267
HC-KAR
husband at any point of time. She has sought for a share in the
share allotted to Nagappa Reddy in the preliminary decree, in
lieu of maintenance amount awarded to her. Since respondent
no.2 is the divorced wife of Nagappa Reddy, undisputedly she is
not entitled to succeed to his estate, and merely for the reason
that there is an order passed under Section 125 Cr.PC granting
maintenance to her at the rate of Rs.300/- per month, the Trial
Court was not justified in allotting a share in the share of
deceased defendant no.2 - Nagappa Reddy to respondent no.2
herein.
13. In Sadhu Singh's case, Tulasamma's case and Munni
Devi's case supra, the question with regard to right of a female
Hindu possessed of the property on the date of the Act in which
she had a previous existing right or a right to maintenance was
considered, and it is held in the said cases that if a Hindu
female is put in possession of the property towards the right of
her maintenance in view of Section 14(1) of the Act, her limited
right in estate would transform into her absolute estate.
14. In the present case, at no point of time respondent no.2
was put in possession of any extent of land in the suit schedule
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48267
HC-KAR
property in lieu of the maintenance amount awarded to her
under Section 125 Cr.PC, and therefore, I do not find any merit
in the contention urged on behalf of her, that her right in the
share of defendant no.2 - Nagappa Reddy had enlarged to an
absolute right in view of Section 14(1) of the Act. Since the
case of respondent no.2 is not covered under the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sadhu Singh's case,
Tulasamma's case and Munni Devi's case supra, the order
passed in Tej Bhan's case referring the question of right of a
Hindu female under Section 14 of the Act to a larger Bench is of
no consequence to the present case.
15. The Trial Court in view of Section 100 of the Transfer of
Propert Act, at best, could have created a charge over the
property which fell to the share of defendant no.2 - Nagappa
Reddy, towards the maintenance amount that he was liable to
pay to respondent no.2 herein, but could not have granted a
share in his property, since respondent no.2 herein was not his
wife as on the date of his death.
16. A reading of the impugned order would also go to show
that, in addition to allotting a share in the share of deceased
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48267
HC-KAR
defendant no.2 - Nagappa Reddy, to respondent no.2 herein,
the Trial Court has also allotted a share each to respondent
nos.9 to 11 who are the purchasers of the property. The Trial
Court has failed to appreciate that after the death of Nagappa
Reddy, only the share of his relatives who have been held
entitled for a share in the suit schedule property would get
enlarged, and not the share of the purchasers. Therefore, I am
of the opinion that the order impugned passed on IA.no.1/2017
to the extent it relates to granting a share in the share of
deceased Nagappa Reddy to respondent no.2 herein
(respondent no.2(a) in FDP.No.15016/2004) and granting
shares to respondent nos.9 to 11 in the final decree
proceedings who are the purchasers of the portion of the suit
schedule property is bad in law. To that extent, the order
impugned cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following
order:
17. Writ petition is allowed in part. The order impugned dated
20.08.2019 passed on IA.no.1/2017 in FDP.No.15016/2004 by
the Court of XXVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, to the
extent it relates to allotting a share to respondent no.2 herein
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48267
HC-KAR
(respondent no.2(a) in FDP.No.15016/2004) in the share of
deceased Nagappa Reddy allotted to him in the preliminary
decree passed in O.S.No.15197/1999, and allotting a share to
respondent nos.9 to 11 in the FDP.No.15016/2004 who are the
purchasers of portion of the property, is set aside, and the said
order in so far as it relates to allotting a share in the share of
deceased Nagappa Reddy to petitioner nos.2 to 6, respondent
nos.1 & 3, 4, 5(a) to 5(c) & 6 to 8 in FDP.No.15016/2004 is
confirmed.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KK
