Karnataka High Court

Ramachandrappa S/O Omkarappa Karaddy vs Smt. Lakshmi Devi on 25 November, 2025

                                                      -1-
                                                             NC: 2025:KHC-D:16373
                                                             RSA No. 5476 of 2010


                         HC-KAR




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD

                         DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

                                             BEFORE

                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

                             REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.5476 OF 2010

                        BETWEEN:

                        1.    RAMACHANDRAPPA
                              S/O. OMKARAPPA KARADDY,
                              SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

                        1A. SMT. K. LAKSHMAMMA
                            W/O. RAMACHANDRAPPA KARADDY,
                            SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS.

                              APPELLANTS NO.2 TO 5 ARE TREATED AS THE
                              LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED APPELLANT NO.1A.
                              V.O.D. 20.08.2024.

                        2.    GOVINDAPPA
                              S/O. RAMACHANDRAPPA KARADDY,
           Digitally
           signed by
                              AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
           YASHAVANT
YASHAVANT  NARAYANKAR
NARAYANKAR Date:
           2025.11.28
           10:40:03
                        3.    MALLIKARJUN
           +0530
                              S/O. RAMACHANDRAPPA KARADDY,
                              AGE: 29 YEARS,

                        4.    VITTAL REDDY
                              S/O. RAMACHANDRAPA KARADDY,
                              AGE: 27 YEARS,

                        5.    MANJUNATH
                              S/O. RAMACHANDRAPPA KARADDY,
                              AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,

                              ALL ARE R/O. RAMAPUR,
                              -2-
                                      NC: 2025:KHC-D:16373
                                      RSA No. 5476 of 2010


HC-KAR




    POST: MALLAPUR,
    TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL.
                                               ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. SURABH KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. G.B. SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)

AND.

SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI
W/O. HANUMAREDDY KARADDY,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. RAMAPUR, TAL. GANGAVATHI,
NOW AT C/O. BASAPPA MOOLIMANI,
R/O. CHUKANKALLI, POST: BADAR BANI,
DIST. KOPPAL.
                                           ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR R. GUNJALLI, ADVOCATE)

       THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING

TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 12-03-

2010 PASSED IN R.A.NO.35/2009 BY THE COURT OF FAST

TRACK COURT-I AT KOPPAL CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND

DECREE DATED 20-01-2009 IN O.S.NO.77/2006 PASSED BY THE

COURT     OF   THE   CIVIL   JUDGE   (SR.DN)   AT   KOPPAL,

O.S.NO.77/2006 BE DISMISSED AND THIS APPEAL BE ALLOWED

WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT.


       THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS

DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                  -3-
                                           NC: 2025:KHC-D:16373
                                          RSA No. 5476 of 2010


HC-KAR




                        ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and

respondent.

2. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the

Trial Court in O.S.No.77/2006 and the First Appellate Court in

R.A.No.35/2009 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff was

decreed granting 1/6th share in the suit schedule property, the

defendant Nos.1 to 5 have approached this Court in appeal.

3. The Factual matrix that is relevant for the purpose of

this appeal is as below:

i) The plaintiff is widow of one Hanumareddy,

who was son of defendant No.1-

Ramachandrappa. Defendant Nos.2 to 5 are

the brothers of Hanumareddy. The plaintiff

contended that her husband and defendants

constituted a joint Hindu family and while they

were living jointly, Hanumareddy died.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16373

HC-KAR

ii) The plaintiff and the said Hanumareddy did

not have any children. Thereafter, the

defendants and the wife of defendant No.1

took certain articles from the plaintiff and

forcibly obtained the plaintiff's signatures on

blank papers. Even the maintenance was not

provided to the plaintiff and they also got

deleted name of her husband from record of

rights of the suit property on the basis of a

forcible document got signed by the

defendants.

iii) It is contended that the defendants are trying

to take the insurance claims on account of

death of Hanumareddy and they also filed

O.S.No.37/2006 to restrain the plaintiff. Even

the death claim on account of death of

Hanumareddy was also claimed by the

defendants exclusively. Therefore, the plaintiff

sought partition in the property of the joint

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16373

HC-KAR

family and when it was refused, she was

constrained to file suit for partition.

4. Defendant No.1 on behalf of all other defendants,

filed a written statement contending that there was no such joint

family as pleaded by the plaintiff. He denied that the suit

schedule properties are joint family properties and on the

contrary, it was stated that the suit properties are the self-

acquired properties of defendant No.1. It was also contended

that one of the property that item No.4 of the suit schedule

property is a property belonging to the defendant No.4.

Therefore, the defendants contended that the suit is merit less

and the same deserves to be dismissed. All other contentions of

the plaintiff were denied.

5. On the basis of above contentions, the following

appropriate issues were framed by the Trial Court.

"«ªÁzÁA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ

1) ªÁ¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ »AzÀÄ MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÉAzÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄªÀgÉÃ?

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16373

HC-KAR

2) zÁªÁ ±ÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÁ¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ C«¨sÁfvÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄªÀgÉÃ?

3) ªÁ¢AiÀÄ UÀAqÀ wÃj ºÉÆÃzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É zÁªÁ ±ÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀéwÛ£À°è ªÁ¢UÉ 1/6 ¨sÁUÀ ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀªÁV «¨sÁUÀ ªÀiÁr ªÁ¢AiÀÄ ¸Áé¢üÃ£ÀPÉÌ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄªÀgÉÃ?

4) ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ zÁªÁ ±ÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀéwÛ£À°è ªÁ¢AiÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ§zÀÞ ¨sÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ®Ä ¤gÁPÀj¹ ¸ÀvÁ¬Ä¹zÀÝgÉAzÀÄ ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄªÀgÉÃ?

5) 1£ÉÃ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ zÁªÁ ±ÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀéAiÀiÁfðvÀªÁV ¸ÀA¥Á¢¹zÁÝgÉAzÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄªÀgÉÃ?

6) K£ÀÄ ¥ÀjºÁgÀPÉÌ CxÀªÁ DzÉÃ±ÀPÉÌ ¥ÀPÀëPÁgÀgÀÄ CºÀðjzÁÝgÉAiÉÄ?"

6. The plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and Exs.P.1 to

P.9 were marked. The defendants examined DW.1 to DW.4 and

Exs.D.1 to D.7 were marked. After hearing the arguments, the

Trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff granting her

1/6th share in the suit schedule property.

7. Being aggrieved, the defendants approached the

First Appellate Court.

8. The First Appellate Court by its impugned judgment

dated 12.03.2010, dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16373

HC-KAR

defendants No.1 to 5 have approached this Court in second

appeal.

9. During pendency of this appeal, the appellant No.1,

who was the defendant No.1 before the Trial Court also died. The

appellants No.2 to 5 and one Lakshmamma are his legal

representatives. Thereafter, the wife of defendant No.1

Lakshmamma, who was the appellant No.1(a) also died and as

such, it is only the defendants No.2 to 5 who are the appellants

herein.

10. It is pertinent to note that all along it was the

contention of the plaintiff that she is entitled for a share that was

entitled by her husband in the suit schedule properties as they

were the joint family properties.

11. On the contrary, the defendant No.1 has contended

that they are his self-acquired properties and one of the property

was the self-acquired property of the defendant No.4. However,

the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court held that they

are not the self-acquired properties of the defendant No.1 or the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16373

HC-KAR

defendant No.4 and had granted share in all the suit schedule

properties to the plaintiff.

12. Now, even if it is held that the suit schedule

properties are the self-acquired properties of the defendant No.1,

in view of his demise intestate, the properties would devolve

upon all his children. So also, the wife of the defendant No.1

Lakshmamma has also died intestate. This Court had requested

the counsel for the appellant to ascertain whether the said

Ramachandrappa and his wife Lakshmamma died intestate or

testate. It is submitted that they have died intestate. In that

view of the matter, the plaintiff either by virtue of the decree

passed by the Trial Court or by virtue of the intestate succession

under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, would be entitled

for an equal share that would fall to the share of her husband in

the suit schedule properties.

13. As noted above, the Trial Court as well as the First

Appellate Court have held that the item No.4 of the suit schedule

property was acquired by the defendant No.4 under the sale

deed. Obviously, both the Courts below have noted that there is

nothing on record to show that the defendant No.4 had any

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16373

HC-KAR

independent income for him to purchase the item No.4 suit

schedule property. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court

also noted that when the item No.4 property was purchased, the

defendant No.4 was aged 21 years and there was nothing on

record to show that he had any independent income except the

income derived from the other suit schedule properties enabling

him to purchase. In that view of the matter, the question

whether the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired

properties of the defendants No.1 and 4 or they are the ancestral

joint family properties do not survive anymore. The plaintiff

would be entitled for equal share which her husband

Hanumareddy would have got in the suit schedule properties. In

the result, the appeal is bereft of any merits and the share which

is granted to the plaintiff remains unchanged.

14. However, it is relevant to note that the share which

was carved out for Ramachandrappa, having devolved upon the

plaintiff and the defendants No.2 to 5, the share of the plaintiff

would come to 1/5th. Except this, there is no need for any

modification of the impugned judgments. Hence, the following:

- 10 -

                                                   NC: 2025:KHC-D:16373



 HC-KAR




                                          ORDER


      i.    The appeal is dismissed.