Karnataka High Court
Veerappa vs Kamalamma on 5 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025: KHC-D:15058
RSA No. 100474 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100474 OF 2015 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. VEERAPPA
S/O. REVANAPPA PUTTASIDDAMMANAVAR,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NITUVALLI,
NOW AT NITTUR,
TQ. RANEBENNUR,
DIST. HAVERI.
2. RUDRAPPA
S/O. REVANAPPA PUTTASIDDAMMANAVAR,
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NITUVALLI,
Digitally
signed by
YASHAVANT
NOW AT NITTUR,
YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR
NARAYANKAR Date:
2025.11.06
TQ. RANEBENNUR,
14:27:56
+0530 DIST. HAVERI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY MISS VINAYA KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. NAGANGOUDA R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. KAMALAMMA
W/O. REVANAPPA PUTTASIDDAMMANAVAR,
SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HER LRS
WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD AS
RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3.
-2-
NC: 2025: KHC-D:15058
RSA No. 100474 of 2015
HC-KAR
2. SMT. RUDRAVVA
W/O. CHANDRAPPA HUBLI,
AGE: 52 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. NITUVALLI,
NOW AT NITTUR,
TQ. RANEBENNUR,
DIST. HAVERI.
3. SMT. PARAVVA
W/O. SHANTAPPA GOUDAR,
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. HOLEYANAHALLI,
TQ. DAVANGERE,
DIST. DAVANGERE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.M. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W. ORDER 41
RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS RSA BY SETTING
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.03.2015 PASSED
BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE RANEBENNUR, IN
R.A.NO.34/2012, IN CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 02.04.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.320/2010 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC RANEBENNUR IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025: KHC-D:15058
RSA No. 100474 of 2015
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.
2. This appeal is filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in
O.S.No.320/2010, which came to be decreed by the learned
Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Ranebennur and later
confirmed by the First Appellate Court i.e., the learned Principal
Senior Civil Judge, Ranebennur in R.A.No.34/2012.
3. The factual matrix that is relevant for the purpose of
this order is as below:
a) The mother and her two daughters have filed the
suit for partition against the defendants who are
none else than the sons of plaintiff No.1. The
genealogy and the relationship between the
parties are not in dispute. The plaintiffs filed the
suit against the defendants contending that they
constitute a joint Hindu family and the suit
schedule properties are the joint family
properties, which was owned by the propositus
NC: 2025: KHC-D:15058
HC-KAR
Revaneppa. He died on 25.03.1973, leaving
behind the plaintiff and defendants. There was
no partition in the joint family properties and
when the plaintiffs sought partition, defendant
Nos.1 and 2 denied to effect the partition and
therefore, there was cause of action for filing the
suit.
b) The suit was resisted by the defendants
contending that after death of the propositus
Revaneppa, there was a partition between the
parties and as per the said partition, the name of
defendant Nos.1 and 2 have been entered in the
records. It was contented that the share of
plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 was given to them at the
time of their marriage about 15 to 20 years back,
during the lifetime of Revaneppa. Therefore, they
set up a defence of earlier partition and sought
for dismissal of the suit.
4. The Trial Court framed appropriate issues and after
the trial, it came to conclusion that there is no material to show
NC: 2025: KHC-D:15058
HC-KAR
that there was partition between the parties in the year 2002 as
alleged by the defendants. Therefore, it decreed the suit of
plaintiffs.
5. Being aggrieved, defendant Nos.1 and 2 approached
the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.34/2012 and after hearing the
parties, the appeal came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the
dismissal of the appeal, defendant Nos.1 and 2 are before this
Court.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants
submits that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have
not appreciated the evidence borne out of the record in the form
of mutation entries in a proper way and these mutation entries
clearly depict that there was partition and as such, the impugned
judgments are not sustainable in law. It is also submitted that
plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 were given share at the time of their
marriage and therefore, they could not have claimed any
partition in the suit schedule properties.
7. A perusal of the records would reveal that the Trial
Court as well as the First Appellate Court have come to the
conclusion that the mutation entries do not depict a partition.
The Trial Court do not specifically refer to the mutation entries
NC: 2025: KHC-D:15058
HC-KAR
produced at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.5. It observes that there is no
previous partition which has been established. It is pertinent to
note that the First Appellate Court has gone into the documents
in detail and it has held that there was no previous partition
which has been established and when there is a clear denial by
the plaintiffs about the giving appropriate share to them at the
time of the marriage, the First Appellate Court rejected the claim
of the appellants and held that the plaintiffs are entitled for
partition.
8. A perusal of Ex.D5 would show that it depicts a
partition between the propositus Revaneppa and his siblings. It
does not depict any partition between the plaintiffs and
defendants. The other revenue records would show that when
Revaneppa died, the defendants No.1 and 2 were minors and
therefore, their names were entered with the plaintiff No.1 as a
minor guardian. After attaining majority, the guardianship was
discharged and the name of the defendants No.1 and 2 came to
be entered in the revenue records of the suit schedule
properties. None of the mutation entries produced by the
appellants show that there was any amicable partition, or family
arrangement which shows that the plaintiff's herein had given up
NC: 2025: KHC-D:15058
HC-KAR
any right in the property. It is also pertinent to note that there is
no answer from the appellants as to what share was given to the
plaintiff No.1. Even if the oral contention of the defendants that
the plaintiffs No.2 and 3 were given their share at the time of
their marriage, there is no answer to the question as to what
share was given to the plaintiff No.1. The plaintiff No.1 in her
testimony has clearly denied that there was any partition or a
family arrangement. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to
hold that the appreciation of the evidence by the Trial Court and
the First Appellate Court is erroneous.
9. So far as the question of law is concerned, by
applying the principles laid down in the case of Vineeta Sharma
V/s Rakesh Sharma1, the partition ordered by the Trial Court
and the First Appellate Court cannot be found fault with.
Obviously, the suit schedule property is the property obtained by
Revaneppa in a partition among his siblings. Therefore, in the
hands of Revaneppa, it was the ancestral property.
Consequently, after his demise, the property devolves as per
Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act and therefore, the plaintiff
AIR 2020 SC 3717
NC: 2025: KHC-D:15058
HC-KAR
and the defendants are entitled for share equally. Thus, there is
no reason to hold that any substantial question of law arises in
the present appeal.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that the
respondent No.1 is no more and therefore, her share would
devolve upon plaintiffs No.2, 3 and defendants No.1 and 2 in
equal shares. The plaintiffs who seek final decree are at liberty to
make the said submission before the Court at the time of
drawing the final decree. Hence, the appeal is dismissed at the
admission stage itself.
SD/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
SSP: Para 1 to 7
RKM: Para 8 to end
CT: PA
