Karnataka High Court
Pandit Rao S/O Sidramappa Mali Patil vs Kumari Preethi D/O Pandith Rao Anr on 6 November, 2025
Author: M.G.S.Kamal
Bench: M.G.S.Kamal
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6595
RSA No. 7107 of 2012
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 7107 OF 2012 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
PANDIT RAO S/O SIDRAMAPPA MALI PATIL,
AGE ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. SERVANT IN
HEALTH DEPARTMENT PHC,
RAMJOGI HALLI VILLAGE,
TQ. CHLKERI, DIST. CHITRADURGA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI NARENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KUMARI PREETHI D/O PANDITH RAO,
Digitally signed
by RAMESH R/O. J.R.COLONY, ALAND ROAD,
MATHAPATI GULBARGA, TQ. GULBARGA DIST., GULBARGA
Location: HIGH PERMANENT RESIDENT OF HALCHAIR & KUPNOOR ,
COURT OF TQ. CHINCHOLI, DIST. GULBARGA.
KARNATAKA
2. SMT. SARALA W/O PANDITHRAO MALI PATIL,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: ANGANWADI WORKER,
R/O. J. R. COLONY, ALAND ROAD,
GULBARGA PERMANENT RESIDENT OF HALCHAIR
AND KUPNOOR OF TQ. CHINCHOLI
DIST. GULBARGA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE
FOR R1 & R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6595
RSA No. 7107 of 2012
HC-KAR
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.01.2012
PASSED IN R.A.NO.3/2011 BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, CHINCHOLI, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 30.10.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.15/2009 BY
THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AT CHINCHOLI AND
TO GRANT ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL)
This appeal is by the defendant in O.S.No.15/2009
on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) Chincholi,
(for short 'the Trial Court') being aggrieved by the
judgment and decree dated 30.10.2010 passed therein
granting 1/3rd share to the plaintiffs in the suit schedule
property, which is confirmed by the judgment and decree
dated 13.01.2012 passed in R.A.No.3/2011 on the file of
the Senior Civil Judge, Chincholi (for short 'the First
Appellate Court').
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6595
HC-KAR
2. The above suit in O.S.No.15/2009 is filed by
plaintiffs/respondents herein against the
defendant/appellant herein for partition of separate
possession in respect of:
(i) land in Sy.No.216/1 measuring 4 acres 21 guntas
(out of 29 acres 1 gunta)
(ii) Sy.No.No.151/A measuring 1 acre 9 guntas (out of 4
acres 34 guntas), both situated at Kupnoor Village, Tq:
Chincholi, Dist: Kalaburagi, (suit properties) contending
interalia that the defendant/appellant herein is the father
of plaintiff No.1/respondent No.1 herein and the husband
of plaintiff No.2/respondent No.2. That the suit properties
are the joint family ancestral properties. That there was a
family discord between the defendant/appellant herein and
plaintiff No.2/respondent No.2 herein. Plaintiff
No.2/respondent No.2 herein had filed a suit in O.S
No.21/1999 before the Family Court Gulbarga, for
maintenance, in which a sum of Rs.500/- and Rs.150 per
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6595
HC-KAR
month respectively was directed to be paid by the
defendant/appellant herein to the plaintiff Nos.2
1/respondent Nos.2 and 1 respectively. That the
defendant/appellant herein was attempting to alienate the
suit properties to defeat the legitimate share, right and
interest of the plaintiffs/respondents. Hence the suit for
partition and separate possession of the suit properties.
3. Defendant/appellant herein had filed written
statement contending that the suit properties stood in the
name of his father and he is paying the monthly
maintenance regularly as directed in the decree passed by
the Family Court. That there was no cause of action for
defendant to file the suit for partition. The Trial Court
framed the following issues for its consideration:
1. Whether the plaintiffs proves that they are
having 1/3 share in the suit properties?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled as relief
sought for?
3. What order or decree?
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6595
HC-KAR
4. Plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and exhibited
5 documents as Exs.P1 to P5. Defendant examined himself
as DW1. On appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court
answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and
consequently decreed the suit, declaring plaintiffs being
entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit properties and defendant
has been directed to put the plaintiffs in possession of
1/3rd share each in the suit properties. Being aggrieved,
the defendant/appellant preferred regular appeal in
R.A.No.3/2011. Considering the grounds urged, the First
Appellate Court framed following points for its
consideration;
1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are
having 1/3 share in the suit properties?
2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled a relief
sought for?
3) What order or decree?
5. On re-appreciation the First Appellate Court
answered the same in the negative confirming the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6595
HC-KAR
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Being
aggrieved by the same, the defendant/appellant is before
this Court.
6. This Court by order dated 28.11.2016 framed
the following substantial question of law;
"Whether the courts below have
committed an error with regard to the
assignment of shares by considering the
second plaintiff also to be entitled to a share,
even if ultimately the finding of fact with
regard to the right to the property is held in
favour of the plaintiffs?"
7. Learned counsel for the defendat/appellant
submits that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court
grossly erred in decreeing the suit holding
plaintiffs/respondents being entitled to 1/3rd share of the
suit properties. He submits plaintiff No.2/respondent No.2
being the wife of defendant/appellant is not entitled for
the share in the joint family ancestral property of the
defendant/appellant. That allotment of 1/3rd share in the
suit properties is without taking into consideration of the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6595
HC-KAR
claim of the family members of the defendant/appellant.
He refers to a suit in O.S.No.1/2015, which is stated to
have been filed by the siblings of the defendant/appellant,
wherein a preliminary decree has been passed. He submits
that if in the event the daughters/sisters of
defendant/appellant herein held entitled of share in the
suit properties, the share could get reduced. He further
submits that item No.2 of the suit properties stood in the
name of the mother of the defendant/appellant and she
passed away leaving behind 4 sons including the
defendant/appellant and 3 daughters as such the
entitlement of the defendant/appellant in the said property
would not be 1 acre 9 guntas. Therefore, he submits that
1/3rd share allotted to the plaintiffs in suit properties is
unsustainable.
8. In response, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent though fairly submits that the plaintiff
No.2/respondent No.2 herein being the wife of
defendant/appellant is not entitled for the share in the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6595
HC-KAR
ancestral joint Hindu family property belonging to
defendant/appellant, however submits that the suit
schedule properties are the one which have fallen to the
exclusive share of the defendant/appellant. As such the
partition suit filed by the plaintiffs cannot be found fault
with. He fairly submits that the plaintiff No.1 being the
daughter and defendant/appellant being the father are
entitled for 1 ½ equal share in the suit property.
9. Heard, perused the records.
10. Relationship between the parties is not in
dispute. The suit of the properties being the ancestral is
also not in dispute. The plaintiff No.1/respondent No.2
herein being wife of defendant/appellant is not entitled for
share equal to that of the co-parceners during the lifetime
of her husband namely the defendant/appellant. As such,
the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have erred in
allotting 1/3rd share to plaintiff No.2/respondent No.2
herein. The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6595
HC-KAR
and the First Appellate Court to the said extent requires to
be interfered with and modified holding that
defendant/appellant and the plaintiff No.1/respondent
No.1 herein are entitled ½ equal share to the suit
properties.
11. As regards the contention of the counsel for the
appellant that, the other sisters and brothers of the
defendant/appellant had initiated the proceedings in O.S.
No.1/2015 to which the plaintiffs/respondents herein were
also parties, this Court refrain from making any
observation in that regard. If any decree is passed therein,
it is open for the parties to seek appropriate relief in the
nature of seeking adjustment of equities.
12. As far as the present suit is concerned, since
the decree passed by the Trial Court and the First
Appellate Court is modified as state above, the substantial
question of law stands answered accordingly. Hence, the
following;
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6595
HC-KAR
ORDER
(a) The appeal is allowed in part.
(b) Defendant/appellant and plaintiff
No.1/respondent No.1 herein are held
entitled for ½ share each in the suit
properties.
(c) The judgment and decree dated 30.10.2010
passed in O.S.No.15/2009 by the Principal
Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Chincholi and the
judgment and decree dated 13.01.2012
passed in R.A.No.3/2011 by the Senior Civil
Judge, Chincholi, are modified accordingly.
(d) Draw decree accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.G.S.KAMAL)
JUDGE
MSR
CT:PK
