Karnataka High Court
Sri Parameshwarappa vs Smt Shashikala on 13 October, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:40474
RSA No. 1606 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1606 OF 2022 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
SRI. PARAMESHWARAPPA
S/O LATE SIDRAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/O BENAKUNSE VILLAGE
AJJAMPURA HOBLI,
AJJAMPURA TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 550.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHASTRI GANAPATI BHAT B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. SMT. SHASHIKALA
by DEVIKA M D/O PARAMESHWARAPPA
Location: HIGH W/O KUMARAPPA K
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/O KALKERE VILLAGE
CHOWLAHIRIYUR HOBLI
AJJAMPURA TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 180.
2. SRI B P DEVARAJ
S/O PARAMESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:40474
RSA No. 1606 of 2022
HC-KAR
3. SRI NANJUNDAPPA
S/O LATE SIDRAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
4. SRI GURUMURTHY
S/O LATE DIDRAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R NO. 2 TO 4 ARE
R/O BENAKUNSE VILLAGE
AJJAMPURA HOBLI, AJJAMPURA TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 550
5. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER/
ASSISTANT COMMISISONER
UPPER BHADRA PROJECT-4
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, TARIKERE
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 547.
6. SMT. MANJULA
D/O PARAMESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/O KALLUSHETIHALLI VILLAGE
TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 547.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH S.C, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 AND R4)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.09.2022
PASSED IN RA.NO.76/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
JUDGE (DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE) FAMILY COURT,
CHIKKAMAGALURU. PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND
PARTLY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:40474
RSA No. 1606 of 2022
HC-KAR
01.10.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.10/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JMFC., TARIKERE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned
counsel for the appellant.
2. The factual matrix of the case of defendant
No.1/appellant that this appeal is filed against the
concurrent finding passed by the Trial Court and the First
Appellate Court. The Trial Court, while passing an order
comes to a conclusion in O.S.No.10/2019 that the suit
schedule properties are ancestral and joint family
properties of the plaintiff and defendants and granted
1/12th share in all the suit schedule properties in favour of
the plaintiff but rejected the claim of the properties. The
same is challenged before the First Appellate Court and
the First Appellate Court considering the appeal filed by
NC: 2025:KHC:40474
HC-KAR
the appellant herein modified the judgment of the Trial
Court answering the point for consideration partly
affirmative in coming to the conclusion that the Trial Court
committed an error in holding that the plaintiff is entitled
to a 1/12th share in the entire extent of item Nos.1 and 2
of the scheduled properties. While passing an order,
modifying the same, and coming to the conclusion that
plaintiff, defendant Nos.1, 2 and 6 are entitled to a 1/12th
share each in the compensation amount and in the
remaining extent of lands in item Nos.1, 3 to 6 and
defendant Nos.3 and 4 are entitled for 4/12th share each in
the compensation amount and then the remaining land in
item Nos.1, 3 to 6 of the suit schedule property by metes
and bounds.
3. Being aggrieved by the said concurrent
findings, the present second appeal is filed by defendant
No.1 before this Court. The main contention of the counsel
appearing for the appellant before this Court is that both
the Courts were not justified in holding that the plaintiff is
NC: 2025:KHC:40474
HC-KAR
entitled to a 1/12th share and the First Appellate Court was
also not justified in holding that entitlement of 1/12th
share each in the compensation amount and defendant
Nos.3 and 4 are also entitled to 4/12th share each in the
compensation amount and both Courts have not
considered the evidence available on record. Hence, it
requires interference of this Court. Hence, prays this
Court to admit the appeal and frame the substantial
questions of law.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would also
vehemently contend that respondent No.1/plaintiff got
married about 25 years back and she is living happily with
her husband and also spent maximum amount at the time
of performing her marriage, i.e., around Rs.20,00,000/-
and also gave a dowry. Learned counsel would also
contend that defendant No.1 was managing the family and
he has repaid the loan amount borrowed by her
grandfather Siddaramappa wherein he has pledged the
suit schedule property for borrowing a loan. When such
NC: 2025:KHC:40474
HC-KAR
admission is given by the parties before the Trial Court,
the Trial Court ought not to have granted the relief of
partition.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellant and also considering the reasoning of the Trial
Court and the Appellate Court, it discloses that it is the
specific case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that the
suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family
properties and the defendants have also not denied the
same, but only the contention is that defendant No.1
spent more money at the time of marriage and also even
cleared the loan that was availed by his grandfather and
also the counsel would vehemently contend that the suit is
filed even after 25 years of the marriage of the plaintiff.
The counsel also vehemently contends that both the
Courts have not considered both the oral and documentary
evidence placed on record when the appellant did not
dispute the fact that the suit schedule properties are
ancestral and joint family properties. The only contention
NC: 2025:KHC:40474
HC-KAR
is that defendant No.1 has spent more money at the time
of performing the marriage of plaintiff , which cannot be a
ground to declare a relief and also no material is placed on
record before the Court to show that a share is given in
favour of the plaintiff and in the absence of any
documentary proof for having given any share or
relinquishing any right by the plaintiff, the very contention
of the counsel cannot be accepted. Maybe the appellant or
maybe the respondent No.1/plaintiff was married 25 years
ago. But though contended that already there was a
partition in the year 1983 itself, the same was not proved
by the defendants and the same is also taken note of by
the Trial Court while considering the issue involved
between the parties answering issue No.2 and so also with
regard to the mesne profits, issue No.3 is answered in the
negative taking note that the share of the plaintiff in
paragraph '14' that propositus Siddaramappa had three
sons, that is, defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4. Therefore, the suit
schedule properties have to be divided into three shares.
NC: 2025:KHC:40474
HC-KAR
Defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 are entitled to one share each in
the suit-scheduled properties. The plaintiff, defendant
Nos.1, 2 and 6 are entitled for 1/4th share each in the
share of defendant No.1. As such, the plaintiff is entitled
for 1/12th share in the suit schedule property and the
Appellate Court has reassessed the material available on
record both in respect of the acquired land with regard to
the compensation concerned and also with regard to the
remaining land concerned in answering point Nos.1 and 3
and answered the same in the affirmative in coming to the
conclusion that the Trial Court has committed an error in
holding that he is entitled to a 1/12th share and modified
the same.
6. When such being the case, if there is any
modification also, the same will not affect defendant
No.1/appellant since there was no division in the family
allotting of shares in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and
no document is placed on record in this regard when
concurrent finding is given with regard to the share of the
NC: 2025:KHC:40474
HC-KAR
plaintiff is concerned, I do not find any ground to admit
the appeal and frame substantive questions of law in the
appeal since both the Courts have taken note of factual
aspects as well as question of law. Hence, no merit in the
appeal.
In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.As. if any,
do not survive for consideration and the same stand
dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
GJM
CT: BHK
