Karnataka High Court
Smt.Rajashree W/O Chandrashekarayya ... vs Shri.Kadayya S/O Sadashivayya ... on 14 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13805
RSA No. 100483 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100483 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.RAJASHREE
W/O. CHANDRASHEKARAYYA MATHAPATI,
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK,
R/O. CHIKKAPADASALAGI, TAL. JAMAKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOTE.
2. SMT. SANGEETA
W/O. NAGARAJ NEELAGUNDAMATH,
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O. KOPPALA,
TAL. KOPPALA, DIST. KOPPALA.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEENKUMAR G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
YASHAVANT
AND:
YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR
NARAYANKAR Date:
2025.10.17
11:05:52
+0530
1. SHRI KADAYYA
S/O. SADASHIVAYYA BABALADIMATH,
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE.
R/O. HIREPADASALAGI, TAL. JAMAKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOTE-587301.
2. SMT. ROOPA
W/O. KADAYYA BABALADIMATH,
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK,
R/O. CHIKKAPADASALAGI, TAL. JAMAKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOTE-587301.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13805
RSA No. 100483 of 2021
HC-KAR
3. SMT. JAYASHREE
W/O. SADASHIVAYYA BABALADIMATH,
AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK,
R/O. CHIKKAPADASALAGI,
TAL. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587301.
(SINCE DECEASED,
HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES ARE ALREADY ON
RECORDS I.E. R1, R2 AND R4,
AS PER ORDER DATED 22.01.2025.)
4. SMT. BHAGYASHREE
W/O. SHARVESH MATHAPATI,
AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK,
R/O. BILLUR, TAL. JATTA,
DIST. SANGOLLI-591115.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHRIKANT D. BABLADI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2-ABSENT;
R3 AND R4-NOTICE SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC.100 R/W. ORDER XLII OF THE OF
CPC, 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.09.2019
PASSED IN R.A.NO.140/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE, TO SIT AT
JAMKHANDI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD. 22.07.2017 PASSED IN O.S.
NO.163/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, JAMKHANDI,PARTLY
DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE
POSSESSION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13805
RSA No. 100483 of 2021
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
The appellants are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.163/2016,
whose first appeal in RA No.140/2017 came to be dismissed.
2. The appellants/plaintiffs filed O.S.No.163/2016 for
partition, which came to be decreed granting 1/10th share each
in the suit schedule properties. The Trial Court had effected the
partition on the basis of the concept of notional partition as it
stood. In pursuance to the amendment brought to the Hindu
Succession Act, impugned judgment on 22.07.2017 came to be
passed. The said judgment was questioned by the plaintiffs
before the First Appellate Court in RA No.140/2017. The
grievance of the appellants is that the calculation of the share is
incorrect and therefore, there is a need for interference by this
Court.
3. It is submitted that the appellants are entitled for
1/5th share in the suit schedule properties but not 1/10th share
as ordered. Though the said contention was urged before the
First Appellate Court in R.A.No.140/2017, the First Appellate
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13805
HC-KAR
Court despite considering the said question, and answering that
there is a need for interference in the judgment of the Trial
Court, dismissed the appeal. It is pertinent to note that the point
No.2 for consideration framed by the First Appellate Court reads
as below.
"Whether it is necessary to interfere with the judgment
and decree passed by the lower Court?"
4. The discussion on point No.2 and paragraph 17 by
the First Appellate Court reads as below.
"17. POINT No.2:- The lower court erred in allotting
1/10th share each to the plaintiffs in the suit schedule
properties though the suit is barred by limitation. The lower
court failed to consider the fact that the plaintiffs have not
produced any documents to show that item No.2 of the 'A'
schedule property has been allotted to the share of the 1st
defendant in the partition. No documents produced by PW.1
to show that the house properties are the ancestral
properties of the 1st defendant. So, for the reasons assigned
in answering point No.1 as above, it is just and necessary
to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the
lower court. Hence I answer this point in the Affirmative."
5. Obviously despite the Court coming to the conclusion
that there is a need for interference by the First Appellate Court
it has not done so. It is pertinent to note that the operative
portion of the order says that the appeal is dismissed. However
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13805
HC-KAR
the impugned judgment of the Trial Court is set aside. It is clear
that the First Appellate Court has not applied its mind to the
contentions raised by the appellant. The reasoning and the
operative portion of the judgment are not in consonance with
each other. The calculation of the shares is the only aspect which
needs to be considered. The properties claimed by the plaintiffs
and whether the plaintiffs have share in it being the primary
consideration in the suit and consequent upon it, the share has
to be calculated in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma and
others1.
6. In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed and
matter is remanded to the First Appellate Court with a direction
to pass a detailed order after applying its mind. Obviously, the
appeal could not have been dismissed, if the impugned judgment
of the Trial Court should have been set aside by the First
Appellate Court. There is no reason as to why the appeal is to be
dismissed. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:
(2020) 9 SCC 1 dated 11.08.2020.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13805
HC-KAR
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed.
ii) The impugned judgment of the First Appellate
Court is set aside.
iii) The matter is remanded to the First Appellate
Court for fresh hearing and disposal within a period
of three months from the date of the parties
appearing before the First Appellate Court.
iv) The parties are directed to appear before the First
Appellate Court on 17.11.2025 without waiting for
a fresh notice from that Court.
SD/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
SSP
CT:PA
