Karnataka High Court
Smt Sunitha H M vs Smt K Y Shaila on 29 October, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:43133
RSA No. 1671 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1671 OF 2021 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SUNITHA H.M.,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
W/O H.N.MOHAN
D/O LATE K.R.HONNAPPA
HANGAL VILLAGE AND POST
SOMWARPET TALUK
KODAGU - 571 251.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAMESH KUMAR R.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT.K.Y.SHAILA
W/O LATE K.H.YOGESH
Digitally signed
by NAGAVENI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
Location: High D/O P.A.CHANGAPPA
Court of THAPPAHALLI MANE
Karnataka SUNTICOPPA HOBLI
SOMWARPET TALUK
KODAGU - 571 251.
2. SMT.SUJATHA
W/O K.K.THEETHANANDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
D/O LATE K.R.HONNAPPA
KALALE VILLAGE AND POST
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:43133
RSA No. 1671 of 2021
HC-KAR
YASLOOR HOBLI
SAKALESHPURA TALUK
HASSAN - 573 201.
3. SMT.HEMAVATHI @ D.G.LATHA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
W/O D.G.GIRISH
D/O LATE K.R.HONNAPPA
KOOTH VILLAGE
THOLURSHETTALLI POST
SOMWARPET TALUK
KODAGU - 571 251.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.M.SANATH KUMARA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
SRI G.M.ANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3
R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.08.2019
PASSED IN RA.NO.40/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, SOMWARPETE. DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.03.2018
PASSED IN O.S.NO.40/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
CIVIL JUDGE SOMWARPETE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the
learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
NC: 2025:KHC:43133
HC-KAR
2. This second appeal is filed by plaintiff No.1, claiming
equal share on the ground that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are the
daughters of late K.R.Honappa, first defendant is the wife of
late Mr.K.H. Yogesh, who is the son of late K.R.Honappa and
second defendant is also the sister of plaintiff No.1. They all
are entitled for equal share in the property left by their father,
who acquired the same by a partition deed, which is an
ancestral property. The father passed away on 12.02.2003
leaving behind the aforesaid plaintiffs and defendants.
3. The defendants appeared and filed their written
statement contending that daughters are not entitled for any
share and cannot claim right in the property. However, the
trial Court made an observation in its judgment at paragraph
No.23 that the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 are not
coparceners as their father was not alive on 09.09.2005 and
they are not entitled for equal share in the suit property.
Hence, the trial Court granted only 1/8th share each in the suit
property to the plaintiffs and defendant No.2. The same is
questioned by the plaintiffs before the appellate Court in an
appeal in R.A.No.40/2018. The appellate Court having
NC: 2025:KHC:43133
HC-KAR
reassessed the material available on record, confirmed the
judgment of the trial Court and hence, the second appeal is
filed before this Court by plaintiff No.1.
4. The issue between the parties is only with regard to,
whether they are entitled to equal share in the suit property.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant brought to
the notice of this Court that the observations made by the trial
Court in its judgment at paragraph No.23 are incorrect and
relies on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case
of VINEETA SHARMA VS. RAKESH SHARMA reported in
(2020) 9 SCC 1.
6. The very reasoning given by the trial Court is not
correct and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents
also do not dispute the position of law and the principles laid
down in the judgment of the Apex Court in VINEETA
SHARMA'S case.
7. The factual matrix clearly discloses that the plaintiff
Nos.1 and 2 and defendant No.2 are the daughters of deceased
K.R.Honappa and defendant No.1 is the legal heir of the late
NC: 2025:KHC:43133
HC-KAR
son of late K.R.Honappa and would be the branch of the family
of the late son. When such being the case, in view of the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of VINEETA
SHARMA'S, they are equally entitled to the share in the
ancestral property left by their father, which is not in dispute.
8. Therefore, the judgment and decree of the trial Court
and confirmed by the appellate Court requires to be modified,
granting equal share of one fourth each among the plaintiffs
and defendants as coparceners and accordingly, the second
appeal is disposed of, modifying the share as entitled for 1/4th
share each.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
NVJ
