Karnataka High Court

Gouramma And Ors vs Amaramma And Anr on 16 September, 2025

Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar

Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar

                                              -1-
                                                         NC: 2025:KHC-K:5484
                                                    RSA No. 200400 of 2019


                    HC-KAR




                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                     KALABURAGI BENCH

                        DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

                                          BEFORE

                   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

                    REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 200400 OF 2019 (PAR)

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   GOURAMMA
                        W/O LATE BHEEMRAYA,
                        SINCE DECEASED DURING PENDENCY
                        OF SUIT THROUGH HER
                        LRS ALREADY ON RECORD
                        EXCEPT HER TWO DAUGHTERS.

                   2.   SIDDANNA
                        S/O LATE BHEEMRAYA,
                        AGE: 52 YEARS,
                        OCC: AGRI.,

Digitally signed   3.   GUNDAMMA
by SHIVALEELA           W/O SIDDANNA,
DATTATRAYA              AGE: 42 YEARS,
UDAGI
                        OCC: AGRI.,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA          4.   SHIVAMMA
                        D/O SIDDANNA,
                        AGE: 23 YEARS,
                        OCC: AGRI.,

                   5.   SABANNA
                        D/O SIDDANNA,
                        AGE: 21 YEARS,
                        OCC: AGRI.,
                            -2-
                                    NC: 2025:KHC-K:5484
                                 RSA No. 200400 of 2019


HC-KAR




6.   SABANNA
     S/O SIDDANNA,
     AGE: 21 YEARS,
     OCC: NIL.,

7.   SHIVRAJ
     S/O SIDDANNA,
     AGE: 18 YEARS,
     OCC: NIL.,

8.   ANJANAYYA
     S/O SIDDANNA,
     AGE: 16 YEARS,
     OCC: NIL
     THE APPELLANT NO.8 IS THE MINOR,
     BY HIS NEXT FRIEND NATURAL MOTHER,
     SMT. GUNDAMMA
     W/O SIDDANNA,
     APPELLANT NO. 3 HEREIN
     ALL R/O: SUNNADKAL VILLAGE,
     TQ: DEODURGA,
     DIST: RAICHUR.

                                          ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI AJAYKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR APPEARED FOR
    SRI SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   AMARAMMA
     W/O HANUMANTHRAYA
     @ DODDANNA SHE IS
     (CLAIMING TO BE
     W/O LATE SHIVANNA),
     OCC:
     AGE: 41 YEARS,
     R/O: SUNNADKAL VILLAGE,
     TQ: DEODURG,
     DIST: RAICHUR - 584 101.
                                -3-
                                                NC: 2025:KHC-K:5484
                                         RSA No. 200400 of 2019


HC-KAR




2.   KUMARI SHIVAKANTAMMA
     @ SHIVAKANTI
     D/O HANUMANTHRAYA
     (CLAIMING TO THE
     D/O LATE SHIVANNA),
     AGE: 21 YEARS,
     OCC: NIL,
     R/O: SUNNADKAL,
     TQ: DEODURG,
     DIRST: RAICHUR - 584 101.
                                                      ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

        THIS   REGULAR   SECOND       APPEAL     IS    FILED   UNDER
SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 25.09.2019 PASSED IN R.A.NO.56 OF
2012, BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAICHUR AND
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.09.2012 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.03 OF 2008 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL    JUDGE    AND    J.M.F.C.-I    (I/C),    DEODURGA,      AND
CONSEQUENTLY THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFFS BE DISMISSED,
BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL WITH COST THROUGHOUT
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.


        THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:


CORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR
           AMARANNAVAR
                                -4-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC-K:5484
                                         RSA No. 200400 of 2019


HC-KAR




                       ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by appellants -defendants Nos.1

to 8 praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated

25.09.2019 passed in RA No.56/2012 by First Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Raichur (hereinafter referred

to as "first appellate Court" for brevity) and judgment and

decree dated 06.09.2012 passed in O.S.No.3/2008 by the

Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC-I, Devadurga and

consequently dismiss the suit of plaintiffs.

2. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 have filed suit in

O.S.No.3/2008 against defendants Nos.1 to 8 (appellants

Nos.1 to 8) for relief of partition and separate possession

of their shares in suit properties. Plaintiffs have contended

that plaintiff Nos.1 -Amaramma is wife and plaintiff No.2 -

Shivakanthamma @ Shivakanthi is daughter of late

Shivanna son of Bheemraya and Smt Gouramma -

defendant No.1. The said Shivanna has brother by name

Siddanna -defendant No.2 and wife Gundamma -defendant

No.3 and five children -defendant Nos.4 to 8. Plaintiffs

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5484

HC-KAR

have contended that Shivanna died leaving behind plaintiff

Nos.1 and 2 as legal heirs. Plaintiffs contended that suit

scheduled properties are ancestral properties of Shivanna

and Siddanna (sons of Bheemaraya and Gouramma).

3. Defendants in their written statement disputed

that plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2 are wife and daughter of late

Shivanna. Facts admitted are that suit schedule properties

are ancestral properties. Based on the said pleadings, the

trial Court has framed following issues;

"1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, plaintiff No.1 is the legally wedded wife of Late. Shivanna and plaintiff No.2 is the daughter of said Shivanna and plaintiff No.1 as contended in the plaint?

2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, plaintiffs and defendants constitute Hindu undivided joint family as contended in the plaint?

3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants and liable for partition as contended in the plaint?

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5484

HC-KAR

4. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, they are entitle for 1½ share out of 3 shares as contended in the plaint?

prove that Shivanna died as a Bachelor and after his death his share had devolved upon defendant Nos. 1 & 2 as contended in their written statement?"

4. Plaintiff No.1 has been examined as P.W.1 and

examined witnesses as P.W.2 to 4 and got marked

documents as Ex.P1 to 15. Defendant No.2 has been

examined as D.W.1 and got marked documents as Ex.D1

to D45. The trial Court after hearing arguments on both

sides and appreciating evidence on record has answered

issue Nos.1 to 4 in the affirmative and issue No.5 in the

negative and decreed the suit awarding half share to

plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 in the suit schedule properties.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment of trial Court,

defendants have filed RA No.56/2012 before the first

appellate Court. The first appellate Court after hearing

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5484

HC-KAR

arguments on both sides has formulated following points

for consideration;

1. "Whether the plaintiffs proved that they are wife and daughter of Shivanna?

2. Whether the defendants proved that 1st plaintiff is of the wife Hanumantharaya of Sunnakadal village. Tq. Devadurga and 2nd plaintiff is the daughter of said Hanumantharaya @ Doddanna?

3. What quantum of share, the plaintiffs are entitled for?

4. Whether the trial court appreciated pleas and materials with proper prospective?

5. Whether the plaintiffs deserve leave of this court to produce copies of sale deed executed by 2nd defendant as an additional evidence as prayed in their application?

6. Whether the plaintiffs deserve to seek appointment of Receiver i.e. Tahsildar. Devadurga to take possession of suit schedule properties as prayed in their application?

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5484

HC-KAR

7. Whether the defendants deserve leave of this court to amend their written statement as prayed in their application?

8. What order?"

6. The first appellate Court after hearing

arguments and re-appreciating evidence on record has

answered point No.1 in the affirmative, point Nos.2, 5 to 7

in the negative, point No.4 party affirmative and modified

shares declared by the trial Court and allotted share to

one Timmavva -sister of Siddanna (defendant No.2) and

late Shivanna (husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of

plaintiff No.2).

7. Aggrieved by the judgment of first appellate Court,

defendants Nos.1 to 8 have filled present appeal.

8. The present appeal came to be admitted to

consider following substantial questions of law;
a. "Whether both the Courts below are justified in decreeing the suit by granting the share in the suit properties without properly appreciating the fact of evidence on record?

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5484

HC-KAR

b. Whether the findings by Court of facts vitiated by non-consideration of relevant evidence?

c. Whether the plaintiffs have proved the factum of marriage and paternity with Shivanna?"

9. Heard learned counsel for appellants and

learned counsel for respondents.

10. On hearing learned counsels, substantial

questions of law formulated as above are modified as

under;

a. Whether the trial Court and appellate Court are justified in holding that plaintiffs are wife and daughter of late Shivanna placing reliance on the evidence of P.W.1 to 4 and Ex.P1 and Ex.P15 and disbelieving Ex.D45?
           b. Whether         share      allotted      by     first
                Appellate     Court        to    parties      and
Timmavva requires modification in view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5484

HC-KAR

the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs Rakesh Sharma and Ors?

11. Heard further arguments of learned counsel for

appellants and learned counsel for respondents on the

above substantial questions of law.

12. The relationship of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 with

late Shivanna has been seriously disputed by defendants.

Plaintiff Nos.1 contended that she is wife and plaintiff No.2

contended that she is daughter of late Shivanna. The said

Shivanna is brother of Siddanna (defendant No.2). The

said late Shivanna and Siddanna are children of

Bheemraya and Gouramma (defendant No.1). It is not in

dispute that late Shivanna is brother of defendant No.2 -

Siddanna and son of Bheemraya and Gouramma

(defendant No.1). Defendant No.1 -Gouramma died

during pendency of the suit.

13. Plaintiff No.1 -Amaramma has been examined

as P.W.1. In her evidence specifically stated that she is

wife of Shivanna and plaintiff No.2 -Shivakanthamma @

Shivakanthi is daughter of Shivanna. P.W.2 to 4 are

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5484

HC-KAR

examined and in their evidence they specifically deposed

that plaintiff No.1 is wife and plaintiff No.2 is daughter of

late Shivanna and proved the said relationship of plaintiff

Nos.1 and 2 with late Shivanna. Nothing has been elicited

in the cross examination of P.W.2 to 4 to disbelieve their

evidence. Ex.P1 is school certificate of plaintiff No.2 -

Shivakanthamma @ Shivakanthi wherein name of the

father is mentioned as Shivanna. Ex.P15 is voter list

wherein name of plaintiff No.1 -Amaramma is at Sl.No.45

wherein she is shown as wife of Shivanna. These two

documents collaborate evidence of P.W1 to 4. Ex.D45 is

school certificate wherein it is shown that Shivakanthi is

daughter of Doddanna issued by Higher Primary School,

Sunnadkallu. It is contended that Ex.D45 is school

certificate of said Shivakantamma -plaintiff No.2 and she

is daughter of Doddanna. The said document has been

disbelieved by the trial Court and first appellate Court

considering evidence of P.W.1 to 4, Ex.P1 and Ex.P15.

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5484

HC-KAR

14. Appellants have filed application under Order 41

Rule 27 of CPC seeking production of one document as

additional evidence. The said document is school

certificate dated 27.11.2019 issued by Head Master,

Government Higher Primary School, Kotekal wherein

Shivakantamma is shown as daughter of Doddanna and

admission number is 699. Latest photo of plaintiff No.2

has been affixed to the said certificate. The said

document is dated 27.11.2019 which is issued after filing

of present second appeal. What is basis of affixing latest

photo of plaintiff No.2 to the said certificate is not made

clear and it creates doubt about genuineness of the said

certificate as latest photo of plaintiff No.2 has been affixed

to the said certificate. Therefore, the said certificate is not

relevant to decide the present appeal and suit. Hence, the

application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC requires to

be dismissed and it is dismissed. Considering evidence of

P.W.1 to 4 and Ex.P1 and P15, the trial Court and first

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5484

HC-KAR

appellate Court has rightly held that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2

established their relationship with late Shivanna.

15. Defendant No.1 -Gouramma (mother of late

Shivanna and Siddanna -defendant No.2) died when the

suit was pending before the Trial Court. The first appellate

Court considered the fact that there is one daughter of

Bheemraya and Gouramma by name Timmavva has not

been arrayed as party to the suit. The first appellate

Court has held that the said Timmavva as daughter, she is

also entitled to share in properties of Bheemraya and

Gouramma. Parties have not disputed that Timmavva is

daughter of Bheemraya and Gouramma (defendant No.1)

and sister of late Shivanna and Siddanna (defendant No.2)

16. Defendant No.1 -Gouramma (wife of

Bheemraya and mother of Siddanna -defendant No.2 and

late -Shivanna) died when the matter was pending before

the trial Court. It is not in dispute that suit properties are

ancestral properties. Late Shivanna, Siddanna (defendant

No.2) and their sister -Timmavva are co -parceners. The

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5484

HC-KAR

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs

Rakesh Sharma and Ors1 has held that daughters are

also co-paceners and they are entitled to equal shares to

that of sons in ancestral properties.

17. The said decision has been rendered by

Hon'ble Apex Court in the year 2020 after passing of the

judgment by the first appellate Court. In view of the said

decision in the case of Vineeta Sharma, shares allotted

by the first appellate Court require to be modified. Late -

Shivanna (husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff

No.2), Siddanna (defendant No.2) (husband of defendant

No.3 and father of defendant Nos.4 to 8) and Timmavva

are entitled to equal shares in the suit properties.

Therefore, they are entitled 1/3rd share each in the suit

properties. 1/3rd share of late Shivanna in suit schedule

properties devolves upon plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and

defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 died during pendency of

suit. Succession opened on the date of suit. Therefore,

1/3rd share of late Shivanna devolves on plaintiff Nos.1

AIR 2020 SC 3717

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5484

HC-KAR

and 2 and defendant No.1 as they are class-I heirs and

they take equally. In 1/3rd share of late Shivanna, plaintiff

Nos.1 and 2 are entitled 1/3rd each and defendant No.1 is

entitled 1/3rd share i.e., 1/9th share in the suit scheduled

properties. Defendant No.1 died when the suit was

pending before the trial Court. As succession has been

opened as on the date of suit, share of defendant No.1 will

further devolve on her heirs under Section 15 of the Hindu

Succession Act. Plaintiff No.2 being daughter of

predeceased son, defendant No.2 being son and

Timmavva being daughter are entitled to equal share in

the 1/9the share of defendant No.1. They are entitled to

1/3rd each in 1/9th =1/27th share. They are totally entitled

1/27th each share in suit scheduled properties. Considering

the above aspect, plaintiff No.1 is entitled 1/9th = 3/27th;

plaintiff No.2 is entitled to 1/9th + 1/27th = 4/27 and

defendant No.2 and Timmavva are entitled 1/3rd +1/27th

=10/27th each in suit scheduled properties. Timmavva

who is not party, inspite of that the first Appellate Court

- 16 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5484

HC-KAR

has rightly protected interest of the Timmavva. In view of

the above, substantial questions of law are answered

accordingly.

18. In the result, the following

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed in part.

ii) Shares allotted by the trial Court and modified by

the first appellate Court are modified as under;

a) Plaintiff Nos.1 is entitled to 3/27th share in

suit scheduled properties.

b) Plaintiff No.2 is entitled 4/27th share in suit

scheduled properties.

c) Defendant No.2 is entitled to 10/27th share

in suit scheduled properties.

d) Timmavva is entitled to 10/27th share in suit

scheduled properties.

iii) The said Timmavva is at liberty to participate or

initiate final decree proceedings for division of her

10/27th share by meets and bounds.

- 17 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5484

HC-KAR

iv) Defendant Nos.3 to 8 being wife and children of

Sidanna -defendant No.2 are not entitled any

separate share as share is allotted to Siddanna -

defendant No.2.
   v)    Draw decree accordingly.




                                     Sd/-
                         (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
                                    JUDGE


DSP

 