[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

S Shivappa vs Smt Gowramma on 20 January, 2026

                                        -1-
                                                  NC: 2026:KHC:3144-DB
                                                  RFA No. 1958 of 2017


            HC-KAR



                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                    DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

                                     PRESENT
                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
                                       AND
                       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
                   REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1958 OF 2017 (PAR)
            BETWEEN:

            1.      S SHIVAPPA
                    S/O SHERAPURADA BASAPPA,
                    AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
                    OPP IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT
                    SHIMOGA ROAD, HARIHARA,
                    DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001.

                    SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LRs.

            1(a) LALITHAMMA,
                 WIDOW OF LATE S.SHIVAPPA,
Digitally        AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
signed by        R/AT OPP: IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT
VASANTHA
KUMARY B         SHIMOGA ROAD, HARIHARA,
K                DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577601.
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF    1(b) VANI, W/O BENAKAPPA
KARNATAKA
                 AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
                 R/AT ARAKERE VILLAGE,
                 HONNALI TALUK,
                 DAVANAGERE-577217.

            1(c)    S.SHANKAR,
                    S/O LATE S.SHIVAPPA
                    AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
                    R/AT OPP: IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT
                    SHIMOGA ROAD, HARIHARA,
                    DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577601.
                           -2-
                                     NC: 2026:KHC:3144-DB
                                     RFA No. 1958 of 2017


HC-KAR




1(d) S.SATISHA,
     S/O LATE S.SHIVAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
     R/AT OPP. IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT
     SHIMOGA ROAD, HARIHARA,
     DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577601.
                                            ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SANATHKUMAR SHETTY K., ADVOCATE
     FOR APPELLANTS I.E., A1(A-D))

AND:

1.   SMT GOWRAMMA
     W/O LATE BASAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS
     OPP IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT
     SHIMOGA ROAD, HARIHARA TOWN
     DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001.

     SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HER LRs

     I.E., RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 5
     WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD.

2.   SMT SUVARNAMMA
     W/O LATE SHIVAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
     KODIHALLLI VILLAGE,
     KASABA HOBLI, DAVANAGERE,
     TALUK AND DISTRICT-577001.

3.   SMT SHIVAKKA
     W/O LATE THIPPE RUDRAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
     KENGANHALLI HOBLI AND VILLAGE
     DAVANAGERE TALUK AND
     DISTRICT-577001.

4.   SMT GANGAMMA
     W/O HANUMANTHAPPA
                           -3-
                                   NC: 2026:KHC:3144-DB
                                   RFA No. 1958 of 2017


HC-KAR



     AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
     YALAVATTI VILLAGE
     HARIHAR TALUK
     DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001.

5.   SMT SAVITRAMMA
     W/O HALESHAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
     KOOLAMBI VILLAGE
     HONNALI TALUK
     DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001.

6.   MR RAJAPPA
     S/O SHERAPURADA BASAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
     AGRICULTURIST
     OPP IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT
     SHIMOGA ROAD,HARIHAR
     DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001.

7.   MR NAGAPPA
     S/O PATEL SHIVAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
     KENGANAHALLI, HONNALI TALUK
     DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001.

8.   SRI HARISH
     S/O NAGAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
     KENGANAHALLI
     HONNALI TALUK
     DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001.

9.   MR S CHENNABASAPPA
     S/O SHREPURADA BASAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
     OPP IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT
     SHIMOGA ROAD,
     HARIHAR TOWN
     DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001.
                                        ...RESPONDENTS
                                 -4-
                                              NC: 2026:KHC:3144-DB
                                              RFA No. 1958 of 2017


HC-KAR



(BY SRI. B.M.HALASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R8;
    R2-R5 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED R1;
    R9 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

    THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W RULE 1
ORDER XLI OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 21.9.2017 PASSED IN OS NO.21/2015 ON THE FILE OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARIHAR, PARTLY
DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE
POSSESSION.

    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
       and
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

                       ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

The present appeal has been filed impugning the

Judgment and Decree dated 21.09.2017 passed by the

learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Harihar,

Davanagere District, in Original Suit No.21/2015 filed by

the plaintiffs seeking partition of the suit schedule

properties.

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking

before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

NC: 2026:KHC:3144-DB

HC-KAR

3. The father of the defendants Sherapurada Basappa

died intestate. The plaintiff No.1 is the mother, plaintiff

Nos.2 to 5 are the sisters, plaintiff No.6 is the brother of

the defendants and plaintiff Nos.7 and 8 are the Husband

and Son of the deceased Sarojamma (one of the daughter

of late Sherapurada Basappa). The plaintiffs had filed the

suit against the defendants for partition and separate

possession of their 1/9th share in each of the suit schedule

properties by metes and bounds. They have also prayed

for mesne profits. The defendants had filed their written

statement after they received the summons in the suit,

denying the plaint averments. The defendants denied that

the suit schedule properties were self acquired properties

of late Sherapurada Basappa.

4. According to the defendants, their father had

acquired Item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit schedule properties

under the registered partition deed, which took place

between him and his brothers on 27.12.1974. It was also

stated that property bearing Survey Nos.33/P, 33/2 and

NC: 2026:KHC:3144-DB

HC-KAR

5/2P were purchased by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the

name of their father Sherapurada Basappa under the

registered sale deed dated 29.05.1975, 17.08.1968 and

28.02.1988 respectively. These properties were self

acquired properties of the defendant Nos.1 and 2. On the

basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court

framed the following issues:

"1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of Late Basappa ?

2) Whether the defendants prove that a plaintiff 1 No.2 to 5 are owners and in possession of land Sy.No.48/3P1 measuring 1 acre 31 guntas as per will dated 09/06/1963 ?

3) Whether the defendants prove that the suit schedule properties item No.1 and 5 are their self acquired properties ?

4) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for share in the suit schedule properties ? If so, what is the share of plaintiffs ?

NC: 2026:KHC:3144-DB

HC-KAR

5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs sought in the suit ?

     6)     What order or decree ?

     ADDITIONAL ISSUE

     1)     Whether the defendants prove that during

lifetime of Basappa, he made arrangement to his wife and children in respect of all family properties?"

5. Issue No.2 was deleted vide order dated 29.08.2017

by the Trial Court. The Trial Court after considering the

evidence including the deposition and documentary

evidence brought on record by the parties decided Issue

Nos.1, 3 and Additional Issue No.1 together and held that

defendants could not prove their contention, that the suit

properties were not self-required properties of their father.

The stand of the defendants that they had paid the

amounts to their father for purchasing the properties, in

the name of their father under the registered sale deeds

dated 27.12.1974, 29.05.1975, 17.08.1968 and

28.02.1988 respectively, was not found correct. On

careful scrutiny of the registered sale deeds produced by

NC: 2026:KHC:3144-DB

HC-KAR

the plaintiffs and defendants, the Trial Court noted that

the contention of defendant Nos.1 and 2 was not correct

that they had paid the sale consideration for purchasing

these properties from their own earnings and such a

recital was not present in the sale deeds anywhere.

6. In respect of the stand of the defendants, that their

father had acquired Item Nos. 2 and 3 of the suit schedule

properties under the registered partition deeds, which took

place between him and his brothers on 27.12.1974, the

Trial Court had held that the documentary evidence i.e.,

the partition deed dated 27.12.1974 (Exhibit D4), the

certified copy of the Will (Exhibit D84), certified copy of

sale deed dated 15.03.1975 (Exhibit D86) would go to

show that Sherapurada Basappa and his brothers had got

divided the family properties, in which he had got the

properties bearing Survey Nos.114, 23 and 57 and the

house property bearing Nos.75 and 76. Under Exhibits

D85 and D86, Basappa had purchased another property.

Thus, On the basis of the registered sale deeds and the

NC: 2026:KHC:3144-DB

HC-KAR

registered partition deed, the Trial Court concluded that

Basappa had acquired the properties during his lifetime

and they were his personal properties not the joint Hindu

family properties.

7. In view of the aforesaid findings, the suit filed by the

plaintiffs was decreed and it was held that the plaintiffs

and the defendants and the children of deceased

Sarojamma would be entitled for 1/9th share each together

7/9th share and 2/9th share respectively in the suit

schedule properties by metes and bounds.

8. The issue which arises for consideration in this

appeal is that "Whether the impugned judgment and

decree passed by the Trial Court is based on the evidence

or whether the same calls for interference by this Court in

exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

9. It is not in dispute that all the suit schedule

properties were in the name of late Basappa. In respect of

the four properties, the defendants have taken the plea

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:3144-DB

HC-KAR

that though they were purchased in the name of their

father vide registered sale deeds dated 14.08.1968,

01.02.1960, 16.01.1957 and 28.02.1988, but the

consideration was paid by the defendants from their own

earnings. The defendants did not produce any

documentary evidence to substantiate the payment made

by them nor there exists any recital in the sale deeds to

that effect. Therefore, the defendants' contention that the

four properties were acquired by their father, for which the

sale consideration was paid by the defendants, cannot be

believed. Further, in respect of the two items of suit

schedule properties, i.e., the properties bearing Survey

Nos.114, 23, 57 and house property bearing Nos.75 and

76, which were acquired by their father in pursuance to

the partition deed/Will dated 27.12.1974 as well as vide

sale deeds dated 29.05.1975 and sale deed dated

28.02.1988 (Exs.D83, D85 and D86) respectively, would

suggest that Basappa and his brothers had divided the

family properties in which he had got the properties

- 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:3144-DB

HC-KAR

bearing Survey Nos. 114, 23 and 57 and house property

bearing Nos.75 and 76 under the sale deeds (Exhibit D85

and Exhibit D86), he had purchased the other properties.

In view of the aforesaid registered sale deeds and certified

copy of the partition deeds, Sherapurada Basappa had

acquired these properties. These properties were the self-

acquired properties of Late Basappa as he had died

intestate, all the legal heirs would be entitled for equal

share. And thus the trial Court has rightly allowed the suit

and directed that the plaintiffs and defendants would be

entitled for equal share in the properties left behind by

late Sherapurada Basappa.

10. We have considered the evidence as discussed above

and have gone through the impugned judgment and

perused the record of the Court.

11. The Plaintiffs and defendants are the legal heirs of

Late Sherapurada Basappa. They have equal right over all

the properties left behind by late Sherapurada Basappa as

- 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:3144-DB

HC-KAR

he had died intestate. All the properties standing in the

name of Late Sherapurada Basappa, which are the suit

schedule properties, were self-acquired properties.

Therefore, after his demise, all the legal heirs would be

entitled to equal share in the suit schedule properties

being Class I heirs.

12. Therefore, we do not find that there is any scope to

interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. We

thus dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment and

decree dated 21.09.2017 passed by the Trial Court.