[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Shivappa S/O Goli Patagar vs Smt Lakshmi W/O Venkataraman Patagar on 12 March, 2026

                                                 -1-
                                                              NC: 2026:KHC-D:4001
                                                           RSA No. 100724 of 2025


                        HC-KAR




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
                            DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2026
                                           BEFORE
                             THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
                   REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100724 OF 2025 (PAR/POS)


                       BETWEEN:
                       SRI. SHIVAPPA S/O. GOLI PATAGAR,
                       A/A 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
                       AT AND R/O. BARGI, KUMTA TALUK,
                       DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581440.
                                                                       ...APPELLANT
                       (BY SMT. HEMAVATI P. MUTAGUPPE, ADVOCATE)

                       AND:
                       1.   SMT. LAKSHMI W/O. VENKATRAMAN PATAGAR,
                            A/A 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
                            AT AND R/O. BARGI, KUMTA TALUK,
                            DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581440.

                       2.  SMT. DEVI W/O. NAGAPPA PATAGAR,
Digitally signed
                           AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
by GIRIJA A.
BYAHATTI
                           R/O. BENNEHONDA, KODKANI,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                   KUMTA TALUK, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581440.
KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD
BENCH
                                                                  ...RESPONDENTS
                       (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
                           NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

                            THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING
                       TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.07.2025
                       PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRL. JMFC KUMTA
                       TALUK UTTARA KANNADA IN R.A. NO.08/2023 CONFIRMING THE
                       JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.06.2023, PASSED IN O.S.
                       NO.35/2019 PASSED BY PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
                       KUMTA, AT KUMTA IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
                             -2-
                                       NC: 2026:KHC-D:4001
                                   RSA No. 100724 of 2025


HC-KAR




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


CORAM:     THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

                     ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Even though the matter is listed for admission, heard

arguments on merits.

2. This is the second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC

by the appellant/defendant No.1 praying to set aside

the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2025 passed in

R.A.No.08/2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and

Principal JMFC, Kumta, Uttara Kannada, confirming the

judgment and decree dated 30.06.2023 passed in

O.S.No.35/2019 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and

JMFC, Kumta.

3. The parties would be referred to as per their rankings

before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience and

clarity.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4001

HC-KAR

4. The plaintiff has filed the suit before the Trial Court

praying for partition and separate possession of her

share in the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule

properties are situated at Bergi Village, Mirjana Hobli,

Kumta Taluk. It is contended that all the suit schedule

properties are tenanted properties, which were

cultivated by the father of the plaintiff. He died on

01.09.1969. After his death, the mother of parties

submitted an application for grant of occupancy rights,

and after enquiry, the Land Tribunal granted occupancy

rights in the name of defendant No.1. At that time, he

was minor and was initially represented by his uncle,

and after the demise of his uncle, by his mother-

Mahadevi Goli Patagar.

5. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff,

defendant No.1 being her brother and defendant No.2

being her sister are in joint and common possession of

the suit schedule properties. The marriages of the

plaintiff and defendant No.2 were performed during the

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4001

HC-KAR

lifetime of their father. The plaintiff, who resides in the

same village, was cultivating the suit schedule

properties along with defendant No.1. Hence, the suit

for partition was filed.

6. Defendant No.1 filed his written statement before the

Trial Court, wherein he admitted the relationship

between the parties, but denied all other averments

made in the plaint. He contended that the plaintiff

never cultivated the suit schedule properties and

therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.

The Trial Court has framed the following issues and

additional issues.

"1. Whether defendant No.1 proves that plaintiff is not in joint possession of suit schedule properties?

2. Whether the plaintiff prove that she had demanded for partition and it was denied by defendants?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for?

4. What order or decree?

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4001

HC-KAR

Additional Issue No.1: Whether plaintiff proves that she is entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit properties?"

7. After recording evidence of both sides and hearing the

arguments, the learned Trial Judge decreed the suit

holding that the plaintiff was unmarried as on the date

of filing the application before the Land Tribunal, and

thus granted 1/3rd share each to the plaintiff and

defendant Nos.1 & 2.

8. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant

No.1 filed R.A. No.8/2023 before the Senior Civil Judge

and Prl. JMFC, Kumta. The said appeal was dismissed,

holding that defendant No.1 had not established his

contention, thereby confirming the judgment and

decree passed by the Trial Court.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/defendant No.1

has preferred this appeal.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant, Smt.Hemavati P

Mutaguppe would submit that in the plaint there is

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4001

HC-KAR

specific admission that the marriage of plaintiff and

defendant No.2 was performed by her father during his

lifetime. Under those circumstances, plaintiff cannot be

considered as member of the Family as per the

definition of Section 2(12) of the Karnataka Land

Reforms Act, 1961. Hence, granting share to plaintiff

and defendant No.2 by the Trial Court and First

Appellate Court is erroneous. Hence, there arose

substantial question of law that 'both the Courts have

not examined the fact that admitted facts need not be

proved'.

11. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant relied

on the following citations:

1) Ishwaragouda and Others vs. Mallikarjun Gowda and Others reported in (2008) 15 SCR 838.

2) Mudakappa vs. Rudrappa and Others reported in AIR 1994 SC 1190.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4001

HC-KAR

3) Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) by LRs. reported in 2001 (3) SCC

179.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit

that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 cannot override

the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal and to dismiss

the suit of plaintiff in entirety.

13. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, Sri Shivaraj S

Ballolli would submit that there is no dispute that father

of plaintiff, defendants No.1 & 2 was the tenant of suit

schedule property and he died in the year 1969 leaving

behind plaintiff, defendants No.1 and 2 and his wife as

his legal heirs and they continued to be in possession of

the suit schedule property. As per the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs.

Rakesh Sharma1, presently the daughters are also

having equal share with that of their brother. Hence,

the definition under Section 2(12) of Karnataka Land

ILR 2020 KAR 4370

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4001

HC-KAR

Reforms Act, 1961 regarding 'Family' is only in respect

of deciding ceiling limit of the tenant or the landlord

and not in respect of succession.

14. In this regard, learned counsel for respondent No.1

relied on two citations i.e., RFA No.100274/2017

decided on 05.10.2020 and RFA No.100037/2018 of

Co-ordinate Bench and Division Bench of this Court

respectively.

15. Having heard the arguments of both sides and verifying

the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court relied on by the

learned counsel for appellant in Santosh Hazari

(supra), the second appeal shall not be heard without

framing substantial question of law. However, when no

substantial question of law would arose in the second

appeal, then the substantial question of law need not

be framed.

16. With this background, the admitted facts of the case

are to be analyzed.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4001

HC-KAR

17. The admitted facts of the case are that defendant No.1

is the younger brother of plaintiff and defendant No.2,

and their father died on 01.09.1969 leaving behind

plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 and 2 and their mother Smt.

Madevi Goli Patagar. After the death of father, the

mother has filed an application seeking grant of

occupancy rights after commencement of the Karnataka

Land Reforms Act, 1961.

18. The plaintiff has produced certified copy of said

application given by mother of plaintiff as per Ex.P.17

and it is dated 23.08.1974. After receipt of said

application and after enquiry, the Land Tribunal has

granted occupancy rights in favour of defendant No.1

as per order dated 11.12.1975 and it is marked as

Ex.P.18 in respect of suit schedule properties.

19. The father died on 01.09.1969 and the mother died on

02.11.2006 is admitted fact and death certificates of

father and mother are produced as per Exs.P.20 and

P.21 respectively.

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4001

HC-KAR

20. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that Land

Tribunal is having vide powers to verify who the

members of the family are and who are entitled to

occupancy rights. In this case, she relied on the

judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ishwaragouda

and Others vs. Mallikarjun Gowda and Others2 and

Mudakappa vs. Rudrappa and Others3. Learned

counsel for appellant would further submit that plaintiff

or defendant No.2 never raised objection in granting

occupancy rights to defendant No.1. About 40 years

after such grant, the plaintiff has filed suit for partition

which is not maintainable in law. Learned counsel for

appellant further relies upon the judgment of Division

Bench of this Court in the case of Nimbavva and

others V/s. Channaveerayya and Others4, wherein

Section 2(12) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961

was examined and held as follows:

(2008) 15 SCR 838

AIR 1994 SC 1190

2015(1) KCCR 205 (DB)

- 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4001

HC-KAR

"19. On perusal of Section 24 of the Act read with the definition of family, it is clear that married daughter cannot claim share in respect of tenanted land. The question whether the married daughters can claim a share in respect of a tenanted land of their father is decided by this Court in Kamala vs.Lingamma Hengsu reported in 2002(2) K.L.J., 456, wherein it is held that only the family members as defined in the Karnataka Land Reforms Act are entitled for inheritance by way of succession after the death of their father. The legal position in regard to the right of a married daughter to claim a share in respect of a tenanted land of her father cannot be disputed by the plaintiff's counsel. We would have agreed with the contentions urged by Mr. Kini that the plaintiffs are entitled to equal share on par with the sons when the father died intestate provided there is a heritable right to them under the Act. Karnataka Land Reforms Act is a special enactment which has been enacted for the benefit of cultivator, the same cannot be deviated by this Court by applying the provisions of Hindu Succession Act."

21. In the aforesaid judgment, it is held that the provisions

of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 is a special

enactment and it is enacted for the benefit of

- 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4001

HC-KAR

cultivators and it cannot be deprived by applying the

provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

22. This judgment came into existence before Vineeta

Sharma's case cited supra of Hon'ble Apex Court.

23. In Vineeta Sharma's case cited supra, the rights of

daughters and sons of Hindu are discussed in detail and

said judgment of Vineeta Sharma's case is considered

by coordinate Bench of this Court in RFA

No.100037/2018 decided on 14.10.2024 in paragraph

Nos.11, 12 and 13 which reads as below:

"11. Said judgment squarely applies to the case on hand. The definition of "family" and "joint family" in the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 is provided to determine the 'ceiling limit' imposed under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 to hold the agricultural lands and also to consider the income ceiling. It has no application to determine the heir ship of a grantee.

12. Admittedly, the property is granted to Ramappa Yamanappa Godikar by the Land Tribunal. Once the property is granted, it becomes his self- acquired property unless shown it to be otherwise.

- 13 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4001

HC-KAR

He continued to hold the property till his death, in the year 2012. On his death, the plaintiffs who are the Class-I heirs succeed to the properties along with the defendants who are also the Class-I heirs. The provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 do not override the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

13. This being a possession, the trial Court rightly held that the plaintiffs succeed to the properties of Ramappa Godikar and decreed the suit. This Court does not find any error in the impugned judgment and decree."

24. The Division Bench of this Court, in RFA

No.100274/2017, dated 05.10.2020, in paragraph

No.14, observed as follows:

"14. Insofar as for the purposes of grant of property in response to Form No.7, the applicability of land reform law applies, but when once the property enters to a family led by the eldest member and consisting of other members, it becomes the property belonging of the joint family and insofar as the rights of a daughter is concerned, it is no doubt it is erstwhile Section 6, thereafter 6(a), (b) and (c) through amendment of the year 2005 dated 09.09.2005. We also see the subsequent to the amendment; the principles

- 14 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4001

HC-KAR

underline Sections 6(a), (b) and (c) are interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court including the Judgment of this Court. Insofar as the recent judgment is by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and others, reported in AIR 2020 SC 3717. Insofar as the applicability of the said judgment is concerned, which is to be noted that when once statute is interpreted as in the case of 'Vineeta Sharma' it is entitled to all enactment in other words meaning of a particular section is interpreted how to be read and interpreted. Learned counsel for plaintiff Sri.Dinesh M.Kulkarni, would draw our attention to the following decision in the case of Sri Arvind S/o.

Narasimha Kamat and another vs. Smt.Sunanda W/o.Janardhan Shanbhag and others, R.F.A.No.100149 of 2014 (PAR/POS) disposed of on 13.01.2020 and relies upon paragraph No.24."

25. In both the aforesaid judgments, the father was alive at

the time of grant of land. But in the present case,

father was not alive. Hence, learned counsel for the

appellant would vehemently support that the aforesaid

judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present

case. However, it is to be noted here that the

- 15 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4001

HC-KAR

occupancy rights were granted to defendant No.1 based

on the cultivation by his father, and not based on his

cultivation because he was minor at that time and he

was not in position to cultivate the lands and lands

were granted to him represented by his mother. These

facts establish that the aforesaid argument of learned

counsel for the appellant has no water. Furthermore as

per Section 24 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act,

1961, where a tenant dies, the landlord shall be

deemed to have continued the tenancy to the heirs of

such tenant on the same terms and conditions on which

such tenant was holding at the time of his death. Thus,

in the instant case, even though the father of the

plaintiff died in the year 1969, it is deemed that

tenancy continued to his case. His case includes plaintiff

and defendant Nos.1 and 2 and their mother. Under

those circumstances, the argument of learned counsel

for appellant on this point is not attainable. In

paragraph No.14 of Division Bench of this Court cited

- 16 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4001

HC-KAR

supra, it is clearly held that when one's statute is

interpreted as in the case of Vineeta Sharma, it is

entitled to all enactments. In other words, meaning of a

particular Section is interpreted how to be read and

interpreted.

26. Under these circumstances, although married daughters

are excluded under Section 2(12) of the Karnataka

Land Reforms Act, 1961, it is to be held, at the time of

considering succession and inheritance that the

plaintiff, being the daughter of the deceased father, has

the right to succeed to his property. Likewise,

defendant No.2 who is also the daughter would succeed

to the property of her deceased father. Now the date of

marriage of plaintiff and defendant No.2 is irrelevant.

Under those circumstances, granting 1/3rd share to

plaintiff and defendant No.2 and also to defendant No.1

by trial Court confirmed by First Appellate Court is

proper and thus, the argument of learned counsel for

the appellant that the admitted facts need not be

- 17 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4001

HC-KAR

proved and that is the substantial question of law would

not arose in this case, because the definition of family

under Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 is merged

with the Provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Under these circumstances, the appeal has to be

dismissed. Hence, I pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal filed under Section 100 of

C.P.C. challenging the judgment and decree

dated 30.07.2025 passed in R.A.No.8/2023 on

the file of Senior Civil Judge and Principal

J.M.F.C., Kumta, Uttar Kannada, by confirming

the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2023

passed in O.S.No.35/2019 on the file of Principal

Civil Judge, and J.M.F.C., Kumta, is dismissed.

Sd/-

(GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE gab - para 1-3 VB - para 4-9 SH - para 10-16 SSP - 17-end CT-MCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 38