Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
N.K. Sudhindrarao, J.
D. Ranganatha Rao – Appellant
Versus
D. Sujatha – Respondent
R.S.A. No. 327 of 2012, R.S.A. No. 326 of 2012
Decided On : 23-08-2021
The court held that the plaintiff, as the legatee of Lakshmidevamma under the Will, stands in the place of Lakshmidevamma. The court also held that Lakshmidevamma was entitled to be treated as a regular coparcener of the Hindu joint family originally headed by D. Narasinga Rao. Further, the court held that the plaintiff-D.Sujatha is entitled to inherit the share of Lakshmidevamma under the Will dtd. 24/9/1998. The court also held that the suit is not barred by res-judicata.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, D. Sujatha, filed a suit for partition and separate share of late Smt. Lakshmidevamma as a beneficiary under the Registered will. The defendants contended that Lakshmidevamma had no case and her case is not maintainable, however, High Court held that case of Lakshmidevamma is maintainable in CRP No.351/1996. It was also contended that it is evident from the case filed by Lakshmidevamma that her share has been repeatedly denied for more than a decade of litigation. The defendants further contended that Lakshmidevamma was not a party to the suit filed for partition by defendant No.1 in O.S.No.223/1972. The dispute went till 1991 when the defendant No.1 filed FDP No.3/1991. But it was claimed that Lakshmidevamma had a share in the suit schedule properties and that was denied even after she filed a suit which was fought over for a decade.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiff, as the legatee of Lakshmidevamma under the Will, stands in the place of Lakshmidevamma. The court also held that Lakshmidevamma was entitled to be treated as a regular coparcener of the Hindu joint family originally headed by D. Narasinga Rao. Further, the court held that the plaintiff-D.Sujatha is entitled to inherit the share of Lakshmidevamma under the Will dtd. 24/9/1998. The court also held that the suit is not barred by res-judicata.
Issues: Whether the plaintiff proves that Late Smt. Lakshmidevamma had got any vested right to bequeath the suit properties in favour of plaintiff?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff, as the legatee of Lakshmidevamma under the Will, stands in the place of Lakshmidevamma. The court also held that Lakshmidevamma was entitled to be treated as a regular coparcener of the Hindu joint family originally headed by D. Narasinga Rao. Further, the court held that the plaintiff-D.Sujatha is entitled to inherit the share of Lakshmidevamma under the Will dtd. 24/9/1998. The court also held that the suit is not barred by res-judicata. The court relied on the following case laws: 1. Appa Saheb versus Gurubasawwa and Another - ILR 1959 Mysore 287, 2. Padmavathi and Another versus Smt. Jayamma since dead by LRs and others - ILR 2020 KAR 2697, 3. Prakash and Others versus Phulavathi and Others with Jayendra Awad versus Nivedita Sharma and Others -(2016) 2 SCC 36, 4. Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and others- 2020 (9) SCC 1.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals and set aside the judgment and decree passed by both the courts holding that the decree passed in RA No.101/1978 dtd. 17/1/1981 and the judgment and decree passed in RSA No.629/1981 dtd. 8/7/1991 do not bind the right of the plaintiff to the extent of her 1/4th share is concerned. In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed as prayed for.
JUDGMENT :
1. These two appeals RSA No.327/2012 and RSA No.326/2012 are directed against the common judgment and decree passed in R.A.Nos.43/2010 and 143/2010 dtd. 28/10/2011 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore.
2. RSA No.327/2012 is filed by defendant Nos.1(a) to (g) and defendant Nos.2 and 3 against the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.143/2010 and RSA No.326/2012 is also filed by defendant Nos.1(a) to (g) and defendant Nos.2 and 3 against the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.43/2010.
3. The operative portion of the common judgment passed in R.A.Nos.43/2010 and 143/2010 dtd. 28/10/2011 wherein R.A.No.43/2010 filed by legal representatives of defendant No.1- Ranganatha Rao and others came to be dismissed and R.A. No.143/2010 plaintiff-D. Sujatha came to be allowed, reads as under:
RA.143/10 is allowed.
Suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed.
Plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share of Smt. Lakshmidevamma in suit 'B' schedule property. Suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with respect to suit 'A' schedule property. With respect to other aspect, the judgment and decree and order of the trial court is confirmed.
Keep copy of judgment in RA.143/10 and original in RA.43/10.
Draw up preliminary decree accordingly."
4. The operative portion of the judgment passed in O.S.No.165/2003 dtd. 11/2/2010 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) Doddaballapur reads as under:
Draw decree accordingly."
5. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, the parties are referred in accordance with status and rankings as held by them before the trial court in original suit.
6. Original suit in O.S.No.165/2003 was filed by plaintiff-Smt. D. Sujatha wife of D.S. Devaraj, residing at No.18, 3rd Cross, Anjaneya Temple Street, Nagasandra, Bangalore, against defendant Nos. 1 to 12, namely: (1) D.Ranganatha Rao since dead by his LRs D1(a) to (g); (2) D.B. Narasimhamurthy; (3)Smt.B. Padmavathamma w/o Bheemasena Rao; (4) D.S. Nagaraj s/o. Late Srinivasa Rao; (5) Smt.Sethu w/o.Raghavendra Rao; (6) D.S. Krishnamurthy s/o Late Srinivasa Rao; (7) D.S.Devaraj s/o. late Srinivasa Rao; (8) D.S. Sridhar s/o. Late Srinivasa Rao; (9) D.S. Padmaja D/o. late Srinivasa Rao; (10) D.S. Sudha D/o. late Srinivasa Rao; (11) D.S. Nagarathna D/o. late Srinivasa Rao and (12) D.S. Prasannalakshmi D/o. late Srinivasa Rao.
7. In the said suit, plaintiff-D. Sujatha sought the relief of declaration that she is the co-owner of the schedule properties; to declare that decree passed in RA No.101/1978 dtd. 17/1/1981 by the learned Civil Judge, Rural District, Bangalore and the judgment and decree dtd. 8/7/1991 passed in RSA No.629/1981 by the High Court are not binding the right of the plaintiff in respect of her share in the suit schedule properties and for partition by metes and bounds of her 1/4th share and also for mesne profits and other reliefs.
8. The case of the plaintiff is that, defendant No.1- D. Ranganatha Rao, along with his brother D. Bheemasena Rao filed a suit for partition on the file of Munsiff Doddaballapur in O.S.No.223/1972 against their brother late D. Srinivasa Rao in respect of the suit schedule properties and the said suit came to be dismissed. Against the said order, the defendant No.1 herein (Ranganatha Rao) and Bheemasena Rao preferred an appeal in RA No.101/1978, the said appeal was allowed. Defendant D. Srinivasa Rao therein preferred second appeal in RSA No.629/1981. The said second appeal came to be dismissed. Thereafter, Ranganatha Rao and Bheemasena Rao filed FDP Proceedings in No.3/1991 befor
The plaintiff, as the legatee of Lakshmidevamma under the Will, stands in the place of Lakshmidevamma. Lakshmidevamma was entitled to be treated as a regular coparcener of the Hindu joint family orig....
Married daughters are excluded from the definition of 'family' under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, and a registered partition deed executed prior to the relevant amendments to the Hindu Succession ....
Daughters have equal rights and shares in ancestral joint family properties under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
The court affirmed that ancestral property remains so despite partition, and daughters are entitled to equal shares under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended.
The court reaffirmed that daughters have equal rights as sons in ancestral properties, emphasizing the applicability of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act.
Daughters have equal rights as coparceners in ancestral property under the Hindu Succession Act as amended in 2005, affecting share distribution in partition cases.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
