Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 1079
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, C.M. POONACHA, JJ.
SRI. Irayya @ Veerayya S/o. Sangayya Ganachari @ Ankalimath –Appellant
Versus
Smt. Channamma W/O. Gangayya Ganachari @ Ankalimath – Respondent
RFA No. 100277 of 2022
Decided On : 11-09-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI
For the Respondent: SRI. L.M. KURAHATTI, SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR
Parties in partition suits must be afforded a proper opportunity to contest claims to ensure fair adjudication of rights over ancestral properties.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Section 96 - Appeal against judgment and decree - The trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit for partition among family members without response from the defendants 13 and 14, who failed to file a written statement. The court ruled that appellants were denied adequate opportunity to contest. (Paras 1, 12, 17)
(B) Family Law - Partition - The court emphasized the importance of fair opportunity in trials involving partition of ancestral properties to ensure justice to all claimants. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claimed a share in ancestral properties after the death of the propositus, who had multiple heirs from his marriages. The defendants did not contest effectively, leading to a default judgment.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court found that valuable rights were adjudicated without proper contest; hence, the judgment by the trial court was set aside.
Issues: The main issue was whether the defendants' lack of opportunity to contest warranted a remand.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that fundamental fairness dictates that parties must be given a chance to present their case, hence remanding the suit for further proceedings.
Result: Appeal allowed; trial court's judgment set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial statement of the appeal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. factual background of the family and properties. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. details of the trial court's proceedings. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 10 , 11 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. court's observations on the trial process. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 6. court's decision and order allowing appeal. (Para 17 , 18) |
ORAL JUDGMENT :
C.M. POONACHA , J.
The present appeal is filed under Section 96 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE by the defendant Nos.13 and 14 calling in question the judgement and decree dated 08.12.2021 passed in OS No.159/2020 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Gadag,, [Hereinafter for short’trial Court’] whereunder, the suit filed by the respondent No.18/plaintiff has been decreed by the trial Court.
2. The parties would be referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the propositus Sangayya died on 23.06.1984 and his first wife by name Shivagangavva predeceased him leaving behind two sons viz., Gangayya and Shivanandayya. Gangayya died on 03.05.2000 leaving behind his wife Channamma (Defendant No.1) and four daughters viz., Jayashree(Defendant No.2), Vani (Defendant No.3), Rajeshwari(Defendant No.4) and Meenakshi(Defendant No.5).The second son Shivanandayya died on 30.08.1987 leaving behind his wife Umakka (Defendant No.6) and five daughters viz., Shivaleela (Defendant No.7), Shobha (Defendant No.8), Shaila (Defendant No.9), Girija (Defendant No.10) and Veena (Defendant No.11).
4. It is further case of the prosecution that after the death of his first wife, the propositus married one Parvetavva and from their wedlock, they had three sons and three daughters viz., Irayya (Defendant No.13), Prabayya (Defendant No.14), Basayya @ Basavaraj (Defendant No.15), Ratna (Defendant No.12), Gurudevi-plaintiff and Shashikala (Defendant No.16). The second wife Parvethavva died on 10.01.2015 and Basayya alias Basavarj died on 05.06.2020 leaving his wife Smt.Shobha (Defendant No.16) and they have no issues. Defendant No.17 is wife of defendant No.13. Defendant No.18 is wife of defendant No.14. Defendant No.19 is a stranger to the property. It is contended that some of the properties were transferred in the name of defendant Nos.7 to 19.5. It is the case of the plaintiff that suit schedule properties are the joint family ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 16 and mutation entries of some of the properties were illegally changed without there being any partition. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit for partition seeking 1/8th share in the suit properties.
6. The defendant Nos.1 to 12, 15, 17 to 19 were placed exparte. Defendant/appellant Nos. 13 and 14 appeared through their counsel, but no written statement was filed. The defendant No.16 appeared through a counsel and filed the statement. In the written statement filed by defendant No.16, she admitted the relationship and also admitted that the suit properties were the joint family properties. The defendant No.16 also sought for 1/8th share in suit properties and made a counter claim for the same.
7. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants and there was no partition between them?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the defendant No.13 created will dated 09.10.2017 as contended in his plaint averments and it is not binding on his share?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the defendant No.13 created will dated 09.10.2017 as contended in his plaint averments and it is not binding on his share? . Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief as prayed in the suit?
4. What order or decree?
8. The plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and marked Exhibit P1 to P35. Two witnesses were examined as PW2 and PW3. The defendant No.16 examined herself as DW1. However no documentary evide
