Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 35167
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF MARCH 2022
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.100194/2015
BETWEEN:
1 . GIRIJA W/O SHIVANANGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 51 YRS, OCC : H/W
R/O : NEAR GANESH TEMPLE SABDE GALLI
JAMAKHANDI, DIST : BAGLAKOT-587101
2 . SUJATA W/O PRAVEEN KOKATANUR
AGE 28 YRS., OCC : H/W
R/O : C/O : A.B.PATIL
BASAV NAGAR NILAY HOUSE
MAHANTESH NAGAR BELAGAVI
DIST : BELAGAVI-590001
3 . SHEETAL W/O ANAND BUDIHAL
AGE: 26 YRS, OCC : H/E AND AGRICULTURE
R/O : SABDEGALLI NEAR GANESH TEMPLE
JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587101
4 . MALLANGOUDA S/O BASANAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 54 YRS, OCC : AGRICULTURE,
R/O : HUDED GALLI
BAILHONGAL, DIST : BELAGAVI-590001
.. APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLLI, ADV.)
2
AND:
1 . RAMANAGOUDA S/O BASANGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 57 YRS., OCC AGRICULTURE,
R/O KATTI ONI, TQ SAUNDATTI
DIST BELAGAVI-590001.
2 . CHINNAWWA W/O BASANAGOUDA PATIL
AGE:79 YRS., OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O : KATTI ONI,
TQ : SAUNDATTI, DIST : BELAGAVI-590001
3 . SATISH S/O RAMANGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 29 YRS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O : KATTI ONI, TQ : SAUNDATTI
DIST : BELAGAVI-590001
4 . JAYASHRI W/O PATREPPA KABBUR
AGE 53 UYRS.,OCC: H/W,
R/O : YARAJARVI, TQ : SAUNDATTI
DIST : BELAGAVI-590001
5 . SHANTALA W/O KASHINATH BHAIRNATTI
AGE 51 YRS, OCC : H/W
R/O : C/O : DR.KASHINATH BAIRNATTI
151/161 MYSORE ROAD,
SOUBHAGYA NURSING HOME
OPPOSITE AZAD PARK, BANGALURU-01
6 . MAHADEVI W/O PRAKSH RAMAPUR
AGE 49 YRS, OCC : H/W
R/O : JAGIJYOTI LAYPUT MARIYAPPA PALYA
BANGALURU-1
.. RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2.
SRI. SANTOSH B. MANE, ADV. FOR R3.
SRI. M.V. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R4 TO R6.)
THIS RFA FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W. SEC. 96 OF
CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD:20.06.2015
PASSED IN O.S.NO.56/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AT SAUNDATTI, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR
PARTITION
AND
SEPARATE
POSSESSION.
3
THIS RFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
This regular first appeal is filed under Section 96 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter for brevity referred
to as ‘CPC’) by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and
decree dated 20.06.2015 passed by the learned Senior Civil
Judge, Saundatti (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘trial
Court’) in O.S. No.56/2014.
2.
For convenience, the parties are referred to as
per their ranking before the trial Court.
3.
Brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiffs
have filed a suit for declaration to declare that the gift deed
dated 02.09.2011 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of
defendant No.3 is not binding on the share of the plaintiffs
and for a partition and separate possession in respect of
‘ABC’ schedule properties. The further case of the plaintiffs
is that, the original propositus by name Basanagouda son
of Honagouda Patil expired on 28.07.1990 leaving behind
his wife (defendant No.2) and three sons being plaintiff
No.4, defendant No.1 and one Shivanagouda and three
4
daughters being defendant Nos.4 to 6. The eldest son by
name Shivanagouda expired on 16.09.2011 leaving behind
his wife and two daughters i.e. plaintiff Nos.1 to 3. It is
further case of the plaintiffs that, agricultural property
shown at Schedule ‘A’ are tenanted properties cultivated by
Basanagouda Honagouda Patil. Under the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act, the occupancy rights had been granted in his
favour. Since the plaintiffs have got their right in the suit
schedule properties, they have filed a suit.
4.
On service of summons, defendant Nos.1 to 3
entered their appearance through their counsel. In spite of
availing sufficient opportunities, they have not chosen to
file any written statement.
In spite of service of summons, defendant Nos.4 to 6
remained absent and they are placed exparte.
5.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the
trial Court has framed the following issue:
“Does the plaintiffs entitled to the suit relief?”
5
6.
To
prove
their
case,
the
plaintiffs
have
examined one Mallanagouda Basanagouda Patil as PW-1
and got marked 16 documents from Exs.P-1 to P-16. The
defendants have neither examined any witness nor marked
any documents.
7.
On appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence on record, the trial Court has decreed the suit in
part holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to 2/7th share in
the suit properties by judgment and decree dated
20.06.2015. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs
have filed this appeal under Section 96 of CPC.
8.
Sri. Shivaraj S. Balloli, learned counsel for the
appellants/plaintiffs has submitted that ‘A’ suit schedule
property is a tenanted land and the tenancy rights has been
granted in favour of Basanagouda Patil. He further
submitted that since it is a tenanted land, as per the
definition of “Family” as defined under the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as
‘KLR Act’), ‘married daughters’ are excluded under the
definition of “family” and hence they are not entitled to a
6
share in ‘A’ schedule property and contrary to the
provisions of KLR Act, the trial Court has granted a decree.
In support of his contention, he has relied on the judgment
of this Court in Nimbavva and others v. Channaveerayya
and Others reported in ILR 2013 KAR 6202.
9.
Sri. M.V. Hiremath, learned counsel appearing
for respondent Nos.4 to 6 has defended the judgment and
decree passed by the trial Court.
10.
Sri.
Sunil
S.
Desai,
learned
counsel
or
respondent No.1 and 2 and Sri. Santosh B. Mane, learned
counsel for respondent No.3 have adopted the contentions
urged by the learned counsel for the appellants.
11.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Perused the impugned judgment and decree and the
original records.
12.
The points that arise for our consideration are:
i) Whether
the
married
daughters
of
Basanagouda are entitled for a share in ‘A’
schedule property which is granted in favour
7
of Basanagouda under the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act, 1961?
ii) W
