1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

R.S.A.No. 1048/2008 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

1.

SMT. GOWRAMMA,

W/O. LATE SIDDAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.

(APPELLANT NO.1, SINCE DECEASED,

REPRESENTED BY HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES)

a) SRI. MUNIYAPPA

b) SMT. LAKSHMAMMA

c) SMT. MANGALAMMA.

2.

SRI. MUNIYAPPA,

S/O. LATE SIDDAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT

LAKKENAHALLI VILLAGE,

DASANAPURA HOBLI,

BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,

BANGALORE.

3.

SMT. LAKSHAMMA,

W/O. GOVINDAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

RESIDING AT K.G. SRINIVASAPURA,

DODDABALLAPURA ROAD,

KASABA HOBLI,

2

NELAMANGALA TALUK,

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,

BANGALORE.

… APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. MURALI B.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. MANGALAMMA,

W/O. HANUMANTHAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

RESIDING AT LAKKENNAHALLI VILLAGE,

DASANAPURA HOBLI,

BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,

BANGALORE.

… RESPONDENT

(SRI. P.M. SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE)

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC.,

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.01.2008

PASSED IN R.A. NO.38/07 ON THE FILE OF THE I/C P.O. FTC-

III/PRINCIIPAL DISTRICT AND JUDGE, BANGALORE (R)

DISTRICT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND

CONFIRMING

THE

JUDGEMENT

AND

DECREE

DATED

07.12.2006 PASSED IN OS 1566/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE I

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.), BANGALORE RURAL

DISTRICT, BANGALORE.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS

DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

3

J U D G M E N T

1.

This second appeal is by the defendants.

2.

Mangalamma had instituted a suit against her

mother Gowramma, her brother Muniyappa and her

sister Lakshamma contending that the suit properties

were joint family properties and she had a share in the

said properties.

3.

The said suit was contested by the defendants and

it was stated that the suit properties belonged to

defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the plaintiff had no right or

interest in the suit properties. The Trial Court after

recording the evidence, came to the conclusion that the

plaintiff had proved that the said properties were joint

family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants and

as a consequence, the plaintiff would be entitled to 1/4th

share.

4

4.

Being aggrieved, the defendants preferred an

appeal.

5.

The appellate Court on re-appreciation of the

evidence concurred with the findings of the trial Court

and dismissed the appeal.

6.

This appeal was admitted to consider the following

substantial question of law.

"Whether the application of amended

Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as

amended by Act No.39/2005 would apply

prospectively or retrospectively?"

7.

In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court rendered in Vineeta Sharma's case, it will have to

be held that the daughters would also be entitled to an

equal share as a co-parcener and they have acquired this

right by birth. Consequently, the decree granted by the

Trial Court in favour of the daughter cannot be said to be

in any way improper or incorrect. Consequently, the

substantial question of law is answered in favour of the

5

respondent - plaintiff and the second appeal

is

dismissed.

8.

During the pendency of the appeal, the mother of

the plaintiff and the defendant i.e., defendant No.1 has

passed away and her share would therefore devolve on

all her legal heirs.

9.

However, defendant No.2 contends that defendant

No.1 had executed a will under which, defendant No.1

had been granted the share of his mother. It is to be

stated that the question as to whether defendant No.1 is

entitled to the share of her mother or not is a question

which will have to be considered in the final decree

proceedings.

10.

Subject to the above, the second appeal is

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VBS