2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 33055
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
RFA NO.200142/2019 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1.
Smt. Shankaramma W/o Late Ramanna,
Age: Major, Occ: Household,
R/o Kasaba Lingasugur,
Tq: Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur-584 122.
2.
Anand S/o Late Ramanna,
Age: 23 years, Occ: Student,
R/o Kasaba Lingasugur,
Tq: Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur-584 122.
3.
Shruthi D/o Late Ramanna,
Age: 21 years, Occ: Student,
R/o Kasaba Lingasugur,
Tq: Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur-584 122.
4.
Sudha D/o Late Ramanna,
Age: 19 years, Occ: Student,
R/o Kasaba Lingasugur,
Tq: Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur-584 122.
... Appellants
(By Sri Ajaykumar A.K., Advocate)
2
AND:
1.
Smt. Balamma W/o Mallappa Jeer,
Age: 78 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Kasaba Lingasugur,
Tq: Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur-584 122.
2.
Smt. Parvathi W/o Subbayya Hugar,
Age: 46 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Kasaba Lingasugur,
Tq: Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur-584 122.
3.
Smt. Prema W/o Amarappa
@ Amaresh Hotel,
Age: 44 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Kasaba Lingasugur,
Tq: Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur-584 122.
4.
Smt. Gangamma W/o Veerbhadrappa,
Age: 51 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o H.No.1/2, Hutti (Jatti Lane),
Tq: Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur-584 122.
5.
Rekha D/o Veerbhadrappa,
Age: 27 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o H.No.1/2, Hutti (Jatti Lane),
Tq: Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur-584 122.
6.
Basavaraj S/o Veerbhadrappa,
Age: 24 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o H.No.1/2, Hutti (Jatti Lane),
Tq: Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur-584 122.
7.
Akkamma D/o Veerbhadrappa,
Age: 24 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o H.No.1/2, Hutti (Jatti Lane),
Tq: Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur-584 122.
8.
Amaresh S/o Veerbhadrappa,
Age: 23 years, Occ: Student,
3
R/o H.No.1/2, Hutti (Jatti Lane),
Tq: Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur-584 122.
... Respondents
* * *
This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to allow the appeal by
setting aside the order dated 13.08.2018 passed in FDP
No.02/2013
by
the
Senior
Civil
Judge
and
JMFC,
Lingasugur, filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 with costs
throughout.
This appeal coming on for hearing on I.A. this day,
K.S. Hemalekha J., delivered the following:
The present appeal is by respondent Nos.6(a) to
(d) in FDP No.02/2013, assailing the order dated
13.08.2018 passed in FDP No.02/2013 by the Senior
Civil Judge & JMFC, Lingasugur.
For the sake of convenience, the parties
would be referred to as per their ranking before the
Trial Court.
The
plaintiffs
filed
O.S.No.7/2007
for
partition and separate possession and for enquiry into
4
mense profit on the ground that the original
propositus Mallappa (died) and his wife Balamma-
defendant
No.1
had
four
children
namely,
Veerabhadrappa, Ramanna-defendant No.2, Parvathi-
defendant No.3, Prema-Defendant No.4; Gangamma-
plaintiff No.1 is the wife of Veerabhadrappa and
Rekha-plaintiff
No.2,
Basavaraj-plaintiff
No.3,
Akkamma-Plaintiff No.4 and Amresh-Plaintiff No.5 are
the children of Veerbhadrappa and Gangamma.
It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the
suit properties are the ancestral joint family properties
of the plaintiffs and defendants and there is no
partition by metes and bounds and that defendant
Nos.3 and 4 are the married daughters and they have
been given their share by way of gold, silver and
money at the time of marriage. It is further contended
that the said Veerabhadrappa, the husband of plaintiff
No.1 had 4/9th share in the suit schedule properties
5
and on his death the plaintiffs have got 4/9th share.
Since there were differences between the plaintiffs
and defendants, the defendants denied the crop share
after the death of Veerabhadrappa and also denied the
share that has to be allotted in the suit schedule
properties and thus, the plaintiffs sought for 4/9th
share in the suit schedule properties.
In pursuance of the summons issued by the
Trial Court, defendant Nos.1 and 2 appeared and filed
their written statements contending and admitting the
relationship of the plaintiffs and defendants. But,
however contended that the suit is bad for non-joinder
of necessary parties and also that, item No.1 of the
suit schedule property is the only ancestral property
and denied that item Nos.2 to 5 are the ancestral joint
family properties and contended that they are self
acquired properties of defendant No.1, which she has
acquired from her parents and the plaintiffs cannot
6
claim any share in item Nos.2 to 5 of the suit schedule
properties and sought for dismissal of the suit.
In the additional written statement filed by
defendant No.2 in respect of item Nos.2 to 5, it is
contended that the suit schedule properties are the
Inam lands granted to defendant No.2 by the
Tahasildar, Lingasugur and thus, contended that the
plaintiffs and defendant No.2 have got half share in
item Nos.2 to 5 and denied the share of rest of the
defendants.
Defendant Nos.3 and 4 filed their written
statement admitting the claim of the plaintiffs that the
suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family
properties of the plaintiffs and defendants and
contended that defendant Nos.3 and 4 have not given
up their share in the suit schedule properties at the
time of their marriage and contended that they are
7
also entitled for 6/25th share in the suit schedule
properties.
The Trial Court by its judgment and decree
dated 12.12.2012, partly decreed the suit holding that
plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate
possession of 1/5th share plus 1/5th share (As per
notional partition) in item Nos.1 to 4 and held that the
plaintiffs are entitled for enquiry into mesne profits as
per the provisions of Order 20 Rule 2 of CPC. The
Trial Court further held that defendant Nos.3 and 4
are entitled for partition and separate possession of
1/5th share plus 1/5th share (As per notional partition)
in item Nos.1 to 4 as prayed in the written statement.
9.
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of
Trial
Court,
defendant
No.2-Ramanna
S/o
Mallappa Jeer preferred RFA No.6002/2013 before this
Court
and this Court,
its
judgment
dated
8
18.06.2013, dismissed the appeal and held that in
view of the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
GANDURI
KOTESHWARAMMA
&