SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 19262

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
SMT V. JAYAMMA – Appellant
Versus
SMT NAGAMMA – Respondent
RSA 1302 / 2023



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1302 OF 2023 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SMT. V. JAYAMMA W/O LATE A.T. KEMPANNA, D/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT ATTEBELE VILLAGE, SULIBELE HOBLI AND POST, HOSAKORE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562129.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. VEERABHADRAIAH M.C., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. NAGAMMA W/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA (DIED)

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M SRI. V. KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA, Location: HIGH DEAD BY HIS LRS, COURT OF KARNATAKA

1. SMT. SHARADAMMA, W/O LATE V. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT SULIBELE VILLAGE, POST AND HOBLI, KURUBARA PETE, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALOORU RURAL DISTRICT-562129.

2. SMT. SARASWATHI W/O VENKATESH, D/O LATE V. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT MINAHALLI VILLAGE, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563130.

3. SRI. LAKSHMAN S/O LATE V. KRISHNAMURTY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT SULIBELE VILLAGE, HOBLI AND POST, KURUBARA PETE, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALOORU DISTRICT-562129.

4. SMT. MANJULA D/O LATE V. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT GAMBEERANAHALLI VILLAGE, JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562102.

5. SRI. SHANKAR S/O LATE V. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT SULIBELE HOBLI P.O., KURUBARA PETE, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALOORU RURAL DISTRICT-562129.

6. SRI. V. RAMANARAYANA S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 7. SRI. V. NAGARAJ S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.6-7 ARE RESIDING AT SULIBELE VILLAGE POST AND HOBLI, KURUBARA PETE, DEVANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALOORU RURAL DISTRICT-562129.

8. SRI. R. RAJU S/O V. RAMANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT SULIBELE VILLAGE POST AND HOBLI, KURUBARA PET, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALOORU RURAL DISTRICT-562129.

9. SRI. MUNIRAJU S/O DALASAGERE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT SULIBELE VILLAGE POST AND HOBLI, KURUBARA PETE, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALOORU RURAL DISTRICT-562129.

10. SRI. P.V. RAMAIAH S/O LATE JUNJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RESIDING AT SULIBELE VILLAGE POST AND HOBLI, KURUBARA PETE, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALOORU RURAL DISTRICT-562129.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.7, 9 AND

10)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.03.2023 PASSED IN R.A. NO.24/2019 ON THE FILE OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE DATED 16.11.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.111/2011 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL JUDGMENT

This regular second appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.111/2021 dated 16.11.20218 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short referred to a 'Trial Court') and which is confirmed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short referred to as 'Appellate Court') in R.A.No.24/2019 dated

04.03.2023.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.7, 9, and 10.

3. The parties will be referred to as per their respective rank before the Trial Court.

4. The plaintiff filed the suit before the Trial Court contending that she is the daughter, the defendant No.1 is the mother and defendant Nos.2 to 4 are her brothers and defendant No.5 is the son of defendant No.3 and defendant Nos.6 and 7 are the subsequent purchasers of some of the suit properties. The suit properties are the joint family properties of herself and defendant Nos.1 to 4. It is contended that during the life time of her father - Venkataramanappa, she sought to allot a share in the suit schedule properties but the defendant No

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top