Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.101094 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. SHIVANAND S/O VEERUPAXAPPA
MURKIBHAVI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S.,
1A. SHRI HARSHA S/O SHIVANAND MURKIBHAVI,
AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O./ CCB 229, SUBHASH NAGAR,
MALMARUTI EXTENSION, BELAGAVI.
1B. KUMARI. SPURTI S/O SANTOSH MURKIBHAVI,
AGE. 14 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
SINCE MINOR REP. BY HER NATURAL
MOTHER AND GUARDIAN SMT. SUJATA
W/O ARJUN KHANAPURI,
AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
R/O. C/O. RAOSAHEB SANGAPPA BADAGE,
PLOT NO.76 AND 77, 2ND CROSS,
SHAHU NAGAR, BELAGAVI.
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. A.B. NESARGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. SADANAND S/O MADIWALAPPA UPPIN,
AGE. 68 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. CTS NO.3872, KACHERI ROAD,
BELAGAVI-590001.
(PETITIONER IN FDP NO.3/2021)
2. SHRI SHRIKANT S/O MADIWALAPPA UPPIN,
AGE. 75 YEARS, OCC. PENSIONER,
R/O. CTS NO.3872, KACHERI ROAD,
BELAGAVI-590001.
(RESPONDENT NO. 1 IN FDP NO.3/2021)
3. SMT. LATA W/O VISHWANATH UPPIN,
AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. CTS NO.3872, KACHERI ROAD,
BELAGAVI-590001.
(RESPONDENT NO. 2 IN FDP NO.3/2021)
4. SHRI SATISH S/O VISHWANATH UPPIN,
AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. CTS NO.3872, KACHERI ROAD,
BELAGAVI-590001.
(RESPONDENT NO.3 IN FDP NO.3/2021)
5. SHRI SHRISH S/O VISHWANATH UPPIN,
AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. CTS NO.3872, KACHERI ROAD,
BELAGAVI-590001.
(RESPONDENT NO.4 IN FDP NO.3/2021)
6. SHRI RATNAKAR S/O MADIWALAPPA UPPIN,
AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC. PENSIONER,
R/O. CTS NO.3872, KACHERI ROAD,
BELAGAVI-590001.
(RESPONDENT NO.5 IN FDP NO.3/2021)
7. MISS. UJWALA D/O MUKUND KHEDARKAR,
AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. SOMAWARPETH, TASAGAON,
SANGLI DISTRICT, MAHARASHTRA STATE.
(RESPONDENT NO.6 IN FDP NO.3/2021)
8. MISS. SAVITA S/O MUKUND KHEDARKAR,
AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. SOMAWARPETH, TASAGAON,
SANGLI DISTRICT, MAHARASHTRA STATE.
(RESPONDENT NO.7 IN FDP NO.3/2021)
9. SMT. USHA W/O GURUNATH UJJANNAVAR,
AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. FLAT NO.102, MANGOLIA-3,
NEAR PIPE LINE ROAD, MARUTI,
LAXMI TEKADI, BELAGAVI-590009.
(RESPONDENT NO.8 IN FDP NO.3/2021)
10. MISS. BHARATI D/O MUKUND KHEDARKAR,
AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. SOMAWARPETH, TASAGAON,
SANGLI DISTRICT, MAHARASHTRA STATE.
(RESPONDENT NO.9 IN FDP NO.3/2021)
11. SMT. SHIVALEELA @ SNEHA
W/O SANJAY KHANNA,
AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. FLAT NO.101, CTS NO.6851,
KOLIVERY VILLAGE ROAD,
OSIA-SAGAR-CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,
BEHIND CENTRAL PLAZA HALL COLINA,
SANTA CRUZ (EAST) MUMBAI-98,
MAHARASHTRA STATE.
(RESPONDENT NO.10 IN FDP NO.3/2021)
12. SHRI. HARSHA S/O SHIVANAND MURKIBHAVI,
AGE. 76 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O.CCB 229 SUBHASH NAGAR,
MALMARURI EXTENSION, BELAGAVI-590016.
(RESPONDENT NO.12 IN FDP NO.3/2021)
13. SHRI ASHOK S/O ADIVEPPA UPPIN
AGE. 73 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O.CTS NO.3871, KAKATIVES, BELAGAVI
(RESPONDENT NO.13 IN FDP NO.3/2021)
14. SMT. SAROJINI W/O MALLAPPA HOSUR,
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LEGAL HEIRS,
SMT. RAJESHWARI
W/O PRADEEP SHIRAGANNAVAR,
AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O.KANKANWADI, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT.
(RESPONDENT NO.14(A) IN FDP NO.3/2021)
15. SHRI CHANNAPPA S/O MALLAPPA HOSUR,
AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KANKANWADI, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT.
(RESPONDENT NO.14(B) IN FDP NO.3/2021)
16. KUMARI SPRUTI D/O SANTOSH MURKIBHAVI,
AGE. 14 YEARS (MINOR), OCC. STUDENT,
SINCE MINOR REP. BY HER NATURAL
MOTHER/GUARDIAN
SMT. SUJATA W/O ARJUN KHANAPURI,
AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
R/O. C/O. RAOSAHEB SANGAPPA BADAGE
PLOT NO.76 AND 77, 2ND CROSS,
SHAHU NAGAR, DIST. BELAGAVI.
(RESPONDENT NO.15 IN FDP NO.3/2021)
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAQBOOLAHMED M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. K. ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R13 TO R15;
NOTICE TO R2 TO R12 AND R16 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR ANY DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15-12-2023 UNDER ANNEXURE-G PASSED ON I.A. NO.VIII BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, BELAGAVI IN FDP NO.3/2021 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
1. The present petitioner, who was defendant No.11 in a O.S.No.131/1992, is aggrieved by the order passed by the FDP Court, declining to re-determine the share in terms of amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005 and grant equal share to his late wife i.e., defendant No.5.
2. The learned Judge, by the order impugned, has rejected the application filed by the petitioner on the premise that the preliminary decree passed in O.S. No.131/1992 stood modified by this Court in RFA No.372/2000 c/w RFA No.424/2000, wherein the present petitioner was allotted 1/30th share in the suit schedule properties. The learned Judge has further held that the said judgment and preliminary decree having attained finality, the Final Decree Court cannot undertake any exercise to alter or modify the shares already determined by the Appellate Court.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the material placed on record as well as the order impugned.
4. In the light of the rival submissions and having regard to the undisputed fact that the preliminary decree, as modified by this Court in RFA No.372/2000 c/w RFA No.424/2000, has attained finality, the short question that falls for consideration is:
“Whether a Court conducting final decree proceedings has the jurisdiction to re-determine or vary the shares of the parties in a manner contrary to the shares declared and crystallized under the preliminary decree as modified by the Appellate Court?”
5. The learned Judge, while rejecting the application, has proceeded on the premise that the shares declared under the preliminary decree, as modified by this Court in RFA No.372/2000 C/w RFA No.424/2000, have attained finality and, therefore, the Final Decree Court lacks jurisdiction to revisit the issue of shares. The said view, however, is no longer res integra in view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court.
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Prasanta Kumar Sahoo and Others v. Charulata Sahu and Others, reported in (2023) 9 SCC 641, while considering the scope and effect of the judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1, has categorically held that a partition suit cannot be regarded as having attained finality merely upon the passing of a preliminary decree. The Hon’ble Apex court held that so long as the final decree proceedings remain pending and actual partition by metes and bounds has not taken place, the Court conducting final decree proceedings retains jurisdiction to take note of subsequent events, changes in law and supervening circumstances having a bearing on the rights of the parties. It is further held that if, during the interregnum between the passing of a preliminary decree and the final decree, a legislative amendment comes into force or a subsequent event occurs affecting the entitlement of the parties, the Final Decree Court is competent to re-determine the shares notwithstanding the shares declared under the preliminary decree.
7. The Constitution Bench in Vineeta Sharma’s case (supra) has unequivocally declared that the right conferred upon a daughter under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, as amended by Act 39 of 2005, is not a newly created right but a recognition of a pre-existing right. A daughter, by virtue of her birth, acquires the status of a coparcener in the same manner as a son. The amendment merely removes the discrimination that existed under the unamended law and places daughters on an equal footing with sons in matters relating to coparcenary property. The right to claim a share in ancestral coparcenary property is thus a right by birth and a vested pre-existing right, and not a right flowing from the amendment itself. The amendment only recognizes and enforces such right and confers upon daughters the same incidents of coparcenary ownershi
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
