Dismissed

Shantavva W/O Veerappa Ningappanavar v. Karabasamma W/O Karabasappa Mudigoudar

Karnataka HC7 Mar 2017RSA/100796/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges a decree in a partition suit. The trial and first appellate courts held an adopted son entitled to half share, resulting in plaintiffs (distant relatives) receiving 1/8th share. This court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal challenging the partition decree was dismissed with no substantial question of law found to arise.

Shantavva W/O Veerappa Ningappanavar Vs Karabasamma W/O… — Partition | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶6

R.S.A. NO.100796/2014 (PAR & POS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHANTAVVA W/O VEERAPPA NINGAPPANAVAR AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIKKAMAGANUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115

¶9

HANUMANTHAPPA A/F GURUBASAPPA DODDASHIRIGERE AGE: 52 YRS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIKKAMAGANUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115

¶10

PARAVVA W/O KENCHAPPA KITTAD SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.

¶11

3A. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O KENCHAPPA KITTAD AGE: 55 YRS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIKKAMAGANUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115

¶12

3B. GADIGEPPA S/O KENCHAPPA KITTAD AGE : 50 YRS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIKKAMAGANUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR,

¶13

: 2 :

¶14

DIST: HAVERI-581115

¶15

3C. SHIVANAGAPPA S/O KENCHAPPA KITTAD AGE : 42 YRS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIKKAMAGANUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115 ... APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND :

¶18

KARABASAMMA W/O KARABASAPPA MUDIGOUDAR AGE: 59 YRS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAKNUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115 2. BASANAGOUDA S/O SANKAPPA GANGANAGOUDAR AGE: 56 YRS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUDENUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115 3. SHANKARAGOUDA S/O SANKAPPA GANGANAGOUDAR AGE: 51 YRS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUDENUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115 ... RESPONDENTS

¶19

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF C.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.09.2014 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RANEBENNUR, IN R.A. NO.6/2007 IN CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.10.2006 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & 1^ST ADDL. J.M.F.C., RANEBENNUR, IN O.S. NO.30/1999, AND DISMISS THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶20

: 3 :

¶21

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THIS COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is filed by the defendants in O.S. No.30/1999 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & I Additional J.MF.C., Ranebennur. The appellants No.3a to 3c are the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.3 Paravva. The appellants have challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranebennur, in R.A. No.6/2007.

¶24

Respondents in this appeal being the plaintiffs in the suit claimed partition and separate possession of 1/3^rd share in the suit properties. But, the trial Court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to 1/8^th share. The defendants, aggrieved by this judgment of the trial Court appealed to the Court of Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranebennur. The First Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of the trial Court.

¶25

On perusal of the records, it becomes clear that one Gurubasappa was the propositus. He had three daughters,

¶26

: 4 :

¶27

namely, Gangavva, Shantavva and Paravva. The plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are the children of first daughter Gangavva. Defendant No.1 is the second daughter. Defendant No.2, Hanumanthappa is first defendant’s son. It is stated that Hanumanthappa was adopted by the propositus Gurubasappa. Both the Courts have held that the adoption has been proved. Third defendant is Paravva, the third daughter of the propositus. Propositus Gurubasappa died on 22.07.1986, and the succession opened on that date. For this reason notional partition should also be effected. Thus, the second defendant, the adopted son gets half share. In the notional share of Gurubasappa, again whole division must be made. Thus, the plaintiff would get 1/8^th share. Therefore, both the Courts have rightly allotted 1/8^th share to the plaintiffs. In these circumstances, no substantial question of law arises. Therefore, appeal is dismissed.

¶28

Sd/JUDGE

¶29

hnm

Shantavva W/O Veerappa Ningappanavar v. Karabasamma W/O Karabasappa Mudigoudar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shantavva W/O Veerappa Ningappanavar v. Karabasamma W/O Karabasappa Mudigoudar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdulkareem S/O. Mehaboobsab Nadaf Vs Shaila W/O. Revanshiddappa Laxmeshwar

Kumar Sandeep S/O. Ganapati Birje Vs Kamala D/O. Barmaji Birje

Timmanna S/O. Vittaldas Palmari Vs Tejamma W/O. Dodda Ramappa Hotti

Kamarunnisa Vs Channappa

Mrs.Mohini Eleanor Vs Mr.Anil S/O Fredrick Hongal

Sri.Dastagirsab Vs Smt.Hasimbi