Dismissed

Smt Basamma v. Siddalingappa

Karnataka HC23 Apr 2021RSA/1625/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed the appeal filed by plaintiffs challenging a partition decree. The Court held that since plaintiffs accepted the partition of suit properties in accordance with a specific document, no further substantive issue survives for consideration. The appeal is dismissed subject to protection of the plaintiffs' interest in properties allotted to their father. 30 words. 30 words. 30 wor

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed with observation that plaintiffs may seek declaration of title regarding properties allotted to them in the earlier partition.

Smt Basamma Vs Siddalingappa — Partition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF APRIL, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶6

R.S.A. NO.1625 OF 2015 (PAR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. BASAMMA W/O LATE ADAVIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI. PRASANNAKUMAR.

¶9

SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O K.G.SAVANDAIAH, D/O LATE ADAVIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶10

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT DODDAVADAGERE VILLAGE, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK-561203, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶11

…APPELLANTS

¶12

(BY SRI. V.F. KUMBAR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SIDDALINGAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS L.Rs,

¶15

1(a) SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O LATE SIDDALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

¶16

¶17

RESIDING AT DODDERI KULUVANAHALLI POST, THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK-562123, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶18

1(b) SRI. CHANNAVEERADEVARU S/O LATE SIDDALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT DODDERI KULUVANAHALLI POST, THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK-562123, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶19

PRESENTLY R/AT H.NO.401, WARD NO.19, SUN RISE SCHOOL ROAD, SUBHASHNAGAR, NELAMANGALA-562123 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶20

SRI. SHIVANNA S/O LATE GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT DODDAVADAGERE VILLAGE, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK-561203, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶21

SMT PUTTAMMA W/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA, D/O LATE GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT DODDAVADAGERE VILLAGE, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK-561203, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶22

PRESENTLY R/AT CHIKKELURU, RAMOHALLI POST-562130 TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK

¶23

¶24

SINCE DEAD BY HER LRs

¶25

3(a) SRI. SIDDALINGASWAMY S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA AND LATE PUTTAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKELURU, RAMOHALLI POST-562130 TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.

¶26

3(b) SMT. CHANDRAKALA W/O SHIVAKUMAR, D/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA AND LATE PUTTAMMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT DODDAVADAGERE VILLAGE, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK-561203, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶27

3(c) SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O GANGADHARAIAH, D/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA AND LATE PUTTAMMA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT AMBALAGERE VILLAGE, DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK-561204, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶28

3(d) SMT. SARVAMANGALA D/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA AND LATE PUTTAMMA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKELURU, RAMOHALLI POST-562130, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.

¶29

3(e) SMT. SAROJA W/O SHASHIDHARAMURTHY

¶30

¶31

D/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA AND LATE PUTTAMMA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT DODDAVADAGERE VILLAGE, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK-561203, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶32

3(f) SMT. PARVATHI D/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA AND LATE PUTTAMMA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKELURU, RAMOHALLI POST-562130, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.

¶33

3(g) SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA AND LATE PUTTAMMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKELURU, RAMOHALLI POST-562130, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.

¶34

3(h) SMT. SUSHEELA D/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA AND LATE PUTTAMMA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKELURU, RAMOHALLI POST-562130, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.

¶35

SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶36

SRI. PARAMASHIVAIAH S/O LATE GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶37

¶38

SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶39

SMT. MANGALAMMA D/O LATE GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

¶40

SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O LATE ADAVIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶41

SMT. SIDDAGANGAMMA D/O LATE ADAVIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶42

ALL THE RESPONDENTS 4 TO 9 ARE RESIDING AT DODDAVADAGERE VILLAGE, MADHURE HOBLI, DODABALLAPUR TLUK-561203, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶43

SMT. RENUKAMMA W/O PRABHAKAR, D/O LATE ADAVIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT DODDAVADAGERE VILLAGE, MADHURE HOBLI, DODABALLAPUR TLUK-561203, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶44

PRESENTLY R/AT NO.16, RAMAKRISHNA BUILDING, NEAR ANNAPOORNESHWARI TEMPLE, NAGADEVANAHALLI, JNANABHARATHI POST, BANGALORE-560056.

¶45

SMT KEMPAKKA DEAD BY HER L.RS, RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 6 ARE ALREADY ON RECORD.

¶46

…RESPONDENTS

¶47

¶48

[NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS NO.3(a), 3(c), 3(d), 3(f) & 3(g) ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 16.01.2021 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.3(b & e) IS HELD SUFFICIENT; VICE COURT ORDER DATED 23.02.2021 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.3(h) IS HELD SUFFICIENT]

¶49

THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 READ WITH ORDER XLII RULE 1 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.06.2015 PASSED IN RA NO.9 OF 2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND AFFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.01.2013 PASSED IN OS.NO.24/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA.

¶50

THIS R.S.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶51

JUDGMENT

¶52

This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No.24/2005 as well as the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court in R.A. No.9/2013. Both the Courts held that the suit properties were earlier partitioned in terms of Ex.D-3 and that therefore the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek for partition and separate possession of the suit properties.

¶53

¶54

2. The learned counsel for the

¶55

plaintiffs/appellants after arguing the appeal for some time submitted that the interest of the plaintiffs in respect of the properties that were allotted to the plaintiffs in terms of Ex.D-3 may be protected. He submitted that the plaintiffs may not interested to pursue the appeal, if the properties that were allotted to the share of the father of the plaintiffs as per Ex.D-3 is protected.

¶56

In that view of the matter, since the defendants have set up Ex.D-3 under which certain properties were allotted to the share of the father of plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are always at liberty to seek declaration of their title in respect of the properties that fell to their share in terms of Ex.D-3.

¶57

In view of the above, since the plaintiffs have accepted the partition of the suit properties in terms of Ex.D-3, nothing further survives for consideration in this

¶58

¶59

appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed, subject to the above observation.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

hnm

Smt Basamma v. Siddalingappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Basamma v. Siddalingappa

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

Sri Ramakrishnappa S/O Late Kariyappa @ Kariyanna Vs Smt Rangamma W/O K. Thimmappa

Sri Shivanna Vs v Swetha

Sri Nanjappa Vs Sri Narasappa

Smt Pushpa Vs Sumithra

N.Shanthamma Vs Gundurao

Srinivasa Vs Rathnamma