Dismissed

Smt Pushpa v. Sumithra

Karnataka HC23 Apr 2021RSA/1700/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal by daughters challenging a lower court's decision in a partition suit and final decree proceeding. The High Court affirmed the lower courts' view that an existing partition barred the claimants from benefits under the 2005 Amendment Act.

What did the court decide?

No interference warranted; appeal dismissed; plaintiffs entitled only to notional share.

Smt Pushpa Vs Sumithra — 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.1700 OF 2018 (PAR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. PUSHPA W/O LATE VISHWANATH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶9

HEMANTH S/O LATE VISHWANATH, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, SINCE 2^ND APPELLANT IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN - 1^ST APPELLANT

¶10

BOTH ARE R/O 3^RD MAIN ROAD, SIDDAGANGA EXTENSION, TUMKUR CITY-572101.

¶11

…APPELLANTS

¶12

(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR S.C., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SUMITHRA D/O K.VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

¶15

SUMANGALA W/O R.B.SIDDALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS

¶16

BOTH ARE R/O C/O R.B.SIDDALINGAIAH, 8^TH MAIN, 7^TH CROSS, S.S.PURAM, TUMAKURU-572102.

¶17

¶18

VIMALA W/O MAHADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O “MATHRUCHAYA”, 6^TH CROSS, SADASHIVANAGAR, TUMAKURU-572101.

¶19

SAROJA W/O LATE MAHESH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, ANGANAWADI TEACHER, R/O M.N.KOTE-572222 GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶20

K.V.PARAMESHA S/O LATE VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O 3^RD MAIN ROAD, SIDDAGANGA EXTENSION, TUMKUR CITY-572101.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.04.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.358/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.08.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.125/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU.

¶23

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

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal is filed by defendants No.2 and 3 challenging the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No.125/2006 and the First Appellate Court in

¶26

¶27

R.A. No.358/2016. Both the Courts held that the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/18^th share in the suit properties.

¶28

The plaintiffs are the daughters, while defendant No.1 and the husband of defendant No.2 were the sons of K. Veerappa and Honnamma. It is stated that the suit properties were the ancestral properties that were possessed by the family of which K.Veerappa was the propositus. It is stated that K.Veerappa died in the year 1989 and his wife died in the year 1991, while one of their daughters Mangala died in the year 2000. The husband of defendant No.2 died on 10.06.2006. The plaintiffs, therefore, contended that they are entitled for an equal share in the suit properties and therefore filed a suit for partition.

¶29

The defendants contended that there was a partition dated 19.10.2000 which was duly registered in terms of which, the suit properties were partitioned and that therefore the plaintiffs are not entitled for any share in the suit properties.

¶30

¶31

4. Based on these rival contentions, the Trial Court framed the following issues :

¶32

i. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they themselves and the defendants are the only heirs of deceased Veerappa?

¶33

ii. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule properties are the joint family and ancestral properties of themselves and the defendants?

¶34

iii. Whether the defendant No.2 and 3 proves the contents of para No.4(a) of the written statement?

¶35

iv. Whether the defendant No.2 and 3 proves that the plaintiffs are not entitled for any share as claimed by them?

¶36

v. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs as sought by them?

¶37

vi. What order or decree?

¶38

ADDITIONAL ISSUE:

¶39

i. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the document dated 19.10.2000 is sham and nominal document and not binding on the plaintiffs share in the schedule properties?

¶40

¶41

The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and plaintiff No.4 was examined as P.W.2 and they marked documents as Exs.P-1 to P-21. The defendant No.2 was examined as D.W.1 and she marked documents as Exs.D-1 to 26.

¶42

Based on the oral and documentary evidence and having regard to the fact that the plaintiffs were classI female heirs of K. Veerappa, passed a Judgment and

¶43

Decree and declared that the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/18^th share each in the suit schedule properties.

¶44

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the defendant No.2 alone filed an appeal in R.A. No.358/2016. The First Appellate Court secured the records of the Trial Court, heard the counsel for the parties and framed the following points for consideration :

¶45

Whether the Trial Court was erred in partly decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs?

¶46

Whether the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence placed before it with

¶47

¶48

reference to the facts and circumstances of this case?

¶49

Whether the impugned Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court warrants interference?

¶50

What order or decree?

¶51

The First Appellate Court held that K. Veerappa died in the year 1989, and therefore, the plaintiffs as well as the defendants were entitled to notional share out of the share that fell to Mr.K. Veerappa and thus held that in view of the partition of the suit properties amongst the sons of K. Veerappa, the plaintiffs were only entitled to a notional share in the suit properties and thus upheld the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

¶52

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree of both the Courts, defendants No.2 and 3 have filed this appeal.

¶53

The learned counsel for appellant/defendants contended that though both the Courts held that the plaintiffs are entitled to notional share in the suit

¶54

¶55

properties, but yet, the plaintiffs have filed Final Decree Proceedings seeking partition of their 1/6^th share in the suit properties, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma reported in AIR 2020 SC 3717. This contention of the appellants cannot be accepted since the suit was filed in the year 2006 by which time there was already a partition between the sons of K.Veerappa. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot claim the benefit of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, and both the Courts have rightly held that the plaintiffs are entitled to notional share of 1/18^th . As the Courts have rightly applied the law and appreciated the evidence on record, no interference is warranted.

¶56

Hence, this appeal lacks merit and as no substantial question of law arises for consideration, this appeal is dismissed.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

hnm

Smt Pushpa v. Sumithra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Pushpa v. Sumithra

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 Basamma Vs Siddalingappa

N.Shanthamma Vs Gundurao

Srinivasa Vs Rathnamma