Regular second appeal dismissed. The High Court upheld the appellate court's finding that item 1 is self-acquired property of Defendant No.2 and decreed the dismissal of the suit regarding this property, as the plaintiff failed to prove it was ancestral.
Second appeal dismissed; suit on item No.1 dismissed; no share granted to appellant in item No.1.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1472 OF 2023 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, W/O RAJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT RAILWAY STATION ROAD, K.R. SAGARA, BELAGOLA HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 607.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VIVEK B.N, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ABHINAV R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUCHITRA M J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NO.144, LOKANAYAKANAGARA, HEBBALU, MYSURU - 570 016.
RESPONDENTS NO. 3 TO 5 ARE R/AT NO.52, 11TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, 1ST STAGE, HEBBAL, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 016.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ABHINAV. R, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.01.2023 PASSED IN RA No. 5017/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA (SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA), PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 16.02.2016 PASSED IN OS No. 50/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SRIRANGAPATNA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff, who has questioned the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court insofar as item No.1 property is concerned, wherein the Appellate Court has declined to grant share in item No.1 property and plaintiff's suit is dismissed by recording a categorical finding that item No.1 is a self acquired property of defendant No.2.
are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.
NC: 2023:KHC:44835 RSA No. 1472 of 2023
Late Honnaiah W/o late Ningamma
Halage Gowda Putta Veerabhadra Savithramma (P) (D-1) (D-2)
Honnaiah. She has filed a suit against her two brothers and the children of her predeceased brother, Veerabhadra,
contending that the suit schedule properties are joint family ancestral properties. Plaintiff contended that item Nos.1 and 2 are agricultural lands and item No.3 is a vacant site. It is the specific contention of the plaintiff that these properties are ancestral properties and that she has
a 1/4th legitimate share in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff also claims that she is in joint possession and
enjoyment of all the suit-scheduled properties. Plaintiff claimed that there was no partition in the family as on the
date of filing of the suit. Alleging that defendant No.1 has alienated item No.1 property, the present suit is filed.
claimed that item No.1 originally belonged to one Siddaiah, who in turn sold it to defendant No.2 and therefore, defendant No.6 contended that item No.1 is self acquired property of defendant No.2 and hence prayed for dismissal of the suit insofar as item No.1 property is concerned.
7 Plaintiff and defendants to substantiate their respective claims have let in oral and documentary evidence.
other property. The Appellate Court further found that P.W.1 has admitted that item No.2 is dry land and was not
sufficient to maintain the family of plaintiff and defendants. Therefore, in absence of surplus income, the Appellate Court, referring to rebuttal evidence let in by defendant No.2, held that item No.1 property is the self acquired property of defendant No.2. It is in this background, the Appellate Court has reversed the findings and conclusions recorded by the Trial Court on issue Nos.2 and 4. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by defendant Nos.2 and 6 and the suit is dismissed insofar as item No.1 property is concerned. The appeal filed by defendant No.6 in R.A.No.5021/2016 was also allowed and plaintiff's suit is dismissed. Plaintiff has not chosen to question the decree passed in R.A.No.5021/2016.
evidence on record. The Trial Court has proceeded on the assumption that since plaintiff and defendants constitute an undivided joint hindu family, it is presumed that all the properties are joint family ancestral properties. Admittedly, item No.1 was acquired by defendant No2 during the lifetime of Honnaiah. Therefore, it was for plaintiff to discharge the initial burden by stepping into the witness box. The plaintiff has not chosen to lead evidence. On the contrary, she has led evidence through her daughter. On examining the reasons and conclusions recorded by both the Courts, what emerges is that plaintiff has miserably failed to discharge her initial burden. The existence of surplus income and the contribution by Honnaiah to purchase item No.2 property is neither pleaded by plaintiff nor supported by documentary evidence. In absence of sufficient evidence to indicate that the purchase of item No.1 made by defendant No.2 is also ancestral property, the Trial Court erred in granting share to the plaintiff.
NC: 2023:KHC:44835 RSA No. 1472 of 2023
the Appellate Court, having independently re-assessed the entire evidence on record, has rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff insofar as item No.1 is concerned. Therefore, no substantial question of law would arise for consideration. The regular second appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly stands dismissed .
In view of dismissal of second appeal, all pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16 CT: BHK
3 issues framed by the court
Whether items 2 and 3 of the suit properties are ancestral properties arising from joint family corpus.
Whether item 1 is the self-acquired property of Defendant No.2 or ancestral property.
Whether the plaintiff has succeeded in discharging the initial burden to establish joint family property status.
Smt. Savithramma
Sri. Putta
Sri. Halagegowda
Smt. Lakshmi
Smt. Vinutha
Sri. Vinod
Sachin Shankar Magadum
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
