Dismissed

M.C. Naveen Kumar v. R.S. Siddegowda

Karnataka HC21 Jun 2023RSA/429/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed appeals filed by plaintiffs challenging the setting aside of a partition decree. The court held that a valid palu patti and subsequent settlement deed regarding ancestral properties were executed and acted upon by parties, precluding further partition claims by plaintiffs.

What did the court decide?

Both regular second appeals dismissed; judgment and decree of the first appellate court affirmed; suit dismissed.

M.C. Naveen Kumar Vs R.S. Siddegowda — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:21532 RSA No. 429 of 2014 C/W RSA No. 428 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 429 OF 2014 (PAR)

¶8

C/W

¶9

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 428 OF 2014(PAR)

¶10

RSA No. 429/2014

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

M.C. NAVEEN KUMAR S/O CHANNA KRISHNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶13

M C RAVI S/O CHANNA KRISHNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶14

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

BOTH THE APPELLANTS ARE AGRICULTURISTS R/O. RAGIMUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE CHINAKURALI HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401.

¶16

…APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SRI ABUBACKER SHAFI, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

R.S. SIDDEGOWDA S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS.

¶20

M K SUVARNAMMA

¶21

¶22

NC: 2023:KHC:21532 RSA No. 429 of 2014 C/W RSA No. 428 of 2014

¶23

W/O LATE M S DEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

¶24

R D PRADEEPA S/O LATE M S DEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶25

ALL ARE RESIDING AT RAGIMUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE CHINAKURALI HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401.

¶26

CHANNAKRISHNE GOWDA S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

¶27

SMT. HOMBALAMMA W/O CHASNNAKRISHNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶28

M C MAMATHA W/O MAHADEVA D/O CHENNAKRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

¶29

RESPONDENT Nos.4 TO 6 ARE R/O KUMBARA KOPPALU CHINAKURALI HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401.

¶30

LAKSHMAMMA W/O SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶31

M S SRIKRISHNA S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:21532 RSA No. 429 of 2014 C/W RSA No. 428 of 2014

¶33

¶34

9. RUKKAMMA W/O LATE MAHADEVA

¶35

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

¶36

NAGARATHNAMMA C/O CHANNAKRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶37

ALL THE RESPONDENTS 7 TO 10 ARE RESIDING AT RAGIMUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE CHINAKURALI HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401.

¶38

…RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI. K JNANESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI SHARATH S GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R10 SRI P S NETHRESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R5 SMT. VEDHAVATHI H T, ADVOCATE FOR R6 R2, R3, R8 SERVED, V/O DTD. 18.2.2019 APPEAL AGAINST R7 AND R9 IS DISMISSED AS ABATED)

¶40

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.07.2013 PASSED IN R.A. NO. 178/2011 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA (SIT AT SRIRANGAPATNA) ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.08.2011 PASSED IN OS. NO. 131/2009 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) JMFC AND MACT, PANDAVAPURA.

¶41

RSA No. 428/2014

¶42

BETWEEN:

¶43

M.C. NAVEEN KUMAR S/O CHANNA KRISHNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶44

¶45

NC: 2023:KHC:21532 RSA No. 429 of 2014 C/W RSA No. 428 of 2014

¶46

M C RAVI S/O CHANNA KRISHNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.

¶47

BOTH THE APPELLANTS ARE AGRICULTURISTS R/O. RAGIMUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE CHINAKURALI HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401.

¶48

…APPELLANTS

¶49

(BY SRI ABUBACKER SHAFI, ADVOCATE)

¶50

AND:

¶51

CHANNA KRISHNE GOWDA S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶52

R/O RAGIMUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE

¶53

CHINAKURALI HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK

¶54

MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401.

¶55

Mrs. HOMBALAMMA W/O CHANNAKRISHNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶56

R/O. RAGIMUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE CHINAKURALI HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK

¶57

MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401.

¶58

M .C MAMATHA W/O MAHADEVA D/O CHANNAKRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O. KUMBARA KOPPALU CHINAKURALI HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401.

¶59

¶60

NC: 2023:KHC:21532 RSA No. 429 of 2014 C/W RSA No. 428 of 2014

¶61

LAKSHMAMMA W/O SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶62

R.S. SIDDEGOWDA S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS.

¶63

M.S.DEVARAJU DEAD BY HIS LRs.

¶64

(a) SUVARNAMMA W/O LATE M S DEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

¶65

(b) PRADEEP D S/O LATE M.S.DEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.

¶66

M S SRIKRISHNA S/O LATE SIDDEGWODA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶67

RUKKAMMA W/O LATE MAHADEVA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

¶68

NAGARATHNAMMA C/O CHANNAKRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

¶69

ALL THE RESPONDENTS 4 TO 9 ARE RESIDING AT RAGIMUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHINAKURALI HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401.

¶70

…RESPONDENTS

¶71

(BY SRI SHARATH S GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R9 SMT. VEDAVATHI H T, ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI P S NETHRESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI K JNANESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5

¶72

¶73

NC: 2023:KHC:21532 RSA No. 429 of 2014 C/W RSA No. 428 of 2014

¶74

R4 AND R8 - DEAD R6(a), R6(b) AND R7 SERVED)

¶75

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.07.2013 PASSED IN R.A. NO. 168/2011 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA (SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA) ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 16.08.2011 PASSED IN OS. NO. 131/2009 (OLD No. 38/2009) ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) JMFC AND MACT, PANDAVAPURA.

¶76

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

¶77

JUDGMENT

¶78

Both these appeals are filed by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya sitting at Srirangapatna in R.A. Nos. 168/2011 and 178/2011 reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 131/2009 dated 16.08.2011 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and JMFC, Pandavapura and dismissing the suit.

¶79

The appellants were the plaintiffs and respondents were defendant Nos. 1 to 9 in O.S. No. 131/2009. The

¶80

NC: 2023:KHC:21532 RSA No. 429 of 2014 C/W RSA No. 428 of 2014

¶81

¶82

parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

¶83

Plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S. No. 131/2009 for partition and separate possession of their share in the suit schedule properties. It is the case of the plaintiffs before the trial Court that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and defendant No. 3 are the sons and daughter of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Defendant No.2 is the legally wedded wife of defendant No.1. Plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are the members of Hindu Joint Family and all the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3. Defendant No. 9 is the second wife of defendant No.1 and she has no children. It is contended that defendant No.1 neglected defendant Nos.2 and 3 and plaintiffs and started misusing the joint family income in illegal activities and therefore, the plaintiffs filed a suit seeking partition and separate possession of their shares. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 appeared through their counsel and filed written statement. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in their

¶84

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:21532 RSA No. 429 of 2014 C/W RSA No. 428 of 2014

¶85

written statement have admitted the entire averments in

¶86

the plaint and prayed to grant decree as prayed. Defendant No.1 in his written statement admitted the relationship with plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 and 3. He contended that all the ancestral joint family properties of his father Siddegowda have been divided between his brothers and he has been allotted suit schedule properties in the partition. The properties allotted to his share were partitioned between himself, defendant No. 2 and plaintiffs as per partition deed dated 15.03.1998. He married second wife Smt. Nagarathnamma about seven years prior

¶87

to the filing of the written statement. Thereafter differences started between second wife and first wife and her children. Therefore, properties were divided through palu patti. As per the said partition, defendant No.1 and defendant No. 9 – his second wife allotted survey No. 29/1B to an extent of 26 guntas, survery No. 29/2B to an extent of 12 guntas of Gummanahalli village, Pandavapura taluk, survey No. 281/1P to an extent of 20 guntas and survey No. 349/6 to an extent of 15 guntas, house at

¶88

NC: 2023:KHC:21532 RSA No. 429 of 2014 C/W RSA No. 428 of 2014

¶89

¶90

Ragaimuddanahalli village eight pillared totti house towards northern portion to the share of plaintiffs and defendant No. 2. Movable articles were delivered to defendant No. 2 in the said partition. Plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and defendant No. 9 were signatories to the said palu patti. Defendant No. 1 executed settlement deed 29.09.2004 in favour of his second wife – defendant No. 9 in respect of properties allotted to his share in the deed dated 15.03.1998. He contended that suit is not maintainable without seeking cancellation of palu patti dated 15.03.1998 and settlement deed dated 29.09.2004.

¶91

During the pendency of the said suit before the trial Court defendant Nos. 4 to 8 were impleaded and after their inclusion in the suit they filed written statement. They denied the entire plaint averments. They adopted the written statement filed by defendant No.1 and in addition they have taken a contention that there was no partition

¶92

NC: 2023:KHC:21532 RSA No. 429 of 2014 C/W RSA No. 428 of 2014

¶93

10 -

¶94

between the sons of Siddegowda. There is no joint family

¶95

in existence and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

¶96

On the basis of the said pleadings, the trial Court

¶97

framed the following issues:

¶98

Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit

¶99

schedule properties are the undivided joint family properties of themselves and defendants?

¶100

Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in joint possession and enjoyment of suit properties along with defendants as joint owners?

¶101

Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the partition had already taken place in between the members of the family as per Palu Patti dated 15.03.1998 as contended in his written statement?

¶102

Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

¶103

NC: 2023:KHC:21532 RSA No. 429 of 2014 C/W RSA No. 428 of 2014

¶104

11 -

¶105

Whether the court fee paid and valuation made are proper?

¶106

Whether the suit is not maintainable in present form?

¶107

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs sought for?

¶108

What decree or order?

¶109

Plaintiff No. 1 has been examined as P.W.1 and

¶110

got marked 15 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15. In support of their case defendant No. 1 is examined as D.W.1 and examined seven other witnesses as D.W.2 to D.W.8 and got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.56. After hearing arguments and appreciating the evidence on record, the trial Court answered issue Nos. 1, 2 and 7 partly in affirmative, issue No. 5 in affirmative and issue Nos. 3, 4 and 6 in the negative and partly decreed the suit holding that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for 1/4^th share each in item Nos.

¶111

1 to 6 of A schedule and item No. 1 of B schedule property and house described in item No. 2 of B schedule property.

¶112

NC: 2023:KHC:21532 RSA No. 429 of 2014 C/W RSA No. 428 of 2014

¶113

12 -

¶114

The trial Court also held that defendant No. 3 is entitled

¶115

for 1/4^th share in the said properties. Aggrieved by the

¶116

said judgment and decree of the trial Court, defendant No.1 filed R.A. No. 168/2011 and defendant Nos. 5 and legal representatives of defendant No. 6 filed R.A. No. 178/2011. The first appellate Court after hearing arguments on both the sides has formulated the following points for consideration:

¶117

Whether defendant No.1 proves that there was a division between himself and his brothers in the year 1983 and second partition between himself, plaintiffs and defendant No.2 in the year 1998?

¶118

Whether Section 6 of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 was affected or invalidated Ex.D.35 and Ex.D.15 partition and settlement deed executed by defendant No. 1?

¶119

Whether the trial Court has committed any error on law and fact and interference by this

¶120

NC: 2023:KHC:21532 RSA No. 429 of 2014 C/W RSA No. 428 of 2014

¶121

13 -

¶122

court in the judgment and decree passed by

¶123

the trial Court is necessary?

¶124

What order?

¶125

The first appellate Court after hearing arguments answered point Nos.1 and 3 in the affirmative and point No. 2 in the negative and allowed both the appeals and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court in those two appeals, plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 have filed these two appeals.

¶126

Heard learned counsel for appellants on

¶127

admission.

¶128

Defendant No. 1 had two wives, defendant No.2

¶129

is his first wife and defendant No. 9 is his second wife. Plaintiffs are two sons and defendant No.3 is the daughter of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Second wife - defendant No. 9

¶130

– Smt. Nagarathnamma had no issues from defendant No.

¶131

Plaintiffs earlier included the properties left by

¶132

NC: 2023:KHC:21532 RSA No. 429 of 2014 C/W RSA No. 428 of 2014

¶133

14 -

¶134

propositor – Siddegowda as suit properties but after impleading defendant Nos. 4 to 8 they got amended the plaint and suit schedule properties and they included the properties which were allotted to the share of defendant No.1. Ex.D.1 is the palu patti between defendant No. 1 and his brothers and the same is not in dispute. There was

¶135

a partition in respect of properties allotted to the share of defendant No. 1 under Ex.D.1 between himself, plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 9 and said palu patti is at Ex.D.35. Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 and defendant No. 2 were allotted all items of suit schedule properties to a total extent of 144 guntas and defendant No.1 and defendant No. 9 were allotted 4 items of suit schedule properties to an extent of 73 guntas. The revenue records were mutated as per the share allotted under Ex.D.35 – palu patti. Considering the said aspect, the first appellate Court has rightly held that Ex.D.35 – palu patti has been acted upon by the parties by entering the name of defendant No. 2 to the property allotted to their share. Defendant No.1 has executed settlement deed

¶136

NC: 2023:KHC:21532 RSA No. 429 of 2014 C/W RSA No. 428 of 2014

¶137

15 -

¶138

in favour of his second wife – defendant No. 9 on

¶139

29.09.2004 (Ex.D.15) and it is a registered document.

¶140

The first appellate Court considering Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 as amended by Act of 2005 and proviso there under has held that execution of the settlement deed dated 29.09.2004 as per Ex.D.15 by defendant No.1 is saved under the proviso. The first appellate Court further held that Section 6 of the Hindu succession Act as amended in 2005 shall not affect or invalidate Ex.D.15 and plaintiffs cannot claim partition in respect of properties given to defendant No. 9 – Nagarathna by defendant No. 1 under registered document.

¶141

Learned counsel for appellants would contend that defendant No. 3 was not a party to the said partition deed i.e, palu patti – Ex.D.15 and she is entitled to a share. Said findings of the first appellate Court are not challenged by defendant No. 3. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellants who is representing plaintiffs

¶142

NC: 2023:KHC:21532 RSA No. 429 of 2014 C/W RSA No. 428 of 2014

¶143

16 -

¶144

cannot urge that aspect in these appeals filed by the plaintiffs. Considering all these aspects no substantial question of law arises for consideration. Hence, both the appeals are dismissed.

¶145

Sd/JUDGE

¶146

LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 Ct.sm

M.C. Naveen Kumar v. R.S. Siddegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.C. Naveen Kumar v. R.S. Siddegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Munilakshmamma Vs Narayanaswamy

Mahadevaiah S/O Late Nagappa Vs Sannaramaiah S/O Late Sannaramaiah

The State of Karnataka Vs Krishnappa

Rajamma Vs Basamma

Sri T S Rajashekar Vs Sri N Venkatasubba Shetty

Prakash S/O Mahadevappa Meti Vs the State of Karnataka