Second appeal challenging a lower court decree granting daughters 1/4th share each in self-acquired parental property partitioned after father's intestate death. Court found no evidence that loan for marriage expenses was deducted from inheritance, dismissing the appeal.
The appeal was dismissed; the original decree granting shares was affirmed.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
R.S.A.NO.696/2021 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN
HANUMANTHAPPA SALI S/O BASAVARAJAPPA SALI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/O SUNNADOKOPPA VILLAGE SHIKARIPURA TAUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. MANJULADEVI R KAMADOLLI, ADVOCATE)
AND
R/O ASHOKA HIGH SCHOOL HARSIKATTA SIDDAPURA TALUK 581355
2
R/O HOSUR VILLAGE SHIKARIPURA TALUK 577427
3 . GIRIJAMMA SALI W/O BASAVARAJAPPA SAIL AGED 64 YEARS R/O SUNNADAKKOPPA VILLAGE SHIKARIPURA TALUK 577427 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.10.2020 PASSED IN R.A.NO.34/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA AND ETC.
THIS R.S.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned
counsel appearing for the respective parties.
3
the Trial Court is that plaintiff No.1 and 2 and defendant No.2 are the children of defendant No.1 and late Basavarajappa Sali. It is also their contention that they constituted Hindu undivided family and the Basavarajappa Sali who is the father of the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 and husband of defendant No.1 died on 26.01.2009 and the plaintiffs who are the daughters of defendant No.1 and Basavarajappa Sali residing in their matrimonial home and defendant No.1 is residing with defendant No.2 in the house described in suit ‘B’ schedule property. The suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of Basavarajappa Sali and he died intestate. Hence, the plaintiffs being the daughters of late Basavarajappa Sali are entitled for 1/4th share each in the suit schedule properties. During the life of their father, the plaintiffs used to visit their parents house and defendants used to look after them with love and affection and
4
after the death of their father, the attitude of defendant No.2 has changed. Defendant No.1 is also under the custody of defendant No.2, as such, she cannot do anything independently hence, they demanded share in the suit schedule properties and the defendant No.2 declined to grant any share in the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiffs. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant No.2 appeared before the Court and filed written statement contending that written statement schedule property are not liable for partition. The plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief since, the marriage was performed spending huge amount hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of partition and separate possession.
5
The Trial Court after considering both the oral and documentary evidence, comes to the conclusion that there is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties and also comes to the conclusion that the property is the self-acquired property of the father Basavarajappa Sali and he died intestate hence, the plaintiffs being the class-I heirs of deceased Basavarajappa Sali are entitled for 1/4th share each in the suit schedule properties, accordingly, granted 1/4th share each in favour of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was filed in R.A.No.34/2018 wherein also the contention of defendant No.2 that an amount was spent to perform the marriage of the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 and his father had incurred debts for the marriage expenses of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are also liable to discharge the said debt. The First Appellate Court also formulated the point that whether the suit properties are the joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants and same is answered as affirmative and answered points No.2 and 3 as negative and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present second appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant No.2.
6
7
evidence of PW1 as well as DW1 to DW4 and the First Appellate Court also on re-appreciation of material available on record in detail discussed in paragraphs 21 and 22 and also taken note of admission elicited from the mouth of PW1 that marriages were performed during the lifetime of his father and father only had spent the amount at the time of their marriage and the First Appellate Court also taken note of both the oral and documentary evidence and in detail discussed in paragraphs 23 and 24 and dismissed the appeal.
the parties and also on perusal of the materials available on record, it is clear that the suit was filed for the relief of partition and separate possession and the only contention raised by the defendant No,.2 that he had performed the marriage of his sisters i.e., the plaintiffs by availing the loan and during the course of cross-examination, DW1 categorically admitted that the marriage of the plaintiffs was performed during lifetime of his father and in order to substantiate his contention, he has not placed any material before the Court and when there is no
8
dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties and the suit schedule properties are belongs to the family, the very contention of the counsel for the appellant that defendant No.2 being the kartha of the family, after the death of their father, had managed the properties and availed the loan and at the time of marriage also gold ornaments were given and cash was given but the same has not been substantiated and the document at Ex.C1 to C4 are also marked. The Trial Court in paragraph 12, with regard to the defence of the defendant No.2, discussed in detail that though defendant No.2 had summoned the documents from the post office authorities, Shikaripura and LIC authorities and witnesses appeared and given their evidences saying that they are unable to give any details as there is no proper description with regard to the alleged deposits as contended by defendant No.2. The Trial Court also taken note of the evidence of Administrative Assistant who has been examined as DW4 and though the documents at Ex.D1 to D6 are marked, those documents also show that the amount shown in Ex.C1 to C3 has been disbursed to Basavarajappa Sali during his lifetime only and considering both the oral and documentary evidence
9
available on record comes to the conclusion that the defendant No.1 has received a sum of Rs.30,959/- after deduction of the loan amount which was availed by Basavarajappa and also taken note of in terms of Ex.C5, defendant No.1 has received a sum of Rs.1,13,712/- after deduction of the loan amount which was availed by Basavarajappa. The nominee is only the custodian of the amount received and amount was paid in favour of the mother. The share is also sought for in respect of the suit schedule properties. The First Appellate Court also on reappreciation of both the oral and documentary evidence available on record formulated the point with regard to whether the Trial Court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the properties are belongs to the family and also particularly considering the grounds urged in the appeal formulated point No.2 that whether his father had incurred debts for the marriage expenses of plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are liable to discharge the said amount and having considered the evidence available on record and having paid the amount in favour of defendant No.1 after deducting the loan amount, comes to the conclusion that already loan amount was cleared
10
availed by the said Basavarajappa and having considered the material available on record and also on re-appreciation of the same with regard to the evidence of DW1 to DW4 as well as PW1 in paragraph 22 categorical finding was given that during the lifetime of their father only, the marriage of the plaintiffs were performed. Hence, I do not find any perversity in the judgment of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court in giving the findings and no substantial question of law is made out to admit the appeal and to frame the substantial question of law. Both the Courts have given anxious consideration to the material available on record and particularly, no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties and also with regard to the suit schedule properties which was left by their father and no any testamentary document. Under such circumstances, both the Courts have given finding that legal heirs of deceased Basavarajappa Sali are entitled for 1/4th share each and hence, no grounds are made to invoke Section 100 of CPC to admit the appeal and to frame the substantial question of law.
11
following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if any,
does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
SN
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there was a substantial question of law regarding the entitlement of daughters to partition in self-acquired parental property.
Whether the marriage expenses incurred during the father's lifetime should negate the daughters' share in the succession of his self-acquired property.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
HANUMANTAPPA SAli S/O BASAVARAJAPPA SAlI
KAVITHA SALI W/O MAHESHWARAPPA
MAMATHA SALI W/O GADIGEPPA
GIRIJAMMA SALI W/O BASAVARAJAPPA SAIL
H.P. SANDESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
