Dismissed

Siddamma v. Smt.Gangamma

Karnataka HC11 Sept 2023RSA/894/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a regular second appeal against a judgment dismissing a partition suit, the High Court of Karnataka upheld the lower courts' decisions. Relying on the plaintiff's admission and documentary evidence showing prior partition and transfer of property, the Court found no perversity in concluding that the family was not joint.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court and the Trial Court dismissing the suit for partition.

Siddamma Vs Smt.Gangamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:32755 RSA No. 894 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶6

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 894 OF 2022 (PAR/DEC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SIDDAMMA S/O LATE ESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC: AGIRCCULTURE, R/AT NARASIPURA VILLAGE, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501.

¶9

Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

LAXMIDEVAMMA D/O LATE ESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/AT THANIGEKALLU VILLAGE, MADADAKERE HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501.

¶11

VEENA

¶12

D/O LATE ESHWARAPPA C/O RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT MASANIHALLI VILLAGE, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501.

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE, ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:32755 RSA No. 894 of 2022

¶16

AND:

¶17

SMT.GANGAMMA W/O RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT BENEKANAHALLI VILLAGE, MADADAKERE HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK-577501.

¶18

SHIVANNA S/O RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, AGRICULTURSIT, R/O. NARASIPURA VILLAGE, MADADAKERE HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK-577501.

¶19

T.NAVEEN KUMAR S/O G.THIMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, DEVIGERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK-577501.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.04.2022 PASSED IN R.A.NO.33/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOADURGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.05.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.138/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSADURGA.

¶22

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

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:32755 RSA No. 894 of 2022

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Heard the appellants counsel.

¶26

This matter is listed for admission.

¶27

The suit is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.138/2012 for the relief of partition and declaration. The very case of the plaintiffs that suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties. Though defendants contended earlier that it is a self acquired property and the said issue was deleted and defendants No.1 to 3 filed their written statement contending that already there was a prior partition and hence the Court also framed relevant issues and Trial Court considered issue No.1 and additional issue No.1 and the same is the crux of the matter with regard to, whether the property is the ancestral property and whether already there was a partition in the family. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that suit schedule properties are ancestral properties, but defendants No.1 to 3 took specific contention that already there was a partition and in terms of the partition parties are also acted upon and the Trial Court while considering the material available on record in paragraph No.17 extracted the admission given by PW1 wherein she has categorically admitted that her

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:32755 RSA No. 894 of 2022

¶30

husband got 3 acres 7 guntas in re-survey No.16/2 and also Khatha was changed in favour of her husband and subsequently after the death of her husband, she had sold the property and went and settled in her parents house and this fact is also taken note of by the Trial Court while answering issue No.1 as well as additional issue No.1 and dismissed the suit in coming to the conclusion that already there was partition and parties have acted upon. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, R.A.No.33/2020 is filed before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds urged in the appeal in paragraph No.10 formulated the points in paragraph No.12, whether the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties, whether plaintiffs are entitled for partition, whether judgment and decree of the Trial Court requires interference.

¶31

The First Appellate Court having considered both

¶32

oral and documentary evidence, answered point Nos.1 to 3 as negative in coming to the conclusion that already there was a partition and parties have acted upon and also the property was sold which was allotted in favour of husband of the appellant and dismissed the appeal.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:32755 RSA No. 894 of 2022

¶35

The counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that both the Courts failed to consider the material available on record and the finding of the Trial Court is perverse and the very conclusion of both the Courts that already there was a partition is erroneous and hence, this Court has to frame the substantive question of law, whether both the Courts were error in looking into the unregistered document, it was not compulsorily registerable and both the Courts were right in dismissing the suit for partition on the ground that it is the plaintiffs to prove that there is a partition in the family and the when the burden is on the defendants.

¶36

Having heard the appellants counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, no doubt the plaintiffs /appellants have pleaded in the plaint that suit schedule properties are ancestral properties and no partition in the family and defendants appeared and filed written statement contending that already there was a partition and properties were also allotted in favour of the husband of the plaintiff and he got it transferred the Khatha and subsequently she also sold the property and documentary evidence is also very clear with regard to the sale of the property and also taken note of

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:32755 RSA No. 894 of 2022

¶39

admission on the part of PW1 in the cross-examination, particularly in paragraph No.17 extracted the very admission wherein categorically admitted that there was a partition and Khatha was also transferred in the name of her husband immediately after the partition and thereafter she has sold the property after the death of her husband and all these materials were also taken note of by the Trial Court as well as by the First Appellate Court. I do not find any ground to come to a conclusion that the judgment of the Trial Court and also the First Appellate Court amounts to perversity and no doubt the First Appellate Court has not passed a detailed order, but when the material available before the Court itself is sufficient including the pleading as well as the admission and also the documents which have been placed before the Court and the same is also considered by the First Appellate Court in paragraph Nos.17 and 18 and rightly comes to the conclusion that there is no existence of joint family since already there was a partition and hence, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and frame the substantive question of law as contended by the counsel for the appellants.

¶40

NC: 2023:KHC:32755 RSA No. 894 of 2022

¶41

¶42

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶43

following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

Second appeal is dismissed.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 90

Siddamma v. Smt.Gangamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddamma v. Smt.Gangamma

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 S. Indari Vs Smt Shruthi

S. P. Karuna Vs S. D. Puttaswamy

Mrs Eulalia Sequeira Nee Menezes Vs Cyril Anthony Menezes (Since Dead)

Sri Appaswamy Vs Smt Rathnamma S

Smt. Vijayalakshmamma Vs Smt. Parvathamma

Sri. Channakeshava Swamy Devalaya Samithi Vs Smt. Lakshmamma