Partly allowed

Smt. Sharada W/O Rangappa Kunchanur @ Dhanagar v. Kumari Akshata D/O Rangappa Kunchanur @ Dhanagar

Karnataka HC10 Dec 2024RFA/100182/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cross-appeals against a partition decree in an ancestral-property dispute. The court held children born of a void second marriage get rights only in parents' property after the parent's demise, not in coparcenary property; the second wife got no share; shares were recomputed on the mother's death; maintenance upheld.

What did the court decide?

RFA 100026/2022 allowed in part: decree modified allotting plaintiffs 1/9 each, defendant 1 1/9 plus 1/6, Chidanand 1/2; RFA 100182/2021 dismissed.

Smt. Sharada W/O Rangappa Kunchanur @ Dhanagar Vs Kumari Akshata… — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18082 RFA No. 100026 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 100182 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100026 OF 2022 (PAR/POS)

¶7

C/W

¶8

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100182 OF 2021

¶9

IN RFA NO.100026/2022 BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI RANGAPPA S/O.RAMAPPA KUNCHANUR @ DHANAGAR AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HUNASIKATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN. 587301.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

KUMARI AKSHATA D/O.RANGAPPA KUNCHANUR @ DHANAGAR, AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. HUNASIKATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT.

¶16

KUMARI RAKSHA D/O. RANGAPPA KUNCHANUR DHANAGAR, AGE. 14 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. HUNASIKATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT PIN. 587301

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18082 RFA No. 100026 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 100182 of 2021

¶18

SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER I.E. RESPONDENT NO. 3

¶19

SMT. BHARATI W/O. RANGAPPA KUNCHANUR @ DHANAGAR, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O. HUNASIKATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587301

¶20

SRI CHIDANAND S/O. RAMAPPA KUNCHANUR @ DHANAGAR, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HUNASIKATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT. PIN – 587301.

¶21

SMT. SAROJANI W/O. CHIDANAND KUNCHANUR @ DHANAGAR, AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O. HUNASIKATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT PIN – 587301.

¶22

YALLAWWA W/O. CHIDANAND KUNCHANUR @ DHANAGAR, AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O. HUNASIKATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT PIN – 587301.

¶23

SRI. MAHADEV S/O SIDDPAA JEERGAL AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. HUNASIKATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT PIN – 587301.

¶24

SMT. SHARADA

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18082 RFA No. 100026 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 100182 of 2021

¶26

W/O. RANGAPPA KUNCHANUR @ DHANAGAR, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O. HUNASIKATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT PIN – 587301.

¶27

KUMARI. GYANAWWA D/O. RANGAPPA KUNCHANUR @ DHANAGAR, AGE. 14 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. HUNASIKATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT PIN – 587301.

¶28

KUMARI SURMMADEVI D/O. RANGAPPA KINCHANUR @ DHANAGAR, AGE. 13 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT R/O. HUNASIKATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT PIN – 587301.

¶29

KUMAR AMOGH S/O. RANGAPPA KUNCHANUR @ DHANAGAR, AGE 06 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. HUNASIKATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587301 (THE RESPONDENTS 9, 10, 11 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.8)

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI. MAHANTESH R. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6; SRI. VIJAYKUMAR B. HORATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R8 TO R11; SRI. A.C. CHAKALABBI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; R7- SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶32

THIS RFA FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.02.2020 IN O.S.NO.135/2016 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT JAMKHANDI, AND DISMISS THE SUIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC-D:18082 RFA No. 100026 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 100182 of 2021

¶35

IN RFA NO.100182/2021 BETWEEN:

¶36

SMT. SHARADA W/O RANGAPPA KUNCHANUR @ DHANAGAR, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLDWORK, R/O. HUNASIKATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN. 587301.

¶37

KUMARI. GYANAWWA D/O. RANGAPPA KUNCHANUR @ DHANAGAR, AGE. 14 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. HUNASIKATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN. 587301.

¶38

KUMARI. SURMMADEVI D/O. RANGAPPA KUNCHANUR @ DHANAGAR, AGE. 13 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. HUNASIKATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN. 587301.

¶39

KUMAR AMOGH S/O. RANGAPPA KUNCHANUR @ DHANAGAR AGE. 07 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. HUNASIKATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN. 587301

¶40

THE APPELLANTS NO. 2 TO 4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN APPELLANT NO.1

¶41

…APPELLANTS

¶42

(BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR B. HORATTI, ADVOCATE)

¶43

AND:

¶44

KUMARI AKSHATA

¶45

- 5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18082 RFA No. 100026 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 100182 of 2021

¶46

D/O. RANGAPPA KUNCHANUR @ DHANAGAR, AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. HUNASIKATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN. 587301.

¶47

KUMARI. RAKSHA D/O. RANGAPPA KUNCHANUR @ DHANAGAR, AGE. 14 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. HUNASIKATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN. 587301

¶48

SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY

¶49

HER MOTHER I.E, RESPONDENT NO.1

¶50

SMT. BHARATI W/O. RANGAPPA KUNCHANUR @ DHANAGAR, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. HUNASIKATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN. 587301.

¶51

SRI. RANGAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA KUNCHANUR @ DHANAGAR, AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HUNASIKATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN. 587301.

¶52

SRI. CHIDANAND S/O. RAMAPPA KUNCHANUR @ DHANAGAR, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HUNASIKATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN. 587301.

¶53

SMT. SHANTAWWA W/O. RAMAPPA KUNCHANUR @ DHANAGAR, AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLDWORK, R/O. HUNASIKATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT,

¶54

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18082 RFA No. 100026 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 100182 of 2021

¶55

PIN. 587301. SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HER LR’S RESPONDENT NO.4 AND RESPONDENT NO.5.

¶56

SMT. SAROJINI W/O. CHIDANAND KUNCHANUR @ DHANAGAR, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLDWORK, R/O. HUNASIKATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN. 587301.

¶57

SMT. YALLAWWA W/O. CHIDANAND KUNCHANUR @ DHANAGAR, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLDWORK, R/O. HUNASIKATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN. 587301.

¶58

SRI. MAHADEV S/O. SIDDAPPA JEERGAL AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HUNASIKATTI, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN. 587301.

¶59

…RESPONDENTS

¶60

(BY SRI. A.C. CHAKALABBI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. MAHANTESH R. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R5, R7 AND R8; R6- SERVED; R9- SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶61

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.02.2020 IN O.S.NO. 135/2016 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., AT JAMKHANDI, AND FURTHER TO GRANT THE SHARE TO THE APPELLANTS BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶62

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

¶63

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18082 RFA No. 100026 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 100182 of 2021

¶64

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶65

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶66

These appeals are arising from a decree for partition.

¶67

The genealogy furnished by the plaintiffs is as under:

¶68

Ramappa (Propositus)
Shantawwa (Wife) (Died) D3
Rangappa Chidanad
D1 D2
Bharati (Wife) Sharada
(Pltf) (Wife) (D7)
Akshata Rakshita
(Pltf) (Pltf)
Amogh Surmmadevi Gyanavva
D 10 D9 D8
Sarojini Yallawwa
(Wife) (Wife)
D4 D5

¶69

Ramappa the propositus had two sons from his

¶70

wife Shantawwa. First son Rangappa is arrayed as defendant No.1 and second son Chidanand is arrayed as Defendant No.2 and Shantawwa, the wife of propositus is arrayed as defendant No.3.

¶71

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18082 RFA No. 100026 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 100182 of 2021

¶72

The suit is filed by Bharati, the wife of Rangappa and her two children Akshata and Rakshita. Bharati is 1^st wife. The suit is filed against Rangappa, Chidananda who are defendants No.1 and 2 respectively and also defendant No.3 Shantawwa, the wife of propositus and defendants No.4 and 5 are the two wives of Chidananada, the second son of propositus Ramappa.

¶73

The defendant No.6 is the purchaser of one of suit properties and defendant No.7 Sharada is the 2^nd wife of Rangappa and defendants No.8 to 10 are the children of 2^nd wife of defendant No.1-Rangappa.

¶74

The suit is filed on the premise that the properties are ancestral properties. It is not in dispute that suit ‘A’ to ‘D’ properties are the ancestral properties. It is contended that since there is no partition between defendants No.1 to 5 the suit is not maintainable.

¶75

It is further stated that RS No.26/2/1 of Mareguddi village has been sold to defendant No.6 for

¶76

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18082 RFA No. 100026 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 100182 of 2021

¶77

legal necessity by defendants No.1 and 2, as such, the suit is not maintainable in respect of the said properties.

¶78

Defendants No.2 to 5 have also filed written statement disputing that the suit properties are the ancestral properties and they contend that RS No.26/2/1 was sold for legal necessity. Defendant No.6 has filed a written statement contending that he has purchased RS No.26/2/1 which is sold for family necessity.

¶79

Defendants No.7 to 10 filed written statement contending that the plaintiff No.3 is not entitled to any share on the premise that her marriage is dissolved and they prayed for dismissal of the suit.

¶80

The trial Court has concluded that the suit properties are ancestral properties and granted a decree for partition in favour of plaintiffs No.1 and 2. The suit is dismissed insofar as the claim of plaintiff No.3 is concerned on the premise marriage of plaintiff No.3 is dissolved. However, maintenance is awarded. No share is

¶81

10 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18082 RFA No. 100026 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 100182 of 2021

¶82

allotted to defendants No.7 to 10. Hence, RFA No.100026/2022 is filed by defendant No.1 and RFA No.100182/2021 filed by defendants No.7 to 10.

¶83

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both the appeals and the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/respondents in both the appeals.

¶84

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that the Court ought to have granted share in favour of defendants No.7 to 10 who are 2^nd wife and children of defendant No.1 Rangappa. It is their contention that as per Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the children born from 2^nd marriage are also entitled to share in the property. It is also contended that since marriage of plaintiff No.3 is dissolved by the time the suit was decreed, the marriage of the defendant No.7 (2^nd wife) should be treated as valid marriage and she should

¶85

be given a share and defendants No.8 to 10 who are children from 2^nd marriage should also be given a share.

¶86

11 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18082 RFA No. 100026 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 100182 of 2021

¶87

Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff would contend that the marriage was dissolved during the pendency of the suit for partition. Alleged 2^nd marriage took place when the first marriage was subsisting. Thus, even if the marriage was dissolved when the suit was pending consideration, 2^nd marriage does not become valid unless the marriage takes place after the dissolution of the 1^st marriage. It is also his contention that the appeal is pending before this Court wherein, the decree for dissolution of marriage is questioned, as such, the defendant No.2 cannot claim that she is the legally wedded wife of defendant No.1

¶88

It is his further contention that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Revansiddappa & Anr. v. Mallikarjun & Ors.¹ t he children born from the void marriage are not entitled to claim share in the properties on par with the children born from the first marriage. They can claim the share only in

¶89

1 (2023) 14 S.C.R.320

¶90

12 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18082 RFA No. 100026 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 100182 of 2021

¶91

a separate property of the father and since father is alive

¶92

they are not entitled to claim share.

¶93

This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. The following points arise for consideration;

¶94

i) Whether the appellants in RFA No.100182/2021 establish that because of decree for dissolution of marriage, when the suit for partition was pending for consideration, 2^nd wife becomes a legally wedded wife, and 2^nd wife and children born from 2^nd wife are entitled to share in the properties?

¶95

ii) Whether the children from the 2^nd wife are entitled to claim share in the ancestral properties during the lifetime of the father?

¶96

The three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme

¶97

Court, in the case of Revanasiddappa and Anr. Vs.

¶98

Mallikarjun & Ors. (supra) has considered the question of entitlement of children from void marriage to claim

¶99

13 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18082 RFA No. 100026 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 100182 of 2021

¶100

share in the ancestral/coparcenary property of the parents.

¶101

The Full Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court, after considering the status legitimacy of the children born from void marriage, under Section 16(1) of 16(2) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has concluded that such status of legitimacy does not extend to confer rights in respect of coparcenary property, and such status would only extend the right to claim share in the parents' property.

¶102

The right to claim share in the parents' property would arise only after the demise of the parents. Admittedly, the defendant No.1 is alive and he is the father of defendants No.8 to 10 from the second wife.

¶103

This being the position, defendants No.8 to 10 are not entitled to a share in the property allotted to the share of defendant No.1. They can claim right over the property only after the demise of defendant No.1. Hence

¶104

14 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18082 RFA No. 100026 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 100182 of 2021

¶105

the Trial Court is justified in not granting share in favor of defendants No.8 to 10.

¶106

As far as defendant No.7 is concerned, she being the second wife, whose marriage was performed during the subsistence of the first marriage, is not entitled to claim share.

¶107

Sri.Shivaraj Mudhol, learned counsel for the appellant urged that, by the time the suit is decreed granting partition, the petition seeking dissolution of marriage of plaintiff No.3 was also allowed. Thus, he would urge that the second wife should have been allotted a share in the property and so also her children. This Court is of the view that the dissolution of marriage of first wife will not automatically validate the second marriage, which was void from the date of second marriage. It is not the case of the second wife, defendant No.7, that immediately after the dissolution of marriage by the Court, the defendant No.1 married the defendant No.7. Her contention is that the marriage took place somewhere

¶108

15 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18082 RFA No. 100026 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 100182 of 2021

¶109

around 2006–2007, when the first marriage with plaintiff No.3 was subsisting. Hence, the dissolution of marriage of plaintiff No.3 and defendant No.1 does not validate the invalid marriage automatically. Defendants No.8 to 10, are the children from the second wife born before the dissolution of the marriage of plaintiff No.3. Hence, they

¶110

are the children born from void marriage for all practical purposes. Hence, the contention that the decree for dissolution of marriage in favor of defendant No.1 would confer the right to defendants No.8 to 10 to claim share in the properties is not acceptable.

¶111

The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Revanasiddappa

¶112

(supra), in terms of paragraph No.54(iii) and (x), has held as under:

¶113

We now formulate our conclusions in the following terms:

¶114

(i) xxxxxxxxxx

¶115

(ii) xxxxxxxxxx

¶116

(iii) While conferring legitimacy in terms of subsection (1) on a child born from a void marriage and under sub-section (2) to a child born from a voidable marriage which has been annulled, the

¶117

NC: 2024:KHC-D:18082 RFA No. 100026 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 100182 of 2021

¶118

16 -

¶119

legislature has stipulated in sub-section (3) of Section 16 that such a child will have rights to or in the property of the parents and not in the property of any other person;

(iv) xxxxxxxxxx

(v) xxxxxxxxxxx

(vi) xxxxxxxxxx

(viii) xxxxxxxxxx

(ix) xxxxxxxxxxx

(x) The provisions of the HSA 1956 have to be harmonized with the mandate in Section 16(3) of the HMA 1955 which indicates that a child who is conferred with legitimacy under sub-sections (1) and (2) will not be entitled to rights in or to the property of any person other than the parents. The property of the parent, where the parent had an interest in the property of a Joint Hindu family governed under the Mitakshara law has to be ascertained in terms of the Explanation to subsection (3), as interpreted above.

¶126

On going through the said paragraph No.54 (iii) and (x), it is apparent that the children from a void marriage are not entitled to claim a share in the coparcenary property on par with the children from a valid marriage.

¶127

17 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18082 RFA No. 100026 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 100182 of 2021

¶128

It is stated that plaintiff No.3 has filed an appeal before this Court challenging the decree for dissolution of marriage. Learned counsel for plaintiff No.3/respondent No.3 would contend that, in exercise of power under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court may award a share in favor of plaintiff No.3, notwithstanding the fact that no appeal has been filed by plaintiff No.3. The said contention cannot be accepted. When the decree for partition was passed, plaintiff No.3 was not the wife of defendant No.1, as the marriage was dissolved by a decree passed by the competent court.

¶129

No doubt, there is an appeal pending before this Court. Merely because the appeal is pending, it does not mean that the status as the wife of defendant No.1 has revived. The status gets revived only in the event of the decree for dissolution of marriage is set aside. Such an

¶130

eventuality has not happened.

¶131

18 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18082 RFA No. 100026 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 100182 of 2021

¶132

Under the circumstances, plaintiff No.3 is not entitled to claim any share. However, in case the decree for dissolution of marriage is set aside, and the petition seeking restitution of marriage is dismissed, then plaintiff No.3 would also be entitled to a share in the property of defendant No.1. In that event, plaintiff No.3 is entitled to move an application in final decree proceeding pending/concluded, to claim a share in the property of defendant No.1.

¶133

It is further noticed that defendant No.3, who was awarded 1/3^rd share, has died. She is survived by Class-I heirs Rangappa - defendant No.1 and Chidanand – defendant No.2. Both of them would inherit 1/6^th share each from defendant No.3.

¶134

Rangappa's 1/3^rd share which he inherited before the demise of defendant No.3 will have to be divided into three shares. In such an event, Rangappa will have 1/9^th share, his daughters Akshata and Rakshita each will have 1/9^th share.

¶135

19 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18082 RFA No. 100026 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 100182 of 2021

¶136

As far as 1/6^th share inherited by Rangappa from his mother defendant No.3, will remain with Rangappa.

¶137

Shri. Shivaraj Mudhol, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that ₹4,500/- maintenance granted by the Trial Court is unjustified and it is excessive. Considering extent of properties held by defendant No.1 and that defendant No.1, along with his two children, is entitled to 16 acres of land, this Court is of the view that ₹4,500/- awarded by the Trial Court is not excessive.

¶138

When the decree was passed by the Trial Court, the status of plaintiff No.3 was that of a divorcée. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court passed an order awarding maintenance of ₹4,500/- per month. The said decree shall be in force subject to the decree to be passed in the pending MFA challenging the decree for divorce. However, the observations made in this case cannot come in the way of plaintiff No.3 seeking enhancement of maintenance in accordance with law.

¶139

20 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18082 RFA No. 100026 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 100182 of 2021

¶140

Sri. S. B. Doddagoudar, learned counsel

¶141

appearing for the respondents contended that the mother had 1/3^rd share in the properties. However, she died during the pendency of the appeal, before final decree is drawn and allotment of share. Thus, it is his contention that it has to be treated as if she has not inherited 1/3^rd share at any point of time and the properties should be deemed to have been inherited by two sons of the propositus.

¶142

This contention has to be rejected.

¶143

There is no such proposition in law to say that the party, who dies during the pendency of the suit, should be deemed to have not inherited any right. Even if the party dies during the pendency of the suit, before the final decree being drawn, his share would devolve on the heirs as specified under the provisions relating to

¶144

21 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18082 RFA No. 100026 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 100182 of 2021

¶145

succession. Hence, 1/3^rd share of Shantawwa will devolve upon two sons equally.

¶146

Thus, defendant No.1 will acquire 1/6^th share and defendant No.4 will acquire 1/6^th share from their mother Shantawwa. Rangappa’s 1/6^th share which he inherited from his mother Shantawwa will remain with him and in that 1/6^th share, his wife and daughters Akshata and Rakshita will not get any share, during his life time, as his daughters and wife are not recognized as heirs under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

¶147

Hence, the following:

¶148

ORDER

¶149

i. RFA No.100026/2022 is allowed in part. ii. Judgment and decree dated 24.02.2020 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Jamkhandi, in O.S.No.135/2016, are modified.

¶150

iii. The suit of the plaintiffs is decreed in part.

¶151

22 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18082 RFA No. 100026 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 100182 of 2021

¶152

iv. Plaintiff No.1 is entitled to 1/9^th share, Plaintiff No.2 is entitled to 1/9^th share, in the share of defendant No.1 Rangappa, which he inherited from his father Ramappa.

¶153

v. Defendant No.1 is entitled to 1/6^th share, which he inherited from his mother Shantawwa and in addition he is entitled to 1/9^th share.

¶154

vi. Chidanand, defendant No.2, will have 1/3^rd share which he inherited from Ramappa and 1/6^th share which he inherited from his mother Shantawwa i.e., ½ share in the suit schedule properties.

¶155

vii. Plaintiff No.3, in the event of she succeeding in the pending appeal challenging the decree for dissolution of marriage, is entitled to claim equal share along with the daughters in the property Rangappa. In that event, each of the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 will have 1/12^th share in 1/3^rd share of Rangappa, which he

¶156

23 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:18082 RFA No. 100026 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 100182 of 2021

¶157

inherited from his father Ramappa. And, Rangappa will have 1/12^th share in the 1/3^rd share which he inherited from Ramappa. In addition to that, defendant No.1 Rangappa will have 1/6^th share which he inherited from his mother.

¶158

viii. RFA No.100182/2021 filed by the second wife is dismissed.

¶159

ix. The suit is dismissed in respect of item No.5 property. The said decree is not challenged by the plaintiffs. Hence, the decree of dismissal of the suit in respect of item No.5 property is affirmed.

¶160

x. No order as to cost.

¶161

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶162

CHS – upto para 7 gab – para 8 to end CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45

Smt. Sharada W/O Rangappa Kunchanur @ Dhanagar v. Kumari Akshata D/O Rangappa Kunchanur @ Dhanagar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sharada W/O Rangappa Kunchanur @ Dhanagar v. Kumari Akshata D/O Rangappa Kunchanur @ Dhanagar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Eramma W/O K.Thimmappa, Vs K.T. Hanumanthappa

Smt.Paravva W/O Devappa Huli Vs Veerupaxappa S/O Chandrappa Angadi

Sri Gururaj @ Gurudev S/O Gurusangappa Hurakadli Vs Jayantilal S/O Vimalachand Telisara

Manjula W/O Fakkirappa Savanur Vs Champakka W/O Sanganabasappa Vanahalli

Smt.Shobha W/O Basavaraj Tubaki Vs Smt.Suvarna W/O Shankar Moradi

Draxayani W/O Veerupaxappa Vs Basavannevva W/O Sakkaragouda