Partly allowed

Nanda D/O Sharanapa Halligudi, v. Sharanappa S/O Late Veerasangappa Halligudi

Karnataka HC10 Sept 2024RFA/100324/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal and cross-objections challenge the dismissal of a partition suit. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the impugned judgment. It ordered the suit's restoration for fresh adjudication, permitting plaint amendment to include additional property and fresh evidence, while directing withdrawal of pending miscellaneous proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Suited restored for fresh adjudication with liberty to amend plaint and lead evidence; cross-miscellaneous proceedings to be withdrawn.

Nanda D/O Sharanapa Halligudi, Vs Sharanappa S/O Late… — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12951-DB RFA No. 100324 of 2020 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶8

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100324 OF 2020 (PAR/POS)

¶9

C/W

¶10

RFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100017 OF 2023

¶11

IN RFA NO. 100324/2020

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

NANDA D/O. SHARANAPPA HALLIGUDI, AGE:25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: SINGANAL-583 227,

¶14

TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶15

SANTOSH S/O. SHARANAPPA HALLIGUDI AGE:22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: SINGANAL-583 227,

¶16

TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶17

VIJAY KUMAR S/O. SHARANAPPA HALLIGUDI AGE: YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: SINGANAL-583 227,

¶18

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶19

TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶20

(BY SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE)

¶21

…APPELLANTS

¶22

AND:

¶23

SHARANAPPA S/O. LATE VEERASANGAPPA HALLIGUDI SINCE DECEASED LR’S ARE ALREADY ON RECORDS

¶24

AS APPELLANTS AND RESPONDENT NO. 10.

¶25

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12951-DB RFA No. 100324 of 2020 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2023

¶26

VIRUPAKSHAPPA S/O. LATE VEERASANGAPPA HALLIGUDI, AGE:59 YEARS, OCC: AGRIOCULTURE AND BUSAINESS, R/O: K.H.B. COLONY, HOSPET ROAD, KOPPAL-583 231, TQ/DIST: KOPPAL.

¶27

VEERANNA S/O. SANNA HANUMAPPA HOSALLI AGE:61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOSALLI-583 234, TQ/DIST: KOPPAL.

¶28

M. RAJESH S/O. M. VAJANATH AGE:59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOPPAL-583 234M TQ/DIST: KOPPAL.

¶29

SHIVAMMA W/O. LATE VEERASANGAPPA HALLIGUDI, AGE:94 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: C/W: VIRUPAKSHAPPA HALLIGUDI, NAVODAYA TRADING COMPANY, HUDCO COLONY, TQ/DIST: KOPPAL-583 231.

¶30

SUSHILAMMA W/O. MUDAKAPPA AGE:69 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O: TIGERI VILLAGE-583 226, TQ/DIST: KOPPAL.

¶31

SUBBAMMA W/O. BASAPPA AGE:65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O: TIGERI VILLAGE-583 226, TQ/DIST: KOPPAL.

¶32

AMRUTHAMMA W/O. GURANGOUDA AGE:59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: NEAR B.ED. COLLEGE, BIJAPUR-586 101, TQ/DIST: BIJAPUR.

¶33

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12951-DB RFA No. 100324 of 2020 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2023

¶34

JAYAMMA W/O. MALLAPPA MORALAPURA AGE:54 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD, R/O: GADIYAR KAMBA, KOPPAL-583 231, TQ/DIST: KOPPAL.

¶35

SMT. ANUSUYA W/O. SHARANAPPA HALLIGUDI, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SINGANAL, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL 583227.

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI. RAVI S. BALIKAI, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R5 TO R9; SRI. SABEEL AHMED ADVOCATE FOR R10; R3 AND R4 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH; R1-DECEASED)

¶38

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:18.06.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.51/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOPPAL, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.

¶39

IN RFA CROB. NO.100017/2023

¶40

BETWEEN:

¶41

VIRUPAKSHAPPA S/O. LATE VEERASANGAPPA HALLIGUDI AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. AGRIL, AND BUSINESS, R/O.K.H.B.COLONY, HOSPET ROAD, KOPPAL-581231.

¶42

…CROSS OBJECTOR

¶43

(BY SRI. RAVI S. BALIKAI AND SRI. VINUT R. BALIKAI, ADVOCATES)

¶44

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12951-DB RFA No. 100324 of 2020 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2023

¶45

AND:

¶46

SMT. NANDA D/O. SHARANAAPPA HALLIGUDI AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O.SINGANAL TQ. GANGAVATHI DIST. KOPPAL-583231.

¶47

SANTOSH S/O. SHARANAAPPA HALLIGUDI AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT R/O.SINGANAL TQ. GANGAVATHI DIST. KOPPAL-583231.

¶48

VIJAY KUMAR S/O. SHARANAAPPA HALLIGUDI AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT R/O.SINGANAL, TQ. GANGAVATHI DIST. KOPPAL-583231.

¶49

SHARANAPPA S/O. LATE VEERASANGAPPA HALLIGUDI SINCE DECEASED HIS LR’S ARE RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO 3 AND RESPONDENT NO. 12.

¶50

VEERANNA S/O. SANNA HANUMAAPPA HOSALLI AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE. R/O. HOSALLI

¶51

TQ. DIST. KOPPAL-583231.

¶52

MR. M. RAJESH S/O. M.VIJANATH AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE. R/O. 2ND MAIN CROSS, TQ. DIST. KOPPAL-583231.

¶53

SMT. SHIVAMMA W/O. VEERASANGAPPA HALLIGUDI AGE. 96 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. C/O. VIRUPAKSHAPPA, HALLIGUDI NAVODAYA TRADING COMPANY, HUDCO COLONY, DIST. KOPPAL-583231.

¶54

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12951-DB RFA No. 100324 of 2020 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2023

¶55

SMT. SUSHILAMMA W/O. MUDUKAPPA AGE. 72 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. TIGRI VILLAGE-583226 TQ. DIST. KOPPAL.

¶56

SMT. SUBBAMMA W/O. BASAPPA AGE. 68 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. TIGRI VILLAGE-583226 TQ. DIST. KOPPAL.

¶57

SMT. AMRUTHAMMA W/O. GURANAGOUDA AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NEAR B.ED. COLLEGE, VIJAYAPUR-586101.

¶58

SMT. JAYAMMA W/O. MALLAPPA MARALAPURA AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NEAR GADIYAR KAMBA TQ. DIST. KOPPAL-583231.

¶59

SMT. ANUSUYA W/O. SHARANAPPA HALLIGUDI, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SINGANAL, TAL. GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL.

¶60

…RESPONDENTS

¶61

(BY SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3; SRI .SABEEL AHMED ADVOCATE FOR R12; R4-DECEASED; R5 TO R11 NOTICE STANDS DISPENSED WITH)

¶62

THIS RFA. CROB. IN RFA NO.100342/2020 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96(1) READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.06.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.51/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOPPAL, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FOR DECLARATION.

¶63

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶64

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12951-DB RFA No. 100324 of 2020 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2023

¶65

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶66

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶67

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD)

¶68

This appeal and cross-objections are against the judgment and decree dated 18.06.2020 in O.S.No.51/2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Koppal [for short ‘the civil Court’ ]. The appeal is by the plaintiffs and the crossobjections is by the second defendant. The parties for reasons of convenience are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

¶69

This Court must first observe that the

¶70

relationship amongst the parties is not in dispute. The deceased first defendant and the second defendant are sons of Sri Veerasangappa Halligudi, and the fifth to ninth defendants are his daughters. The plaintiffs are the children of the first defendant, and because he has died during the pendency of this appeal, his wife, Smt. Anusuya, is brought on record as a respondent both in the appeal and in the cross-objections. The deceased first defendant and Smt.

¶71

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12951-DB RFA No. 100324 of 2020 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2023

¶72

Anusuya were estranged and there were proceedings between them. The third and the fourth defendants are not the family members, but they have been arrayed as defendants allegedly because the first defendant has entered into sale agreement agreeing to transfer some of the suit schedule properties in their favour. This Court must next observe that the second defendant and the sisters [the fifth to ninth defendants] are arrayed on one side and the plaintiffs and their mother, Smt. Anusuya, is on the other. The first defendant was also with his brother and sisters.

¶73

If the plaintiffs contend all the suit schedule properties are joint family properties purchased out of the nucleus from the ancestral property, the second defendant, supported by his sisters, contends that suit item Nos.1 and 2 of Schedule ‘A’ and item No.1 of Schedule ‘B’ are ancestral properties and that the other properties are his self-acquired properties. The second defendant’s defense also includes the contention that all the ancestral properties are not included in the plaint, and it is almost in response to such defence presently application is filed under Order VI Rule 17

¶74

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12951-DB RFA No. 100324 of 2020 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2023

¶75

of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short ‘the CPC’ ] for leave to amend the plaint to include a property, which the second defendant asserts as his exclusive property.

¶76

The civil Court, in the light of the rival submissions which are encapsulated as above, has framed Issues which requires the plaintiffs to prove that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and that they must be partitioned. The civil Court has framed other Issues which requires the second defendant to prove that that suit item Nos.3, 4 and 5 of schedule ‘A’ and item No.2 of schedule ‘B’ are his self-acquired properties. The plaintiffs have examined one amongst them as PW1. The defendants have examined the second defendant and two others as DW1-DW3. The plaintiffs have produced Records of Rights and property register extract as also a copy of the same as Exs.P1-12. The defendants have marked copies of the sale deeds, a KSFC sanction letter, Income Tax returns and other revenue records.

¶77

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12951-DB RFA No. 100324 of 2020 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2023

¶78

This Court, before referring to the civil Court’s reasoning to dismiss the suit and the parties’ grievances as against such reasoning, must refer to the undisputed fact that the second defendant has filed Civil Misc.2/2023 under Order IX of CPC, which is also pending consideration with the civil Court and the submissions by Sri Anand R. Kolli and Sri Ravi S. Balikai, the learned counsels for the plaintiffs and the contesting defendants. The learned counsels are categorical in their submissions that this Court may observe that the second defendant could withdraw the aforesaid proceedings under Order IX of CPC with liberty to prosecute the present proceedings, as ultimately the question to be considered in the miscellaneous proceedings would be similar to the question that is canvassed in the present proceedings.

¶79

The civil Court has opined that the second defendant’s admission that the family owns ancestral properties strengthens the plaintiffs’ case. The civil Court has referred to the fact that the first defendant was

¶80

10 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12951-DB RFA No. 100324 of 2020 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2023

¶81

estranged from his wife and there were proceedings between them, that the second defendant is the elder member of the family, that the revenue entries for the properties stood in the name of the father, Sri. Veerasangappa Halligudi and that there has been no partition. As regards the second defendant’s defence, the civil Court after referring to exhibits, as referred to above, has opined that he cannot succeed in his case because he has not produced documents to show the payment of income tax or demonstrate independent source of income for the purchase of the properties. However, the civil Court has dismissed the suit on the ground that all the joint family properties have not been included and all the family members are not parties to the suit.

¶82

The plaintiffs have filed application for

¶83

amendment to include the property [Gram Panchayat No.414 (Old No.376), Muddaballi Gram, Koppal]. Sri Anand R. Kolli argues that with the application filed for amendment

¶84

of the plaint and even with Smt. Anusuya now being on

¶85

11 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12951-DB RFA No. 100324 of 2020 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2023

¶86

record the defects are cured, and therefore, this Court must interfere with the civil Court’s impugned and judgment and decree and restore the proceedings to the civil Court for fresh consideration. Sri Ravi S. Balikai argues that the second defendant has filed cross-objections to assert that the civil Court has not considered the evidence that shows that he has put up construction in item No.2 of schedule B after a loan is sanctioned by the KSFC which establishes that this loan is sanctioned only because of his individual income.

¶87

If the plaintiffs’ claim is rejected essentially on the ground that all the joint family properties are not included in the light of the contesting defendants assertion and if such properties now sought to be brought into the fold of litigation with an application for amendment and if the evidence is placed on record by the second defendant is not considered for its true relevance and probative value, the impugned judgment will not enable a complete adjudication of all the controversies. This Court must provide for such course of action as would enable complete adjudication

¶88

12 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12951-DB RFA No. 100324 of 2020 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2023

¶89

without driving the parties to another round of litigation or further delay when circumstances are brought out to show that there are properties which are yet to be divided amongst the family members and that evidence on record ought to have been better appreciated.

¶90

This Court is of the considered view that if there

¶91

is a remand [as is contemplated under Order XLI Rule 23A of CPC] leaving all questions open to be decided afresh with the plaintiffs being permitted to amend the plaint to include the subject property would enable a complete adjudication. This Court, while providing for such adjudication, must also provide for the second defendant to withdraw the civil miscellaneous proceedings under Order IX of CPC so that the entire controversy is decided in one suit without duplication or multiplicity of findings. Hence, the following:

¶92

ORDER

¶93

[a] The appeal and the cross-objection are allowed-in-part setting aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.06.2020 and

¶94

restoring the suit in O.S. No.51/2016 for

¶95

13 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12951-DB RFA No. 100324 of 2020 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2023

¶96

fresh adjudication with liberty to the plaintiffs to amend the plaint to include the additional property and opportunity to both the plaintiffs and the contesting defendants to lead further evidence.

¶97

[b] The plaintiffs and the contesting defendants, without further notice shall appear before the civil Court on 22.10.2024.

¶98

[c] The second defendant is reserved with liberty to seek dismissal of the civil miscellaneous proceedings in Civil Miscellaneous No.2/2023 without prejudice to contest the present suit on merits.

¶99

Sd/(B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶100

Sd/(C.M.JOSHI) JUDGE

¶101

YAN, RSH

¶102

List No.: 1 Sl. No.: 38

Nanda D/O Sharanapa Halligudi, v. Sharanappa S/O Late Veerasangappa Halligudi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanda D/O Sharanapa Halligudi, v. Sharanappa S/O Late Veerasangappa Halligudi

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

Manojkumar S/O Mallappa Walikar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Parvatevva Vs Smt.Yallavva

Panchayya S/O. Basavnneyya Hiremath Vs Sri. Chandrashekharyya S/O Ajjayya Akkurmath

Shri.Mohan Balaku Patil Vs Shri.Madan Balaku Patil

Smt. Pushpavati W/O Bapusaheb Patil Vs Shri. Ajit S/O Lakhagouda Patil

Smt.Savakka Vs Shri.Vitthal