Dismissed

Smt.Neelamma W/O Kallanagouda Somangouda v. Smt.Pramila W/O Sugangouda Malipatil

Karnataka HC13 Nov 2024RFA/100423/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed an appeal against a first instance decree granting an equal one-sixth share to a daughter in joint family properties. Relying on Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, the bench held the daughter is a coparcener entitled to an equal share, rejecting the claim for a diminished fractional share based on a father's notional interest.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; trial court's judgment and decree granting one-sixth share to the plaintiff affirmed.

Smt.Neelamma W/O Kallanagouda Somangouda Vs Smt.Pramila W/O… — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16665-DB RFA No.100423 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 PRESENT

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶4

AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100423 OF 2019 (PAR/POS)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. NEELAMMA W/O KALLANAGOUDA SOMANGOUDA, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SIRUR, TQ: YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶8

SRI. SANNAPARATGOUDA, S/O SANGANGOUDA SOMANGOUDA, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SIRUR, TQ: YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL. NOW R/AT: RAJOOR, ASRAY COLONY, KALLUR CROSS, TQ: YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶9

APPELLANTS

¶10

(BY SRI. B. SHARANABASAWA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

MANJANNA E Digitally signed byMANJANNA E Location: High Court ofKarnataka, Dharwad BenchDate: 2024.11.20 09:51:15+0530

¶13

SMT. PRAMILA W/O SUGANGOUDA MALIPATIL, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HONDDLI, TQ: DEVADURGA, DIST: RAICHUR-584110.

¶14

SRI. VEERANGOUDA S/O KALLANAGOUDA SOMANGOUDA, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SIRUR, TQ: YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL-583201.

¶15

SMT. PRABHAVATI W/O SHARANAPPA, I.E., (PRAVATI D/O KALLANGOUDA SOMANGOUDA), AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MUDDABALLI, TQ: KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL-583201.

¶16

SMT. LALITA W/O NAGANAGOUDA NAVALI, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SIRUR, TQ: YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL-583201.

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16665-DB RFA No.100423 of 2019

¶18

SRI. BASAVARAJ, S/O FAKIRAPPA MALAGAD @ KALLAGUDI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: RAJOOR, TQ: YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL-583201.

¶19

SMT. SHARANAWWA, W/O ANDANAPPA MADINUR, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: RAJOOR, TQ: YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL-583201.

¶20

SRI. ANNADANREDDI, S/O FAKIRAPPA MALAGAD @ KALLAGUDI, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: RAJOOR, TQ: YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL-583201.

¶21

SMT. SHARANAWWA, W/O IRANNA ABBIGERI, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ADUR, TQ: YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL-583201.

¶22

RESPONDENTS

¶23

(NOTICE TO R1, R3 TO R8-SERVED; APPEAL AGAINST R2-DISMISSED)

¶24

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC. AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.01.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.31/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, YELBURGA, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION & ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR AND

¶27

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16665-DB RFA No.100423 of 2019

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR)

¶31

The Sr. Civil Judge, Yelburga by judgment dated 16.01.2019 in O.S. No. 31/2013 decreed the suit by granting 1/6^th share to the plaintiff in the suit properties and also the counter claim set up by defendants 5 to 9. Defendants 1 and 4 have preferred this appeal aggrieved by the judgment.

¶32

The pleaded facts show that Sanganagouda Basanagouda was the propositus and Basamma was his wife. They had two sons and four daughters. Plaintiff is one of the daughters of the propositus. Defendant no.1 is the widow, and defendants 2 to 3 are the children of Kallanagouda, the deceased first son of the propositus. Sannaparvathagouda is the second son of the propositus and he is defendant no.4 in the suit. Defendant no.5, 9 and one Shashikala are the other daughters. Since Shashikala was dead, her husband Basavaraj and children Sharanavva and Anand Reddy were arrayed as defendants 6 to 8 respectively.

¶33

The plaintiff stated that all the suit properties were ancestral and there was no partition of the same. Plaintiff’s

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16665-DB RFA No.100423 of 2019

¶35

demand for partition was refused and therefore she brought the suit. Defendants 1 and 4 contested the suit denying the plaintiff’s right to claim partition and took up a stand that if at all she was entitled to any share, she would get 1/18^th share in the 1/3^rd notional share of the propositus. They also stated that houses bearing no. 1/155 and a plot bearing no. 1/37 were acquired by the Government and defendants 5 to 9 received entire compensation amount. Defendant no. 9 set up counter claim and it was adopted by defendants 5 to 8.

¶36

The trial court has drawn conclusions that all the properties were the joint family properties about which there is no dispute. The counter claim set up defendants 5 to 9 fortifies the plaintiff’s case. Though defendant 1 and 4 denied the right of the plaintiff but they do not deny that the suit properties are ancestral. Although it was suggested to plaintiff by defendants 1 and 4 in the cross examination that he had paid Rs.50,000/to the plaintiff and her sisters in lieu of their shares, the same has not been established and in this view the plaintiff would become entitled to 1/6^th share and in the same way defendants 5 to 9 would also get 1/6^th share each.

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16665-DB RFA No.100423 of 2019

¶38

The above findings of the trial court cannot be said to be incorrect in as much as relationship is not disputed and nature of the properties being ancestral is also not disputed. The contesting defendants do not have a specific defence. It is not their case that there was already a partition. For payment of Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff and her sisters in lieu of their shares there is no evidence. All that they say is that plaintiff gets a share in the notional share of her father. But after the amendment to Sec.6 of the Hindu Succession Act, plaintiff being the daughter becomes a coparcener. The other daughters are also coparceners. All the coparceners take equal share. In this view we do not find merit to admit this appeal. Therefore, appeal is dismissed.

¶39

Sd/(SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR) JUDGE

¶40

Sd/(T. G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA) JUDGE

¶41

BVV LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 4

Smt.Neelamma W/O Kallanagouda Somangouda v. Smt.Pramila W/O Sugangouda Malipatil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Neelamma W/O Kallanagouda Somangouda v. Smt.Pramila W/O Sugangouda Malipatil

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

Kiran Madivalappa Mugabasav Vs Mohammad Jafar Son of Hussainsab Kallimani

Madivalappa Son of Kariyappa Mugabasava Vs Mohammad Jafar Son of Hussainsab Kallimani

Shivappa S/O Laxmappa Laxman Pujar Vs State of Karnataka through

Sri. Goudappa S/O Timmannan Patil Vs Sri. Hanamant S/O Venkappa Patil

K. Chandrasekhar S/O Late Sri.K.Hanumanthappa Vs Smt.Subamma Since Dead by Lrs.

Shri. Dattatray S/O Bharmaji Patil Vs Shri. Narayan S/O Tammanna Jangale