Daughter sued for partition of ancestral joint family properties. Defendant No.2 claimed a 2009 family partition, adoption by his uncle and a Will but produced no documentary evidence. Trial court decreed the suit allotting 1/4 share; first appellate court confirmed. Second appeal dismissed.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:10642 RSA No. 1271 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1271 OF 2018 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
H.S.SWAMY, S/O H.P.SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O HASAGULI VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, GUNDLUPET TALUK, PINCODE - 571 111.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR KASHIMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
D/O H.P.SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/O BHOGAIAHNA HUNDI VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, GUNDLUPET TALUK,
PINCODE - 571 111.
Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka
BOTH ARE R/O HASAGULI VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, GUNDLUPET TALUK, PINCODE - 571 111.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.C.NAGARAJ & SMT. B.N.MANJULA, ADVS., FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 & R3 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
NC: 2024:KHC:10642 RSA No. 1271 of 2018
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.01.2018 PASSED IN RA NO.189/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUNDLUPET, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 5.06.2017 PASSED IN OS NO.139/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUNDLUPET. TRIAL COURT DECREED THE SUIT. APPELLATE COURT DISMISSED THE APPEAL. THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the defendant No.2 aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 05.06.2017 passed in O.S.No.139/2010 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Gundlupet (hereinafter 'the Trial Court') and which is confirmed by the judgment and order dated 03.01.2018 passed in R.A.No.189/2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Gundlupet (hereinafter 'the First Appellate Court').
Item No.1:- Sy.No.9/2 measuring 3 acres 19 guntas, situated at Hasaguli Village, Begur Hobli, Gundlupet Taluk.
Item No.2:- Sy.No.204 measuring 4 acres 13 guntas out of which 1 acre 13 guntas situated at Hasaguli Village, Begur Hobli, Gundlupet Taluk.
Item No.3:Assessment No.402 situated at Raghavapura Village, Begur Hobli, Gundlupet Taluk .
did not appear before the Trial Court and were placed ex-parte. Defendant No.3-appellant herein filed separate written statement contending that one Puttamadappa had two sons namely Sidappa and Nagappa and a daughter by name Parvathamma. He admits that suit schedule properties are the joint family ancestral properties. However, he has taken up the contention that there was a family partition that had taken
NC: 2024:KHC:10642 RSA No. 1271 of 2018
place between Sidappa, Nagappa and Parvathamma on 13.04.2009 and as per the said partition parties are enjoying their separate shares. It is his further contention that defendant No.1 had executed the registered Will dated 14.10.2009. He further contended that he is the adopted son of Nagappa who is the second son of Puttamadappa. That he has filed a suit in O.S.No.181/2009 against said Nagappa and the said suit is pending for disposal. The plaintiff had no right, title and interest in the suit schedule properties as such sought for dismal of the suit.
"1. �ಾ�ಾ ಸ�ತು�ಗಳ� �ಾ�ಗಳ� ಮತು� ಪ���ಾ�ಗಳ ಒಟು� ಕುಟುಂಬದ
ಸ�ತು�ಗಳ� ಎಂಬುದನು� �ಾ�ಗಳ� �ಾ��ಾಲಯದ ! "ಾ#ೕತುಪ%ಸು&ಾ�'ೆ)ೕ ?
2. �ಾ�ಗಳ� ಮತು� ಪ���ಾ�ಗಳ� �ಾ�ಾ ಸ�ತು�ಗಳ "ಾ�*ೕ�ಾನುಭವದ !ರು&ಾ�'ೆ ಎಂಬುದನು� �ಾ�ಗಳ� �ಾ��ಾಲಯದ ! ರುಜು�ಾತುಪ%ಸು&ಾ�'ೆ)ೕ ?
3. �ಾ�ಗಳ� ಈ �ಾ�ೆಯ ! 0ೋ2ರುವ ಪ23ಾರವನು� ಪ4ೆಯುವ ! ಅಹ7'ೇ ?
4. 2 �ೇ ಪ���ಾ�ಯು ತನ� ಪ���ಾ�ಪತ�ದ !3ೇಳ8ಾದಅಂಶಗಳನು� �ಾ��ಾಲಯದ !ರುಜು�ಾತುಪ%ಸು&ಾ � ೆ)ೕ ?
5. �ಾ�ಗಳ� ಈ �ಾ�ೆಯನು� ಸ !ಸಲು �ಾ�ಜ� 0ಾರಣ;�ೆ ಎಂಬುದನು� "ಾ#ೕತುಪ%ಸು&ಾ�'ೆ)ೕ ?
6. �ಾವಆ�ೇಶಅಥ�ಾ%>� ?"
"1. Whether the defendant No.2/appellant has been established before the trial court that, here was a partition in joint family on 13.04.2009?
2. Whether the appellant/defendant No.2 proves that, he is the adopted son to the Nagappa S/o Puttamadappa?
3. Whether the judgment and decree of the trial court call for interference by this court?
4. What order or decree?"
NC: 2024:KHC:10642 RSA No. 1271 of 2018
NC: 2024:KHC:10642 RSA No. 1271 of 2018
equally entitled to a share therein, which fact rightly appreciated by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court warranting no interference.
the fact that even though there was a partition, the same would not take away the right of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule properties and accordingly decreed the suit. Since the defendant failed to justify or prove his contention of
NC: 2024:KHC:10642 RSA No. 1271 of 2018
plaintiff not being entitled for share in the suit schedule properties in view of the partition or in view of the alleged Will executed, nothing requires for consideration in this appeal.
the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
Sd/JUDGE
RL
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a partition of 13.04.2009 or an alleged Will defeated the plaintiff-daughter's claim to a share in ancestral joint family properties?
Whether any substantial question of law arose warranting interference in second appeal?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vineetha Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and othersApplied¶12
2020 9 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
H.S. Swamy
Devammanai
H.S. Siddappa
Rathnamma
M.G.S. Kamal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
