Defendants challenged a first appellate decree modifying shares in ancestral agricultural land, claiming certain items were defendant No.1's self-acquired purchases. The High Court upheld concurrent findings of joint family nucleus and dismissed the second appeal at admission, holding no substantial question of law arose.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1696 OF 2022 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
ALL ARE R/AT
Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka
H. KALAPANAHALLI VILLAGE HONNUR POST DAVANAGERE 577003.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. ARJUN R KHOT.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
RESPONDENTS NOS. 1 & 2 ARE R/AT H. KALAPANAHALLI VILLAGE HONNUR PSOT DAVANAGER 577003.
RESPONDENT NOS. 3 & 4 ARE R/AT AMARAVATHI VILLAGE HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT PIN 577601.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.09.2022
PASSED IN RA.NO.77/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE. PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND PARTLY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.07.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.45/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DAVANAGERE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the defendant Nos.1 to 3 challenging the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2022 in RA No.77/2019 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere wherein the First Appellate Court has partly set aside the judgment and decree dated 29.07.2019 in O.S.No.45/2013 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere modifying the decree insofar as the shares of the parties.
referred to as they are referred to before the trial Court.
and plaintiff No.4 is son of plaintiff No.3. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that late Basappa was an agriculturist and owned agricultural land bearing Sy.Nos.30, 31, 36 and 38 of H.Kalapanahalli village. He had inherited the said lands from his father. It is further case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. Accordingly, the plaintiffs have entitled for share in the suit schedule properties. As the defendants have refused to give share in favour of the plaintiffs , the plaintiffs filed
suit in O.S.No.45/2013 seeking 1/4th share each in the suit schedule properties and also for permanent injunction.
No.2 filed separate written statement contending that father of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 had only 2.15 acres in H.kalapanahalli village and husband of plaintiff No.3 had left the village in his early age and permanently settled at Amaravathi village. Therefore, it is contended by defendant No.2 that defendant No.1 had purchased the remaining land in his favour and accordingly, he supported
NC: 2024:KHC:35699 RSA No. 1696 of 2022
the contention of the defendant No.1. As such, he sought for dismissal of the suit.
examined four witnesses as PWs.1 to 4 and marked 16 documents and the same were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.16. The defendants have examined two witnesses as DWs.1
and 2 and produced seven documents and the same were marked as Exs.D1 to D.7.
record by judgment and decree dated 29.07.2019 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs in part holding that the plaintiff Nos.1, 2 and defendant No.1 are entitled for 1/4th share each and plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for 1/4th share together and accordingly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs.
Being aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.1 to 3 have preferred appeal in RA No.77/2019 before the First Appellate Court and the same was resisted by the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the material on record by its judgment and decree dated 09.09.2022 allowed the appeal-in-part and modified the share in respect of the parties. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendants have filed this Regular Second Appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:35699 RSA No. 1696 of 2022
has also not been considered by both the Courts below.
Hence, he sought for interference of this Court.
: ವಂಶವೃ� ::
ಬಸಪ� �� ಕ�ಯಪ� (¥sË�)
ಇವರಪ���ದ�ಮ� 79 ªÀµÀð
gÀÄzÉæÃ±ï ¥sËw AiÉÆÃUÉñï, 42 ªÀµÀð
CdÓ¥Àà 60 ªÀµÀð ºÉAqÀw : CPÀ̪ÀÄä 38
ªÀµÀð ºÉAqÀw: £ÉÃvÀæ 36 ªÀµÀð
1�ೇ zsÀªÀÄðಪ�� 2�ೇ zsÀªÀÄðಪ�� ಮಕ�ಳ ಮಕ�ಳ
1) vÀ£ÀÄ 18 ವಷ$ ಅ&'ಾ)*ೆ
§¸ÀªÀÄä (¥sË�) �ೊ�ೕ� 33 ªÀµÀð 1) ಭರ" 24 ªÀµÀð 2) ಪ+�ಾ 17ವಷ$ ಅ&'ಾ)*ೆ
ಮಕಳ
1.§¸Àವ.ಾಜ 34 ªÀµÀð 1) ಉ-ಾ 16 ವಷ$
ಅ&'ಾ)*ೆ
2.gÉÃSÁ ¥sË�
aspect has been considered by both the Courts below and both the Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that defendant No.1 has not produced any cogent evidence before the Courts below with regard to the income that he had owed to purchase the suit schedule properties particularly item Nos.2 to 4 and 8 of A schedule property as his self acquired properties. Hence, I am of the view that the finding recorded by the trial Court that item Nos.2 to 4 and 8 are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants is just and proper.
P.7 and P.8 produced by the plaintiffs to establish that father of defendant No.1 had vast extent of lands and the lands reflected in the aforementioned RTC extracts shows that the said properties are the irrigated lands and they are growing paddy crops every year. In the evidence of DW.1, he has categorically admitted that his father was cultivating the properties along with plaintiff No.2 and
NC: 2024:KHC:35699 RSA No. 1696 of 2022
husband of plaintiff No.3. Hence, I am of the view that the finding recoded by the trial Court is just and proper. Insofar as the modification of the share by the First Appellate Court, despite having arrived at the conclusion that defendant No.1 has failed to establish that item Nos.2 to 4 and 8 are as his self acquired properties, I am of the view that findings recorded by the First Appellate Court in this regard is just and proper, however, modification of the share by the First Appellate Court cannot be interfered with.
below makes it clear that plaintiff No.1 is the mother of defendant No.1 and plaintiff No.2 and late Rudresh - predeceased plaintiff No.1 and as such plaintiff Nos.3 and 4, wife and son of late Rudresh are entitled for 1/4th share together in the suit schedule properties. In that view of the matter, finding recorded by both the Courts below that children of late Basappa are entitled for 1/4th share each
NC: 2024:KHC:35699 RSA No. 1696 of 2022
along with plaintiff No.1 is just and proper. I do not find any merit in the appeal and the appeal deserves dismissed at the stage of admission as the appellants have not made out a case for interference under Section 100 of CPC. Accordingly, no substantial question of law is required to be framed in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits.
SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE
SA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether items 2 to 4 and 8 of 'A' schedule property were the self-acquired properties of defendant No.1 or joint family property?
Whether the First Appellate Court's modification of the shares of the parties required interference in a second appeal?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. Ajjappa S/o Late Basappa
Sri. A. Basavaraj S/o Sri. K.B. Ajjappa
Smt. Jyothi W/o K.B. Ajjappa
Smt. Siddamma W/o Late Basappa
Sri. K.B. Yogesh S/o Late Basappa
Smt. Rekha @ Akkamma W/o Late K.R. Rudresh
E.S. Indiresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
