The appellant challenged the confirmation of a decree for half share in joint family property in partition suit by the First Appellate Court. The High Court found that the relationship and property status were established by evidence and found no substantial question of law to interfere, dismissing the second appeal.
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,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 200205 OF 2019
(PAR SPR-POSS)
BETWEEN:
LAKKAPPA S/O LATE KASHAPPA, AGE: 44 YEARS OCC: AGRI, R/O MAGANAGERA, TQ: JEWARGI, DIST: KALABURAGI-585310.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BHIMASHANKAR S/O BASANNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SACHIN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BHAGAMMA W/O MADIVALAPPA, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRI, R/O BORAGI, TQ: SINDAGI, DIST: BIJAPUR-586128.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HULEPPA HEROOR, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN R.A.01/2013 DATED 06.03.2019 BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT KALABURAGI ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S
NO.195/2005 DATED 03.08.2012 BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT JEWARGI BY DISMISSING THE SUIT AS PRAYED FOR OR MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION TO GIVE FINDING ON ALL ISSUES OR ANY OTHER NECESSARY ORDERS AS THE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE MAY KINDLY BE PASSED TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
defendant are the cousins and the father of the plaintiff and father of the defendant are brothers and constitute the joint family. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the defendant refused to share the property belonging to her father, and accordingly, plaintiff has filed suit, in OS No.5 of 1998 before the Civil Judge, (Jr.Dn), Jewargi and said suit was dismissed on 08.07.1999 for non prosecution and thereafter, the plaintiff had approached the defendant along with her well wishers on 12.04.2001 and made a demand in respect of suit schedule property and same was refused by the defendant and as such the plaintiff has filed suit in OS No.195 of 2005 on the file of the Trial Court seeking partition and separate possession insofar as subject land is concerned.
sought for dismissal of the suit on the ground of resjudicata and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit.
the facts on record, by its judgment and decree dated 06.03.2019 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in OS.No.195 of 2015. Being aggrieved by the same the appellant/defendant has preferred this Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC.
finding is perverse and accordingly, sought for interference
of this court.
the finding recorded by the courts below would indicate that, the relationship between the parties is set out as
follows:
Lakkappa (dead)
Kashappa Madivalappa (Dead) (Dead) Lakkappa Bhagamma (Appellant) (Respondent)
Defendant has disputed the relationship, however, perusal of PW2 and PW3 would indicate that, the said witnesses deposed that, the plaintiff is the daughter of Madivalappa. On careful examination of the evidence on record would indicate that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties and the plaintiff is the daughter of Madivalappa, hence, plaintiff is entitled for half share in the suit schedule property. In that view of the matter, taking into account the finding recorded by the both the Courts below, I am of the opinion that, no interference is called for in this appeal as both the courts confirmed the share of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as the defendant has not made out case for formulation of
substantial question of law under Section 100 of CPC.
Sd/JUDGE
SB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the defendant/appellant made out a substantial question of law under Section 100 of CPC to interfere with the findings on relationship and share in joint family property?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
LAKKAPPA
BHAGAMMA
E.S.INDIRESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
