Allowed

Sri. Sanna Eeraiah v. Smt. Deviramma

Karnataka HC12 Jun 2024RSA/2197/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal, the High Court of Karnataka set aside the First Appellate Court's grant of partition shares over self-acquired property (Item No. 2) because the plaintiff failed to file an appeal against the Trial Court's order rejecting that specific claim. The Court held the First Appellate Court exceeded jurisdiction by granting relief on an unappealed portion.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court granting partition and separate possession in respect of Item No. 2 is set aside; the Trial Court's decree is confirmed.

Sri. Sanna Eeraiah Vs Smt. Deviramma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:20796 RSA No. 2197 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2197 OF 2018 (PAR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. SANNA EERAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O LATE ERAIAH, R/AT YAMAGUMBA VILLAGE, HANAGODU VILLAGE, HUNSUR TALUK-571 105 (BY SRI. B.S. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SMT. DEVIRAMMA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, W/O DASAIAH, R/AT YAMAGUMBA VILLAGE, HANAGODU HOBLI, HUNSUR-571 105

¶12

SMT. NANJAMMA W/O LATE EERAIAH, (DEAD) VIDE ORDER DATED 28.03.2023 APPELLANT, R1, R3 AND R4 ARE LRS. OF DECEASED R2

¶13

SRI NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O LATE ERAIAH, R/AT NELLUR PALA VILLAGE, HUNSUR-571 105

¶14

SRI SANNA HYDAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:20796 RSA No. 2197 of 2018

¶16

S/O LATE ERAIAH, R/AT RAVANDUR HOSALLI VILLAGE AND HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA-571 105

¶17

SMT. DEVIRAMMA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, W/O CHANDRAIAH, R/AT THATTEKERE VILLAGE, HANAGODU HOBLI, HUNSUR-571 105

¶18

SMT. SANOORAMA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, W/O BOMMAIAH, R/AT HOSURU GATE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HUNSUR-571 105

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. H.GOPALAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 5; RESPONDENT NOS.1, 3 AND 6 ARE SERVED; RESPONDENT NO.2 IS DEAD)

¶21

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.06.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.7/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., HUNSUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.07.2015 PASSED IN O.S.NO.25/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., HUNSUR.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:20796 RSA No. 2197 of 2018

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This second appeal is filed questioning the reversing of judgment of the Trial Court and on perusal of records, it discloses that the Trial Court granted the relief of partition in respect of item Nos.1 and 3 and rejected the claim in respect of item No.2 of the properties.

¶26

The appellant in R.A. challenged granting of decree in respect of item Nos.1 and 3 of the properties before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court granted the relief of share in respect of item No.2 also in the absence of the appeal filed by the plaintiff and hence, second appeal is filed before this Court.

¶27

Having heard the appellant's counsel and also on perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and record discloses that no appeal is filed by the plaintiff as against the rejection of the claim in respect of item No.2 and the First Appellate Court granted relief in respect of item No.2 i.e., inclusive of all the suit schedule properties.

¶28

This Court while admitting the appeal, framed the following substantial question of law:

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:20796 RSA No. 2197 of 2018

¶30

"Whether Appellate Court in absence of appeal by the plaintiff insofar as suit schedule item No.2 is concerned, erred in granting share to the plaintiff in suit schedule item No.2, which was held to be self acquired property of defendant No.2 by the Trial Court ?"

¶31

The only issue before this Court for consideration is whether the First Appellate Court in the absence of appeal by the plaintiff insofar as suit schedule item No.2 is concerned erred in granting share to the plaintiff which was held to be the self acquired property of defendant No.2 by the Trial Court.

¶32

This Court also dispensed the filing of paper book. Having considered the substantial question of law framed by this Court and also considering the material on record, no doubt the plaintiff has sought for the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of all the suit schedule properties in O.S No.25/2007 and the Trial Court granted relief only in respect of item Nos.1 and 3 as 1/6^th share along with defendant Nos.2 to 6 equally but declined to grant any relief in respect of item No.2. This order was not challenged by the plaintiff by filing any appeal but defendant No.2 only filed the

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:20796 RSA No. 2197 of 2018

¶34

appeal in R.A. No.7/2016 and other defendants have not challenged the judgment and decree. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal in part and modified the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in respect of item Nos.1 and 3 of the suit schedule properties and set it aside in respect of the item No.2 of the suit schedule properties. Admittedly, there is no any appeal filed by the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule item No.2 and the First Appellate Court ought not to have granted any relief when there is no any challenge. Once the Trial Court held that the said property is property of defendant No.2, the First Appellate Court committed an error in granting a share in respect of item No.2 also when there is a clear finding that item No.2 is the self acquired property of defendant No.2. Hence, the First Appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction, when there is no any appeal filed by the plaintiff, in even granting relief of partition in respect of item No.2 and hence, substantial question of law framed by this Court is answered as affirmative. Accordingly, substantial question of law is answered and granting of relief in respect of item No.2 is set aside.

¶35

In view of the discussion made above, I pass the

¶36

following:

¶37

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:20796 RSA No. 2197 of 2018

¶38

ORDER

¶39

i. The second appeal is allowed.

¶40

ii. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court in granting the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of item No.2 of the suit schedule properties is set aside and judgment and decree of the Trial Court is confirmed.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

sma

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52

Sri. Sanna Eeraiah v. Smt. Deviramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Sanna Eeraiah v. Smt. Deviramma

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

V Bhasker Naidu, Vs Mayamma

Shivanna N E Vs Sri Veerupaksha S v

Sri Manchappa K Vs the Chief Secretary

K. Shreedhar Dixith Vs K. L. Ramesh

Sathisha Vs State of Karnataka

Prakash Vs State of Karnataka