The High Court dismissed a second appeal under Section 100 CPC against concurrent findings that the plaintiff is entitled to a 1/2 share in ancestral property. The court held that revenue entries alone do not establish exclusive ownership or constitute a waiver of rights by the plaintiff's father.
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 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 55 OF 2023 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SMT. RATHNAMMA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HER LRS
Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BOTH APPELLANT NOS. 4 AND 5 ARE R/AT NO. 109, 1ST FLOOR, 19TH MAIN, J.C. NAGAR, KURUBARAHALLI BENGALURU-560086.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. T.A. CHANDRA SEKHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.07.2022 PASSED IN R.A.NO.12/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHALLAKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.01.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.169/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHALLAKERE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
learned counsel for appellants and learned counsel for respondent.
propositus Chaluvadappa. The grand father of defendant Nos.2 to 6 and father of plaintiff Yallappa and Sathyappa were ignorant and illiterate persons and they have no worldly wise knowledge. After the death of their father they were not made any attempts to change the khata of suit schedule properties. But they were in joint possession
and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. After the death of said Yallappa and Sathyappa, their legal heirs i.e., plaintiff and father of the defendant Nos.2 to 6 had
been in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties as joint owners thereof.
revenue authorities without making proper enquiry mutated in the joint names of Yogaraj S/o Chaluvadappa and his mother Lakkamma W/o Chaluvadappa of Belegere Village. Though the katha of suit schedule properties were changed in the name of the Yograj and his mother, but plaintiff and N.Rangaiah had been in joint possession and enjoyment of suit properties. That in the year 1999 the plaintiff and father of defendant Nos.2 to 6 have got knowledge about the change of katha of suit properties in the joint names of Yogaraj and his mother. After knowing the said fact, immediately challenged the said mutation proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner at Chitradurga in R.A.No.69/99-2000. The said appeal was instituted only in the name of N.Rangaiah who is the cousin brother of plaintiff and senior male member of the family thereby the plaintiff was not actively participated in the appeal proceedings. In that appeal the respondents have appeared and submits no objection and consented for allowing the appeal, accordingly the Assistant Commissioner, Chitradurga has allowed the appeal on
16.06.2000. As per the orders passed in R.A.No.69/992000, the revenue authorities have changed the katha of suit schedule properties in the name of N.Rangaiah who is the cousin of plaintiff. At that time the plaintiff had also expressed for entering her name with her brother N.Rangaiah in the khata of suit properties jointly. But, the said N.Rangaiah one or the other reason prolonged the matter and moreover the plaintiff and her brother N.Rangaiah were in cordial terms with each other and also both were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties, thereby the plaintiff had not made efforts to change the katha of suit properties. The katha of suit properties were standing in the name of N.Rangaiah. Thereafter, the said N.Rangaiah and his son Thilak i.e., defendant No.6 colluding with each other, taking the advantage of the Katha standing in the name of the N.Rangaiah and in order to deprive the plaintiff’s legitimate share in item No.1 of suit schedule property by creating false genealogical tree and submit the same before the Sub-Registrar, Challakere and got-up the
collusive partition deed in respect of item No.1 of suit schedule property. The said N.Rangaiah and defendant No.6 have no exclusive right over the item No.1 of suit schedule property by making division under the registered partition deed dated 12.08.2008. The alleged partition deed is a collusive one and got-up the same behind the back of plaintiff, thereby the alleged partition deed dated 12.08.2008 is not binding on the plaintiff’s legitimate half share.
NC: 2024:KHC:25340 RSA No. 55 of 2023
suit schedule property exclusively belongs to Rangaiah and the plaintiff is not entitled for any share and also contended that the plaintiff is not having any right or interest or share or claim over the suit schedule properties. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.
placed before the Court comes to the conclusion that when the property belongs to the Chaluvadappa the plaintiff is also entitled for ½ share and comes to the conclusion that registered partition deed not binding on the plaintiff. Hence, the Trial Court granted the relief of ½ share.
are the sons of the said Chaluvadappa and there was no any division between both of them and also considering the evidence available on record, particularly both oral and documentary evidence, comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court has not committed any error in granting ½ share since the plaintiff is the daughter of said Yallappa and the same is extracted in paragraph No.41 considering the admission on the part of the witnesses and dismissed the appeal.
decree of concurrent finding, present second appeal is filed before this Court. The counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that both the Courts fail to consider the document of Ex.D1 to Ex.D6 particularly those documents clearly discloses that the property stands in the name of Rangaiah and those documents are clearly demonstrate that father of the plaintiff left out the family property, in such a situation left out person ought to have
NC: 2024:KHC:25340 RSA No. 55 of 2023
made the claim within a period of 12 years failing which
the right of person is deemed to have barred by time.
that when the property stands in the name of Rangaiah,
during the life time of Sathyappa, when he did not claim any share, the plaintiff cannot claim any share. Hence, this Court has to frame the substantial question of law whether both the Courts have committed an error in granting the relief in favour of the plaintiff when she waived her right. Both the Courts fail to take note of the fact that plaintiff claim is barred by law. The very approach of both the Courts is erroneous.
Sathyappa who is the father of the plaintiff has waived his right during his life time and the said contention cannot be accepted. No dispute with regard to the fact that the property belongs to the Chaluvadappa and mere entry made in the name of Rangaiah cannot prove that he is an exclusive owner of the property. Both the Courts taking into note of material available on record, rightly granted ½ share in respect of the suit schedule properties.
learned counsel for respondent and also considering the material available on record, there is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties and also the Chaluvadappa is the propositus of the family is also not in dispute. The property also earlier standing in the name of the Chaluvadapa is also not in dispute. Subsequently, the properties are transferred in favour of the grand son is also not in dispute and also no khata was changed in the name of the sons of the Chaluvadappa i.e., Yallappa and Sathyappa is also not in dispute. Having taken note of the
said fact into consideration and mere changing of entry in the male member of the family that too a grand son will
not defeat the right of son of the Chaluvadappa. No documentary evidence is placed before the Court that during the lifetime of Sathyappa waived his right in respect of the properties. The Trial Court also taken note of the said fact into consideration particularly in paragraph No.21 and in detail discussed the same including Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act and also taken note of material available on record, particularly the defendant contended that the property belongs to the N.Rangaiah
and none of the documents produced before the Court discloses that the property is the exclusive property of the said N.Rangaiah. When such being the case, having consider both the evidence of plaintiff as well as defendants, both the Courts comes to the conclusion that when the property belongs to the Chaluvadappa and having two sons and the plaintiff is the daughter of one Sathyappa and defendants are wife and son of one Rangaiah who is the grandson of Chaluvadappa and they
represents the family of Yallappa and hence they get ½ share and also the daughter of Sathyappa get ½ share and in apportioning the property also not committed any error. Even First Appellate Court also while re-appreciating the evidence also in paragraph No.41 taking into note of admission on the part of witnesses that exclusively property belongs to the Chaluvadappa and having two sons and there was no any partition between the Yallappa and Sathyappa. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the both the Trial Court and also the First Appellate Court in granting ½ share. The very contention of the appellant’s counsel that the document Ex.D1 to Ex.D6 have not been considered by both the Courts cannot be accepted. Those documents are only with regard to the revenue entries standing in the name of Rangaiah that too transfer was made in respect of the male member of the family that will not make any exclusive right and Trial Court and First Appellate Court have considered the issue No.3 when specific pleading was made that the property belongs to the one Rangaiah and the same is not the
property belongs to the Rangaiah and the property belongs to Chaluvadappa and hence legal heirs have entitled for equal share. Hence, I do not find any error committed by both the Courts.
ORDER
ii) In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.As., if any do not survive for consideration, the same stands disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
RHS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 95
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower courts erred in granting the plaintiff a 1/2 share in the ancestral property despite revenue entries standing in the name of the defendant's father?
Whether the plaintiff's claim is barred by limitation or waiver given that her father did not claim a share during his lifetime?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Rathnamma Since Deceased Represented By Her LRs
Smt. Kenchamma
H.P.Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
