Dismissed

Papanna Since Dead by Lrs v. Smt Muniyamma

Karnataka HC11 Sept 2024RSA/591/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Regular Second Appeal concerns a partition suit regarding joint family property. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a later registered partition deed did not bind the plaintiff as she was not a party to it, and no valid oral partition was proven.

What did the court decide?

Regular Second Appeal dismissed at the stage of admission for failure to establish a substantial question of law.

Papanna Since Dead by Lrs Vs Smt Muniyamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:37289 RSA No. 591 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶6

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 591 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PAPANNA SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶9

SATHYANARAYANA, S/O LATE PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT S. GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.

¶10

SRIRAMA, S/O LATE PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT S. GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA

¶12

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

GANGADHARA, S/O LATE PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT S. GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.

¶14

SMT. SHARADAMMA, D/O PAPANNA, W/O CHANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT HOSAHUDYA VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:37289 RSA No. 591 of 2023

¶16

¶17

SMT MANJULA, D/O PAPANNA, W/O SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT KANITHAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.

¶18

…APPELLANTS

¶19

(BY SRI.B. R. RAGHAVENDRA.,ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

SMT MUNIYAMMA, W/O LATE VENKATARAYAPPA DEAD BY LRS

¶22

CHANNAPPA, S/O LATE VENKATARAYAPPA AND MUNIYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.

¶23

SMT MUNIYAMMA, W/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA, D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT YALUVAHALLI, VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 110.

¶24

SRIRAMAPPA, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT S. GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.

¶25

SMT LAKSHMAMMA, D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT S. GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI,

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37289 RSA No. 591 of 2023

¶27

CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.

¶28

SMT SHANTHAMMA, D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT S. GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.

¶29

MUNIRAJU, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT S. GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.

¶30

PILLA KRISHNA, S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT S. GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.

¶31

SMT. BACHAMMA DEAD BY LR's

¶32

SMT VENKATALAKSHAMMA, W/O NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT KANGANAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.

¶33

SMT JAYAMMA, W/O NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT BETTAMARENAHALLI VILLAGE, BUDIGERE POST, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI.V. SHIVAKUMAR AND SRI.LOKESH M N ., FOR C/R1)

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:37289 RSA No. 591 of 2023

¶38

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.01.2023 PASSED IN RA No. 102/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, CHIKKABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.06.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.73/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHICKBALLAPUR.

¶39

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶40

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶41

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶42

This appeal is preferred by defendant Nos.9 to 13, challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2023 passed in R.A.No.102/2019 on the file of the Principal Judge of Family Court at Chikkaballapura, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.06.2019 passed in O.S.No.73/2014 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Chikkaballapura, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.

¶43

For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the trial Court.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:37289 RSA No. 591 of 2023

¶46

It is the case of the plaintiff that, one Chikka Chinnappa-original propositor had four children, namely, (i) Muniyappa (husband of the defendant No.3 and father of defendant Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6), (ii) Muniyamma (plaintiff), (iii) Papanna (defendant No.7), and (iv) Bachamma (defendant No.8). It is further stated in the plaint that the 7^th defendant was taking care of affairs of the joint family property and the plaintiff has requested the defendants to partition the joint family properties of Late. Chikka Chinnappa. However, it is the grievance of the plaintiff that, the defendants have refused to partition the joint family property and as such, the plaintiff has filed O.S.No.73/2014 seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties.

¶47

On service of summons, the defendant Nos.3, 7, 9 to 13 have entered appearance, however, the defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 to 6 and 8 remained absent and accordingly, they have placed ex-parte. The defendant Nos.7, 9 to 11 have filed their common written statement denying averments made in the plaint. It is the specific contention of defendant Nos.7, 9 to 11 that, there was earlier partition effected between the Chikka Chinnappa as well as his sons Papanna and Doddamuniyappa

¶48

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:37289 RSA No. 591 of 2023

¶49

and thereafter, mutation has been changed pursuant to the same, and therefore, it is the contention of the defendants that, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable on the ground that there is already oral partition, effected between the children of Chikka Chinnappa, and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶50

It is also contended by the defendant No.7 and his children that, there was subsequent registered partition on 10.12.2008 and the same has been acted upon by the parties and accordingly, it is stated in the written statement that suit is not maintainable, seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties and also stated that suit, is barred by time.

¶51

On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court has formulated the issues for its consideration.

¶52

In order to establish their case, the plaintiff has examined one witness as PW.1 and produced 22 documents and same were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22. Defendants have examined two witnesses as DW.1 and DW.2 and got marked 38 documents and same were marked as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.38.

¶53

¶54

NC: 2024:KHC:37289 RSA No. 591 of 2023

¶55

The Trial Court after considering the material on record, decreed the suit in part. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant Nos.7, 9 to 13 have preferred R.A.No.102/2019 before the Fist Appellate Court. The said appeal was resisted by the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 24.01.2023 dismissed the appeal, consequently, confirmed the judgment and decree in O.S.No.73/2014. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.7, 9 to 13 have preferred this Regular Second Appeal.

¶56

I have heard Sri.B. R. Raghavendra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.V Shivakumar and Sri.Lokesh M N for respondent No.1. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that, the defendant No.7 had produced the registered Partition Deed dated 10.12.2008 (Ex.D.3) and the said Partition Deed has not been properly appreciated by both the Courts below and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.

¶57

It is also contended by learned counsel appearing for the appellants that, there was oral partition during the year

¶58

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:37289 RSA No. 591 of 2023

¶59

1985 between the children of Late. Chikka Chinnappa, and the said oral partition has been acted upon and the mutation entries have been changed in the name of parties to the said oral partition and the said aspect has been ignored by both the Courts below. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court.

¶60

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by both Courts below. It is not in dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties and genealogical tree of the parities is set out as under:

¶61

aPÀÌa£Àß¥Àà (¥üÀ)
ºÉA: £ÀgÀ¸ÀªÀÄä (¥üÀ)
zÉÆqÀØªÀÄÄ¤AiÀÄ¥Àà (¥üÀ) ªÀÄÄ¤AiÀÄªÀÄä (¥üÀ) ¥Á¥ÀtÚ §ZÀÑªÀÄä (¥üÀ)
UÀA ªÀÄ£É ªÁ¸À (¥üÀ) UÀA ªÀÄ£É ªÁ¸À
1£ÉÃ ºÉA: ¨ÉÊAiÀÄªÀÄä 2£ÉÃ ºÉA: ®PÀëäªÀÄä
(¥üÀ) (70)
f.¦.¸ÀvÀå£ÁgÁAiÀÄt f.¦.²æÃgÁªÀÄï f.¦.UÀAUÁzsÀgï ±ÁgÀzÀªÀÄä ªÀÄAdÄ¼À
(55) (52) (50) (49)
(48)
±ÁAvÀªÀÄä ªÀÄÄ¤gÁdÄ ªÀÄÄ¤PÀÈµÀÚ
ªÀÄÄ¤AiÀÄªÀÄä ²æÃgÁªÀÄ¥Àà (50) (46)
(48)
(60) (57)

¶62

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:37289 RSA No. 591 of 2023

¶63

The perusal of the genealogical tree would indicate that the original prepositor-Chikka Chinnappa, had four children, namely, Doddamuniyappa, Muniyamma (Plaintiff), Papanna (defendant No.7) and Bachamma (defendant No.8). It is the case of defendant Nos.7 and 9 to 13 before the Trial Court that, there was earlier partition during the year 1985 and the same has been acted upon by the parties. It is also contended in the written statement by defendant No.7 that there is Partition Deed dated 10.12.2008 made in respect of the subject matter of the suit between the joint family members of Late. Chikka Chinnappa, and the same has been acted upon.

¶64

Having taken note of the said contentions raised by the appellants herein/defendant Nos.7, 9 to 13, I have carefully examined the Ex.D.3-registered Partition Deed effected between the 7^th defendant and his children. In the said registered Partition, none of the children of Chikka Chinnappa excepted defendant No.7 is a party to the said registered Partition Deed and therefore, the finding recorded by both the Courts below that Ex.D.3 is not binding on the plaintiff is just and proper. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that there was oral partition during the year

¶65

10 -

¶66

NC: 2024:KHC:37289 RSA No. 591 of 2023

¶67

However, no document has been produced before the Trial Court, though it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that it is unregistered Palu Patti.

¶68

In that view of the matter, taking into consideration that the suit properties are the joint family properties of Late. Chikka Chinnappa and his children, the Trial Court has rightly decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff and 8^th defendant are entitled for 1/4^th share each in the suit schedule properties and the children of defendant No.7 and Doddamuniyappa are entitled for 1/4^th share in respect of the suit schedule properties.

¶69

Having taken note of the finding recorded by the Fist Appellate Court that, the First Appellate Court after reappreciating the material on record, as required under Order 41 Rule 31 read with Section 96 of CPC, as well as taking into account that the defendant No.8, and plaintiff are not parties to the Partition Deed said to have been prepared during the year 1985, as contended by the defendant No.7 in his written statement, re-appreciated the material on record and

¶70

11 -

¶71

NC: 2024:KHC:37289 RSA No. 591 of 2023

¶72

accordingly, rightly confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

¶73

In that view of the matter, as both the Courts below, concurrently held against the appellants herein, after appreciating the entire material on record, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission itself as the appellants have not made out the case for formulation of substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of CPC.

¶74

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶75

AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

Papanna Since Dead by Lrs v. Smt Muniyamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Papanna Since Dead by Lrs v. Smt Muniyamma

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

Sri S G Markandaya Vs Smt S N Gayathri

Smt Pankaja M Vs the District Commissioner

B v Srinivas Vs Sri Ujinappa

Sri Here Ammanavara Basadi Vs Sri I Narendra Ballal

Sri. Puttaswamy Vs Smt.Jayamma

Chandramma Vs Smt. Mangamma