Dismissed

Sannaswamygowda v. Rathnamma

Karnataka HC9 Sept 2024RSA/888/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal filed by legal representatives of a deceased defendant and his family members. The court held that appellants failed to frame any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC, rendering the appeal devoid of merits, mainly relying on mutation records and possession evidence. The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage.

What did the court decide?

Regular Second Appeal dismissed at the admission stage.

Sannaswamygowda Vs Rathnamma — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:36596 RSA No. 888 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 09^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.888 OF 2024 (INJ)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SANNASWAMYGOWDA

¶8

SINCE DEAD BY LR'S.

¶9

1(a). RAJAMMA

¶10

W/O LATE SANNASWAMYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS.

¶11

1(b). MEENAKSHI D/O LATE SANNASWAMYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

¶12

1(c). SHANTHA

¶13

D/O LATE SANNASWAMYGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

¶14

1(d). CHANDREGOWDA

¶15

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

S/O LATE SANNASWAMYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶17

RAVI

¶18

S/O LATE SANNASWAMYGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶19

ALL ARE RESIDING AT: ULLENAHALLI VILLAGE, KONANUR HOBLI, ARAKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 102.

¶20

…APPELLANTS

¶21

(BY SRI. SUNIL S. NARAYAN, ADVOCATE)

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:36596 RSA No. 888 of 2024

¶24

AND:

¶25

RATHNAMMA W/O A.T. NAGARAJA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, ULLENAHALLI VILLAGE, KONANUR HOBLI, ARAKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 102.

¶26

…RESPONDENT

¶27

(BY SRI. N. DEVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

¶28

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04^TH MARCH, 2024 PASSED IN REGULAR APPEAL NO.23 OF 2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARAKALAGUD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18^TH FEBRUARY, 2019 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.233 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., ARAKALGUD.

¶29

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the legal representative's of the defendant No.1; and the defendant No.2, challenging the judgment and decree dated 04^th March, 2024 passed in Regular Appeal No.23 of 2019 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Arakalagud (for short, hereinafter

¶32

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36596 RSA No. 888 of 2024

¶33

referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 18^th February, 2019 passed in Original Suit No.233 of 2012 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC., Arakalagud (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff came to be decreed.

¶34

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.

¶35

It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 are the children of late Gopalegowda and the defendant No.2 is the son of Defendant No.1. It is stated in the plaint that the schedule property had fallen to the share of the plaintiff through oral partition and she is in possession and enjoyment of the same. However, the defendants, without any right, interest or title in respect of the schedule property are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property and as such, the plaintiff has filed Original Suit No.233 of 2012 before the Trial Court, seeking relief of permanent injunction against the defendants.

¶36

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:36596 RSA No. 888 of 2024

¶37

On service of notice, defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement contending that the schedule property is not an ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendants. It is also the case of the defendants that the plaintiff got the revenue records on the basis of the partition, which never taken place between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Therefore, defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶38

On the basis of pleadings on record, the Trial Court framed issues for its consideration.

¶39

In order to prove their case, the plaintiff has examined one witness as PW1 and got marked 4 documents as Exhibits P1 to P4. On the other hand, defendants examined two witnesses as DW1 and DW2 and got marked 10 documents as Exhibits D1 to D10

¶40

The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by judgment and decree dated 18^th February, 2019, decreed the suit of the plaintiff and restrained the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property. Being aggrieved by the same, the legal representatives of the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 have preferred Regular

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:36596 RSA No. 888 of 2024

¶42

Appeal No.23 of 2019 and the said appeal was resisted by the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the material on record, dismissed the appeal, consequently, confirmed the judgment and decree dated 18^th February, 2019 passed by the Trial Court in Original Suit No.233 of 2012. Being aggrieved by the same, the legal representatives of the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 have preferred this Regular Second Appeal.

¶43

Heard Sri. Sunil S. Narayan, learned counsel appearing for appellants and Sri. N. Devaraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶44

Sri. Sunil S. Narayan, learned counsel appearing for appellants contended that the plaintiff got her name in the mutation register fraudulently and same has been produced before the Trial Court to establish that the partition said to have been effected between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1. He further submitted that there is no partition in the family of plaintiff and the defendant No.1 and the said aspect has not been properly appreciated by the Courts below. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:36596 RSA No. 888 of 2024

¶47

Per contra, Sri. N. Devaraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent invited the attention of the Court to Exhibit P3-Matation extract which reflects the name of the plaintiff and accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶48

In the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 are the children of late Gopalegowda. It is the case of the plaintiff that, there was a partition in the joint family consisting of herself and her brother defendant No.1 and as per the said oral partition, M.R.No.39/1999-2000 is made, wherein, the name of the plaintiff reflects. Perusal of Exhibit P4-Index of land pertaining to schedule property would indicate that the schedule property is originally belongs to father of the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 and accordingly, the name of the plaintiff find place in Exhibit P4 and therefore, the plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction. Perusal of Exhibit P4 makes it clear that the plaintiff is in possession of the schedule property. In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the Trial Court is just and proper. The First Appellate Court, after appreciating the material on record, particularly, with respect to Exhibits P3 and P4, had rightly confirmed the

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:36596 RSA No. 888 of 2024

¶51

judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No.233 of 2012 on the file of the Trial Court. Taking into account the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court at Paragraphs 16 and 17 in Regular Appeal No.23 of 2019 as the plaintiff is in possession of the schedule property, I am of the view that the appellant/defendants have not made out a case for interference. According appeal is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Therefore, as the appellants were failed to make out a case for formulation of substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this appeal deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. Accordingly, Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.

¶52

SD/(E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶53

ARK

Sannaswamygowda v. Rathnamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sannaswamygowda v. Rathnamma

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

Shivarathnamma Vs Umadevamma

Sri. N. Chalapathi Vs Sri. Jayaramareddy

Mrs. Shakuntala Harris Vs Nil

Sri Venkatashivappa Vs Smt Alavelamma

Yashodhara Vs Sri. H. C. Krishnachar

Sri. Sullimada Rathi Kushalappa Vs Smt. Paruvangada Parvathy