Dismissed

Smt. Kannamma v. Smt. Halamma

Karnataka HC12 Aug 2024RSA/931/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the confirmation of a trial court order dismissing a partition suit. The Court held that since the alleged oral partition was reduced to a written deed and acted upon via mutation changes, no substantial question of law existed to warrant interference, leading to dismissal of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Regular Second Appeal dismissed at the stage of admission; no substantial question of law found.

Smt. Kannamma Vs Smt. Halamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:32190 RSA No. 931 of 2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.931 OF 2018 (PAR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. KANNAMMA W/O ADDRI CHOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶8

SRI. PUTTAPPA S/O ADDRI CHOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶9

BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF MARASA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SAGAR TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577401.

¶10

…APPELLANTS

¶11

Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

(BY SRI. NATARAJ DONKENNANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SMT. HALAMMA W/O LATE ADDRI KANNAPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

¶15

SRI.DYAVAPPA S/O LATE ADDRI KANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:32190 RSA No. 931 of 2018

¶17

GAMAPPA S/O LATE ADDRI KANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶18

RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 3 ARE AGRICULTURISTS R/O MARASA VILLAGE, M.L.HALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, SAGAR TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 401.

¶19

SMT. MANJAMMA W/O CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT SRIDARAPARA VILLAGE, MASUR POST, SAGAR TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 401.

¶20

SRI. ADDRI NARAYANAPPA S/O SANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, R/O MARASA VILLAGE, M.L.HALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, SAGAR TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 401.

¶21

SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O MANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/O KOWTHI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SAGAR TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 401.

¶22

SMT. SANNAMMA @ NINGAMMA W/O MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:32190 RSA No. 931 of 2018

¶24

R/AT BELALAMAKKI VILLAGE, SAGAR TALUK

¶25

SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 501.

¶26

SMT. HALAMMA W/O ESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT ADRANTHI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SAGAR TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 401.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

¶29

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER

¶30

SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.02.2018 PASSED IN RA.NO.71 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SAGAR DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.06.2012 PASSED IN OS.NO.71 OF 2009 (OLD OS NO.69/08) ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE SAGAR.

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:32190 RSA No. 931 of 2018

¶34

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

¶35

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶36

This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 01.02.2018 in R.A.No.71/2012 on the file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sagar, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 08.06.2012 in O.S. No.71/2009, on the file of Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Sagar, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs.

¶37

For the sake of convenience, parties are referred with reference to their rank before the Trial Court.

¶38

It is the case of the plaintiffs that, plaintiff No.2 is the son of plaintiff No.1. Plaintiff No.1 is the wife of one Addri Chowdappa. He died leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal representatives. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the original propositus Sri. Sannappa had six children namely Addri Kannappa(defendantNo.1), Addri Narayanappa(defendant No.2),Gowramma(defendantNo.3),Ningamma(defendant No.4), Halamma (defendant No.5) and Addri Chowdappa-husband of plaintiff No.1. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties are the undivided joint family properties of

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:32190 RSA No. 931 of 2018

¶40

late Sannappa and therefore, plaintiffs are entitled for share in the joint family properties and accordingly, plaintiffs have filed O.S.No.71/2009 for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties.

¶41

On service of notice, defendants entered appearance. However, defendant Nos.3 to 5 have not filed written statement. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed written statement accepting the relationship between the parties, however, contended that, the husband of plaintiff No.1 had separated from the joint family during 1980 and during the said period, the land fallen to the share of husband of plaintiff No.1 was given to him and accordingly, it is the case of defendants that there is already a partition taken place amongst the members of the joint family of late Sannappa and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶42

The Trial Court, based on the pleadings on record has formulated issues for its consideration. In order to establish their case, plaintiff No.1 was examined as P.W.1 and she produced three documents and same were marked as Exs.P1 to P3. Defendants have examined defendant No.2 - Addri

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:32190 RSA No. 931 of 2018

¶44

Narayanappa as D.W.1 and produced fiftyfour documents and same were marked as D1 to D54. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by Judgment and Decree dated 08.06.2012, dismissed the suit and feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred R.A.No.71/2012 before the First Appellate Court and said appeal was resisted by the respondents herein.

¶45

The First Appellate Court after considering the material on record, by its Judgment and Decree dated 01.02.2018, dismissed the appeal and consequently confirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.71/2009. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred this Regular Second Appeal.

¶46

Sri. Pruthvi Wodeyar, learned counsel for the appellants contended that, both the Courts below have erred in accepting the partition deed dated 11.02.1987 which is an unregistered document and therefore, learned counsel contended that, both the Courts below ought to have considered the claim made by the plaintiffs and as such, he sought for interference of this Court.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:32190 RSA No. 931 of 2018

¶49

8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶50

parties, the relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The genealogical tree is as follows:

¶51

GENEALOGICAL TREE

¶52

Sannappa
Kannamma
Son Daughter Son Daughter Daughter Son
Addri Addri Ningamma Halamma
Kannappa Gowramma Chowdappa
Wife Wife Addri
Naraya-
nappa
Halamma Kannamma
Son
Son Son Daughter
Puttappa
Dyava Gamappa Manjamma
-ppa

¶53

Perusal of the aforesaid Genealogical Tree would indicate

¶54

that original propositus Sannappa had six children and the plaintiffs are the legal representatives of deceased Addri Chowdappa (third child of Sannappa). It is the contention of

¶55

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:32190 RSA No. 931 of 2018

¶56

the defendants before the Trial Court that there was an oral partition and same was reduced into writing on 11.02.1987 as per Ex.D1 to the suit.

¶57

Having taken note of the finding recorded by both the Courts below, wherein the parties to the said document(Ex.D1) have acted upon by changing of mutation entries in respect of the land which had fallen to their respective share, as P.W.1 has also admitted before the Trial Court with regard to the change of mutation as per Ex.D1. In that view of the matter, as the oral partition has been reduced into writing and thereafter it has been acted upon, and the partition is not compulsorily required to be registered and therefore, I do not find any material illegality committed by both the Courts below. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission itself, as there is no acceptable substantial question of law required to be framed in this second appeal.

¶58

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶59

sac

¶60

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Smt. Kannamma v. Smt. Halamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kannamma v. Smt. Halamma

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

Rangegowda Vs Lakshmamma

Smt. Rajamma Vs Sri. Srinivas

Sri a v Kalaiah @ Ravi Kumar Vs Smt. Prema

Mahadevappa Vs Basavarajappa

Mrs. Naseem Ahmad Vs Nil

Thimmayya Kottary Vs State Represented