Smt. Sharada Vs Smt. Saroja Devi — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smt. Sharada Vs Smt. Saroja Devi — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of: appeal against defendants No.2 and 3 dismissed as abated; unsold half share of deceased defendant No.1 held to be inherited by the plaintiff-appellant; impugned judgment and preliminary decree in O.S.No.80/2012 modified accordingly, without binding any testamentary or other natural heir of defendant No.1. Prayer to set aside the decree and grant share in the scheduled properties was not allowed as such.

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to a share beyond the half share decreed, i.e., whether the claim rejected by the trial court (share in the suit schedule properties bearing Nos.32/1, 32/2, 32/3 and half share in open sites Nos.1658 and 1657) should be allowed. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

On the plaintiff's memo not wishing to prosecute the case against defendants No.2 and 3 (to whom defendant No.1 had sold portion of the suit property), the appeal against defendants No.2 and 3 is dismissed as abated.

Key takeaways

Since defendant No.1 died issueless, the half share of defendant No.1 which remained unsold would be inherited by the plaintiff, as the property originally belonged to the father of the plaintiff.ratio¶¶31
With these observations the appeal is disposed of, and the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.12.2024 passed in O.S.No.80/2012 by the Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal are modified as above in view of the subsequent development.ratio¶¶37
The order does not bind any testamentary heir to defendant No.1 or any other natural heir to defendant No.1.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

RFA No. 100058 of 2025 (DEC/INJ), filed under S.96 r/w O.41 R.1 CPC 1908, against the judgment and preliminary decree dated 20.12.2024 in O.S.No.80/2012 (Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal), by which the plaintiff was held to have half share and the alleged Will in favour of defendant No.1 (plaintiff's step mother) was declared not proved; the appeal challenged the decree to the extent of the rejected claim. During the appeal, defendant No.1 died issueless and had sold portion of the suit property to defendants No.2 and 3; the plaintiff filed a memo not to prosecute against them. Held: (i) appeal against defendants No.2 and 3 dismissed as abated; (ii) the half share of defendant No.1 remaining unsold would be inherited by the plaintiff, the property having originally belonged to her father; (iii) the impugned judgment and decree stand modified in view of the subsequent development and the appeal is disposed of; (iv) the order does not bind any testamentary heir or other natural heir of defendant No.1. Bench: Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.; decided 25.10.2025 (Dharwad); NC: 2025:KHC-D:14230.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14230 RFA No. 100058 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100058 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

SMT. SHARADA W/O. GURUPUTRAPPA KAMMAR, AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, RESIDENT OF VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI -580031.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. A.A.KALEBUDDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

SMT. SAROJA DEVI W/O. BASAVARAJ MARIHAL, AGE: 82 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND SOCIAL SERVICE, R/O. KITTUR, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

SHRI. RACHAPPA URF SACHIN S/O. VIRUPAXAPPA MARIHAL, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. SOMAWARPETH, KITTUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.

SHRI. MAHANTESH S/O. NAGAPPA GAJAPATI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. HUBBALLI ONI, KITTUR, TQ: KITTUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.S.SHETTAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14230 RFA No. 100058 of 2025

HC-KAR

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO ALLOWING THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND PRELIMINARY DECREE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED THE SHARE IN SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY BEARING NO.32/1, 32/2, AND 32/3 OF NICHANKI VILLAGE AS DESCRIBED IN AMENDED PLAINT AT SL.NO.B OF PARA NO.4 AND ALSO NOT ENTITLED IN HALF SHARE IN OPEN SITE BEARING NO.1658 AND 1657 AND GRANT THE LEGITIMATE SHARE IN THE ABOVE SAID PROPERTY PASSED IN OS NO. 80/2012 DATED 20.12.2024 TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)

Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant submits that the suit is filed for the relief of declaration of title and injunction.

The plaintiff claims that the alleged Will in favour of the defendant, her step mother alleged to have been executed by her father is null and void.

The suit is decreed in part holding that the plaintiff is having half share and Will is declared to be not proved.

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14230 RFA No. 100058 of 2025

HC-KAR

The plaintiff is before this Court challenging the said judgment and decree to the extent of rejected claim.

It is submitted that defendant No.1, the step mother of the plaintiff died and she is issueless. It is further submitted that defendant No.1 has sold portion of the suit property to defendants No.2 and 3 and the plaintiff does not wish to prosecute the case against defendants No.2 and 3 and she has filed a memo to that effect.

Memo is taken on record. Appeal against defendants No.2 and 3 is dismissed as abated. Since it is stated that defendant No.1 died issueless, half share of defendant No.1 which remained unsold would be inherited by the plaintiff as the property originally belonged to the father of the plaintiff.

With these observations, appeal is disposed of .

The impugned judgment and decree dated 20.12.2024 passed in O.S.No.80/2012 by the Senior Civil

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14230 RFA No. 100058 of 2025

HC-KAR

Judge, Bailhongal are modified as above in view of the subsequent development.

It is made clear that this order does not bind, if

there is any testamentary heir to defendant No.1 or any other natural heir to defendant No.1.

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

CLK Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2