Jatappa S/O. Bennehalli Pamapanagouda Vs Bhujanganagouda S/O. Bennehalli Pampanagouda — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Jatappa S/O. Bennehalli Pamapanagouda Vs Bhujanganagouda S/O. Bennehalli Pampanagouda — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

RFA No.100371/2023 allowed in part: plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 8 declared entitled to 1/9th share each in the suit schedule properties; RFA.CROB No.100018/2024 allowed in part: defendant No.11 declared entitled to half share out of the plaintiff's 1/9th share; defendants No.9 and 10 (purchasers) to work out their equity in the final decree proceedings; liberty to defendant No.4 to seek inclusion of additional properties in the final decree proceedings; Office directed to draw a decree; parties to bear their own costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the declaration of share by the Trial Court is just and proper and is in accordance with the law declared by the Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma & Others?

Court's answer

The relationship of the parties being undisputed, the suit properties being ancestral, the propositus Pampanagouda having died in 1982 and Smt. Gurushantamma in 2011, and there having been no partition until the Act of 2005 came into effect, all co-parceners namely the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 8 are entitled to an equal share in the suit schedule properties.

Ratio / Principle

The Trial Court's apportionment of shares was a consequence of Prakash and Others (supra), which is no longer good law as all daughters are entitled to equal share; therefore the Trial Court's judgment and decree warrant interference, and it is declared that the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 8 are each entitled to 1/9th share in all the suit schedule properties.

Key takeaways

Defendant No.11/cross-objector, being the daughter of the legally wedded wife of the plaintiff, is entitled to half share out of the plaintiff's 1/9th share; the daughter from the second wife of the plaintiff would be entitled to a share in the plaintiff's 1/18th share after his lifetime.ratio¶132
On the application (I.A. No.1/2025) of defendant No.4 for production of additional documents regarding other family properties allegedly omitted from the suit schedule, liberty is reserved to defendant No.4 to seek inclusion of those properties in the final decree proceedings, and the final decree Court shall consider whether those properties should also be partitioned.ratio¶136

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Partition – coparcenary shares – daughters' equality – reapportionment in light of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1. Suit among the heirs of propositus Pampanagouda (d. 1982) and Smt. Gurushantamma (d. 2011). The Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hagaribommanahalli, by judgment and decree dated 23.07.2018 in O.S.No.21/2017, partly decreed the partition suit, rejected the plea of a partition deed dated 02.04.1995, and fixed shares largely on the basis of Prakash v. Phulavathi, AIR 2016 SC 769 (declaring 5/54th share for defendant No.11). Held (R. Nataraj, J., for the Bench of R. Nataraj and Rajesh Rai K, JJ.): the relationship of parties and ancestral nature of the properties being admitted, and there being no partition until the Act of 2005 came into effect, all co-parceners — the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 8 — are entitled to equal shares; Prakash is no longer good law as all daughters are entitled to equal share. Plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 8 each declared entitled to 1/9th share; defendant No.11 (cross-objector, daughter of the plaintiff) entitled to half of the plaintiff's 1/9th share, a daughter from a second wife being entitled to a share in the plaintiff's 1/18th after his lifetime; purchaser-defendants No.9 and 10 to work out their equity in the final decree proceedings; liberty reserved to defendant No.4 to seek inclusion of omitted family properties therein. Appeal and cross-objection allowed in part; parties to bear their own costs.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8778-DB RFA No. 100371 of 2023 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100018 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100371 OF 2023 (PAR/POS) C/W RFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100018 OF 2024

IN RFA NO.100371 OF 2023:

BETWEEN:

JATAPPA, S/O. BENNEHALLI PAMAPANAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ITTIGI KOTE, AT. ITTIGI-583220, TQ: HUVINAHADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI.

Digitally signed by CHANABASAPPA K KALLUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.07.22 11:22:58 +0530

(BY SRI. S.G.KADADAKATTI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

…APPELLANT

BHUJANGANAGOUDA, S/O. BENNEHALLI PAMPANAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ITTIGI KOTE, AT. ITTIGI-583220, TQ: HUVINAHADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI.

BASANAGOUDA, S/O. BENNAHALLI PAMPANAGOUDA,

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8778-DB RFA No. 100371 of 2023 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100018 of 2024

HC-KAR

AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ITTIGI KOTE, AT. ITTIGI-583220, TQ: HUVINAHADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI.

SMT. KAMALAKKA, W/O. CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. 5^TH MAIN, 16^TH CROSS, HIGH SCHOOL BADAVANE, HARIHAR, DIST: DAVANAGERE-577601.

SMT. GIRIJAMMA, W/O. SHIVANNA ANER, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. VIDYANAGAR, C-BLOCK, HARIHAR, DIST: DAVANAGERE-577601.

SMT. SAVITRAMMA, W/O. BULLAPPA DYAMANAGOUDAR, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NANDIBEVURU-583131, TQ: HARAPANAHALLI, DIST: DAVANAGERE.

RAMANAGOUDA, S/O. BENNEHALLI PAMPANAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ITTIGI KOTE, AT. ITTIGI-583220, TQ: HUVINAHADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI.

SMT. RENUKAMMA, W/O. KOTRAPPA KENCHANAGOUDRA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8778-DB RFA No. 100371 of 2023 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100018 of 2024

HC-KAR

R/O. UTTANGI-583219, TQ: HUVINAHADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI.

NAGANAAGOUDA, S/O. BENNAHALLI PAMPANAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ITTIGI KOTE, AT. ITTIGI-583220, TQ: HUVINAHADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI.

S. CHANDRAPPA, S/O. CHANNABASAPPA, MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ITTIGI KOTE, AT. ITTIGI-583220, TQ: HUVINAHADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI.

S. NAGAPPA, S/O. CHANNABASAPPA, MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ITTIGI KOTE, AT. ITTIGI-583220, TQ: HUVINAHADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI.

KUM. B. BHARATI, D/O. B. BHUJANGANAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. ITTIGI KOTE, AT. ITTIGI-583220, TQ: HUVINAHADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. C.S.SHETTAR AND SMT. KAVYA C.SHETTAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. T.BASAVANAGOUD, ADVOCATE FOR R11) (NOTICE TO R2 TO R10 ARE SERVED)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.07.2018 PASSED IN

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8778-DB RFA No. 100371 of 2023 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100018 of 2024

HC-KAR

O.S.NO.21/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.

IN RFA CROSS OBJ. NO.100018 OF 2024:

BETWEEN:

KUM. B.BHARATI, D/O. B. BHUJANGANAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. ITTIGI KOTE, AT. ITTIGI-583220, TQ: HUVINAHADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI.

…CROSS-OBJECTOR

(BY SRI. T.BASAVANAGOUD, ADVOCATE)

AND:

BHUJANGANAGOUDA, S/O. BENNEHALLI PAMPANAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ITTIGI KOTE, AT. ITTIGI, TQ: HUVINAHADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI-583220.

BASANAGOUDA, S/O. BENNEHALLI PAMPANAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ITTIGI KOTE, AT. ITTIGI-583220, TQ: HUVINAHADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI.

SMT. KAMALAKKA, W/O. CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA,

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8778-DB RFA No. 100371 of 2023 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100018 of 2024

HC-KAR

AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. 5^TH MAIN, 16^TH CROSS, HIGH SCHOOL BADAVANE, HARIHAR,

DIST: DAVANAGERE-577601.

SMT. GIRIJAMMA, W/O. SHIVANNA ANER AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. VIDYANAGAR, C BLOCK, HARIHAR, DIST: DAVANAGERE-577601.

SMT. SAVITRAMMA, W/O. BULLAPPA DYAMANAGOUDAR, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NANDIBEVURU, TQ: HARAPANAHALLI, DIST: DAVANAGERE-583131.

RAMANAGOUDA, S/O. BENNIHALLI PAMPANAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ITTIGI KOTE, AT. ITTIGI-583220, TQ: HUVINAHADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI.

SMT. RENUKAMMA, W/O. KOTRAPPA KENCHANAGOUDRA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. UTTANGI, TQ: HUVINAHADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI-583219.

NAGANAAGOUDA, S/O. BENNEHALLI PAMPANAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8778-DB RFA No. 100371 of 2023 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100018 of 2024

HC-KAR

R/O. ITTIGI KOTE, AT. ITTIGI-583220, TQ: HUVINAHADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI.

S. CHANDRAPPA, S/O. CHANNABASAPPA MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ITTIGI KOTE, AT. ITTIGI-583220, TQ: HUVINAHADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI.

S. NAGAPPA, S/O. CHANNABASAPPA, MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ITTIGI KOTE, AT. ITTIGI-583220, TQ: HUVINAHADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI.

JATAPPA, S/O. BENNEHALLI PAMPANAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ITTIGI KOTE, AT. ITTIGI-583220, TQ: HUVINAHADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. C.S.SHETTAR AND SMT. KAVYA C.SHETTAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. S.G.KADADAKATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R11)

THIS RFA.CROB IN RFA NO.100371/2023 IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 (1) AND (2) OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS; SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.07.2018 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI IN O.S.NO.21/2017 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8778-DB RFA No. 100371 of 2023 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100018 of 2024

HC-KAR

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ)

Defendant No.4 in O.S. No.21/2017 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hagaribommanahalli has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2018 by which the Trial Court decreed the suit for partition and declared that defendant No.4 is entitled to 1/54^th in the suit schedule property.

Defendant No.11 has filed cross-objections

challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree by which the Court declared that she is entitled to 5/54^th share in the suit schedule properties.

For the sake of convenience and easy understanding, the parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

i) The suit in O.S. No.21/2017 was filed for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff’s share in the suit

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8778-DB RFA No. 100371 of 2023 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100018 of 2024

HC-KAR

schedule properties The plaintiff claimed that his family tree

was as follows:

Pampanagouda (Died in the year 1982)

= Smt Gurushantamma (Died in the year 2011)

Basanagouda Kamalakka Girijamma Jatappa Savitramma (D-1) (D-2) (D-3) (D-4) (D-5) Ramanagouda Renukamma Bhujanganagouda Naganagouda (D-6) (D-7) (P) (D-8)

ii) He contended that all the suit schedule properties

were joint family properties and that he was entitled to an undivided share. He claimed that there was no partition of the suit properties and when he demanded his legitimate share, defendant Nos.1, 4, 6 and 8 postponed the same on one or the other ground. Therefore, he filed the suit claiming his share in the suit schedule properties.

Defendant No.6 alone contested the suit. He

admitted the relationship of the parties and also admitted that the suit schedule properties were the properties of the joint family comprising the plaintiff and the defendants. He contended that the plaintiff and defendants No.1, 4, 6 and 8 had partitioned the properties on 02.04.1995 as per which

9 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8778-DB RFA No. 100371 of 2023 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100018 of 2024

HC-KAR

properties were allotted to the share of the plaintiff and the defendants. Therefore, it was contended that there was no joint family as contended by the plaintiff and that the properties were all separated long back.

Defendant No.11, who was the daughter of the plaintiff filed an application to be impleaded in the proceedings and accordingly, she was impleaded. She admitted the relationship of the parties. She claimed that she was the daughter of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was not taking care of her and other family members. She, therefore, prayed the Court to declare her share in the share of the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties

Based on these contentions the Trial Court framed

the following issues:

“1. Whether the plaintiff proves that suit properties are his ancestral and joint family properties?

2. Whether the defendant No.6 proved that suit properties have already partitioned under the partition deed dated 02.04.1995 as contended in the written statement?

10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8778-DB RFA No. 100371 of 2023 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100018 of 2024

HC-KAR

3. Whether the plaintiff has relief as sought for?

4. Whether the defendant No.11 has relief as sought for?

5. What order or decree?

The Trial Court held that in the absence of any denial about the relationship of the parties and the nature of the suit properties, the plaintiff proved the suit schedule properties were the ancestral joint family properties. It also referred to the evidence of D.W.1 and held that he failed to prove the partition of the suit schedule properties on 02.04.1995 as contended in the written statement. It held that the propositus Sri. Pampanagouda had five sons and therefore, the property had to be divided into six shares and that the share of Pampanagouda had to be notionally partitioned between his nine children. Therefore, it held that the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 6 were entitled to 1/9^th share in the 1/6^th share of Pamapanagouda or, in other words, 1/54^th share. It added up the share of the plaintiff i.e., 1/6^th and the notional share in the share of Pampanagouda i.e., 1/54^th and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled 10/54^th share in

11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8778-DB RFA No. 100371 of 2023 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100018 of 2024

HC-KAR

the suit schedule properties As far as the claim of defendant No.11 is concerned, it held that defendant No.11 is entitled to 5/54^th share. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant No.4 and defendant No.11 are before this Court in this appeal and cross-objection respectively.

Learned counsel for defendant No.4 submitted that

the trial Court committed an error in dividing the properties into six shares as the daughters were also entitled to equal share in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma & Others¹ . Therefore, he contends that the demarcation of the shares of the parties was wholly incorrect as the Trial Court applied the notional share and distributed the same amongst the daughters. He, therefore, contends that the preliminary decree in so far as declaring the share of the plaintiff and the defendants is liable to be altered. He contends that the plaintiff has deliberately not included several other properties of the family and in that regard, he has filed I.A. No.1/2025 for production of additional documents. He therefore, contends that the plaintiff and the

1 (2020) 9 SCC 1

12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8778-DB RFA No. 100371 of 2023 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100018 of 2024

HC-KAR

defendants are entitled to equal share in the additional properties which are sought to be incorporated in the suit schedule.

Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent No.1 submitted that the impugned judgment of the Trial Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

Learned counsel for the cross-objector, however, contended that the Trial Court, largely, relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prakash and Others Vs. Phulavathi and others² , which was subsequently overruled in Vineeta Sharma’s case (supra). He referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma (supra) and contended that the final decree court is entitled to modify the preliminary decree granted and declare that the daughters are also entitled to an equal share. He, therefore, contends that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/9^th share in the suit schedule properties and the defendant No.11/cross-objector, being the only daughter of the

2 AIR 2016 SC 769

13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8778-DB RFA No. 100371 of 2023 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100018 of 2024

HC-KAR

plaintiff is entitled to half share in the share of plaintiff in suit schedule properties.

We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for defendant No.4, the learned counsel for the crossobjector and the learned counsel for the plaintiff. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is,

Whether the declaration of share by the Trial Court is just and proper and is in accordance with the law declared by the Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma & Others ?

As stated above, the relationship of the parties is not in dispute. Defendant No.11 is stated to be the daughter of the legally wedded wife of the plaintiff. The suit properties are all ancestral properties. In face of these admitted facts, all co-parceners namely the plaintiff, defendants No.1 to 8 are entitled to an equal share in the suit schedule properties since the propositus Pampanagouda died in the year 1982 while Smt. Gurushantamma died in the year 2011. There was no partition of the properties until the Act of 2005 came into effect. Consequently, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court

14 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8778-DB RFA No. 100371 of 2023 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100018 of 2024

HC-KAR

declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to 5/54^th share and the defendants, 1, 4, 6 and 8 are entitled to 10/54^th share each and defendants 2, 3 5 and 7 are entitled to 1/54^th share is a result of the consequence of the judgment in Prakash and Others (supra). The judgment of Prakash and Others (supra) is no longer good law as all the daughters are entitled to equal share. Therefore the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court warrants interference. Consequently, it is declared that the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 8 are entitled to 1/9^th share in all the suit schedule properties.

As far as the claim of the cross-objector is concerned, since she is daughter of legally wedded wife of the plaintiff, the plaintiff and defendant No.11 would be entitled to half share in 1/9^th share of the plaintiff. It is needless to mention that the daughter from the second wife of the plaintiff would be entitled to a share in the 1/18^th share of the plaintiff after his lifetime.

As regards the application filed by defendant No.4 for production of additional documentary evidence in support of his claim that there are other properties which are not brought

15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8778-DB RFA No. 100371 of 2023 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100018 of 2024

HC-KAR

into the suit, liberty is reserved to defendant No.4 to seek inclusion of those properties in the final decree proceedings. The final decree Court shall consider whether those properties should also be partitioned or not.

In view of the above, it is held that in view of the law declared in Vineeta Sharma’s case (supra), the apportionment of shares of plaintiff and defendants was not correct, and the following order is passed.

ORDER

i) RFA No.100371/2023 is allowed in part. It is declared that the plaintiff, defendants No.1 to 8 are entitled to 1/9^th share in the suit schedule properties Consequently, the purchasers viz., defendants No.9 and 10 are entitled to workout their equity in the final decree proceedings in accordance with law.

ii) RFA Crob. No.100018/2024 is allowed in part and it is declared that defendant No.11 is entitled to half share out of 1/9^th share of the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties

iii) It is open for defendant No.4 to seek inclusion of the properties in the final decree proceedings. The final decree Court may independently decide

16 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8778-DB RFA No. 100371 of 2023 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100018 of 2024

HC-KAR

whether the said properties should also be partitioned or not.

iv) The appeal as well as the cross-objections are disposed of accordingly.

Office is directed draw a decree accordingly.

Parties to bear their own costs.

Sd/(R.NATARAJ) JUDGE

Sd/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

KMS

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22