Dismissed¶¶50

Smt Kalakamma W/O. Basanagouda Police Patil v. Sdhri Kalyanagouda S/O Basanagouda Police Patil

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2025RSA/100373/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench; RSA No.100373 of 2024 (PAR/POS); M.G.S. Kamal J.; partition suit O.S.No.107/2011, Civil Judge & JMFC Yelburga; first appeal R.A.No.10/2012; ancestral property; notional partition; widow's 1/9th share; sons' 4/9th shares each; condonation of delay of 2014 days refused; final decree proceedings FDP No.11/2016 closed by joint compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 r/w Section 151 CPC, 1908 (29.11.2021); Section 100 CPC second appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None. I.A.No.1/2024 (condonation of delay) dismissed and consequently the Regular Second Appeal dismissed, upholding the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2016 in R.A.No.10/2012. ¶¶50

Smt Kalakamma W/O. Basanagouda Police Patil Vs Sdhri Kalyanagouda S/O Basanagouda Police Patil — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None. I.A.No.1/2024 (condonation of delay) dismissed and consequently the Regular Second Appeal dismissed, upholding the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2016 in R.A.No.10/2012.

¶¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 2014 days in filing the Regular Second Appeal ought to be condoned (I.A.No.1/2024). +1 more

¶¶28

Court's answer

Condonation of the 2014 days' delay is refused: the explanation of illiteracy, ignorance and want of funds is not satisfactory, particularly since the appellants (defendants) themselves admittedly participated in the Final Decree Proceedings and closed them by entering into a compromise.

¶¶37

Ratio / Principle

The second appeal has no merits warranting interference: no error of any nature whatsoever can be found in the First Appellate Court's apportionment of shares (arrived at by notional partition of deceased Basanagouda Police Patil's 1/3rd share, limiting defendant No.1 to 1/9th in Schedule 'A' and giving the plaintiff and defendant No.2 4/9th each); nothing survives for consideration.

¶¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Partition of ancestral properties – Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC by defendants against the First Appellate Court's modification of the trial Court's preliminary decree shares – Condonation of 2014 days' delay (I.A.No.1/2024) refused: pleas of illiteracy, ignorance and lack of funds held unsatisfactory where the appellants had themselves participated in the Final Decree Proceedings (FDP No.11/2016) and closed them by a joint compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, 1908 on 29.11.2021 – On merits, no error found in the First Appellate Court's apportionment arrived at by notional partition of the deceased father's (Basanagouda Police Patil, died 21.03.1998) 1/3rd share: defendant No.1 (widow/mother) 1/9th share in Schedule 'A' properties; plaintiff and defendant No.2 (sons) 4/9th shares each – Nothing surviving for consideration, appeal dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7480 RSA No. 100373 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100373 OF 2024 (PAR/POS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. KALAKAMMA W/O. BASANAGOUDA POLICE PATIL, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIKKABANNIGOL, TQ: YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL – 584 121.

¶9

SHRI. ANDANAGOUDA S/O. BASANAGOUDA POLICE PATIL, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIKKABANNIGOL, TQ: YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL – 584 121.

¶10

…APPELLANTSS

¶11

(BY SRI. D.V.PATTAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶14

SHRI. KALYANAGOUDA S/O. BASANAGOUDA POLICE PATIL, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIKKABANNIGOL, TQ: YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL – 584 121, NOW RESIDING AT RAMNAGAR, DAVANAGERI, DIST: DAVANAGERI – 577 005.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AN DECREE DATED 03.08.2016 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT YELBURGA IN R.A.NO.10/2012 INSOFAR AS PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.02.2012 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT YELBURGA IN O.S.NO.107/2011 AND THIS COURT BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.02.2012 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT YELBURGA IN O.S.NO.107/2011 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7480 RSA No. 100373 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

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

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL)

¶23

1. This a ppeal is filed by the defendants, being

¶24

aggrieved by the judgment and decree in OS No.107/2011 dated 07.02.2011 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Yelburga (for short, ‘trial Court’), by which the trial Court partly decreed the suit, granting 1/3^rd share in the suit Schedule ‘A’ properties to the plaintiff and rejected the prayer of the plaintiff for any share in the Schedule ‘B’ properties, which is modified by the judgment and order dated 03.08.2016 passed in RA No.10/2012, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Yelburga (for short, ‘First Appellate Court’), by which the First Appellate Court, while allowing the appeal filed by the defendants held that defendant No.1 was entitled for 1/9^th share in the suit Schedule ‘A’ properties, and Defendant No.2 and the

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7480 RSA No. 100373 of 2024

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

plaintiff are entitled for 4/9^th shares each in suit schedule properties.

¶28

There is a delay of 2014 days in filing the present appeal. I.A.No.1/2024 is filed seeking condonation of delay.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellants, s ubmits that

¶30

delay in filing the appeal is on account of illiteracy and ignorance on the part of the appellants which led to the delay in they approaching their counsel and instructing them to file the appeal in time. Further, that they had no sufficient source of income to arrange the funds for filing the appeal. As such, there was a delay in filing appeal. Except the above, nothing is pleaded.

¶31

On a query by this Court, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Final Decree Proceedings were initiated by the respondent-plaintiff in FDP No.11/2016 and the same has been closed on satisfaction of the decree passed.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7480 RSA No. 100373 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

The learned counsel for the appellants further

¶36

submits that in the Final Decree Proceedings parties had entered into compromise by filing an application. He submits that the said proceedings were disposed of pursuant to joint compromise petition filed by the petitioner and the respondents under Order XXIII Rule 3 of read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on 29.11.2021.

¶37

In the light of aforesaid admitted position of Final Decree Proceedings having been closed on satisfactory of the preliminary decree, the reasons assigned in the application seeking condonation of delay of 2014 days in filing the appeal are not satisfactory when the parties including the defendants herein have admittedly participated in the said Final Decree Proceedings and have closed the same by entering into compromise.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7480 RSA No. 100373 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Be that as it is. Even otherwise, the appeal has

¶42

no merits warranting interference. The plaintiff and defendant No.2 are the sons of defendant No.1 and deceased Basanagouda Police Patil. Admittedly, suit ‘A’ schedule properties are the ancestral properties. The trial Court on this admitted position had granted 1/3^rd share equally to the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and defendant No.2.

¶43

8. In the appeal filed by the defendants, the First

¶44

Appellate Court taking note of the facts that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties and that Basanagouda Police Patil having passed away on 21.03.1998, held that if in the event of a notional partition during his lifetime, he would have been entitled for 1/3^rd share, and that defendant No.1 being his wife would have got her 1/3^rd share out of 1/3^rd share of deceased Basanagouda Police Patil and further held that she would

¶45

have been entitled for only 1/9^th share in the schedule ‘A’ properties and the reminder would be divided equally

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7480 RSA No. 100373 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Accordingly, modified the shares allotting 1/9^th share to defendant No.1 and 4/9^th share each to the plaintiff and defendant No.1. No error of any nature whatsoever can be found on this ground as well.

¶50

In that view of the matter, nothing survive for consideration. IA No.1/2024 is dismissed consequently, appeal is dismissed.

¶51

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶52

VMB CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Smt Kalakamma W/O. Basanagouda Police Patil v. Sdhri Kalyanagouda S/O Basanagouda Police Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Kalakamma W/O. Basanagouda Police Patil v. Sdhri Kalyanagouda S/O Basanagouda Police Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K Varahal Reddy Vs Sri Mallikarjun

Anjuman-E-Islam Vs Dawalsab S/O Maliksab Anapakatti

Mr T Rama Rao Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

Udachappa S/O Neelappa Hanumapur Vs Ningappa Guddappa Hanumapur

Shri.Sangappa S/O Gurappa Huddar Vs Smt.Sangavva W/O Basavanthappa Huddar

Mahesh S/O Mahabaleshwar Ramdurg Vs Kumari Laxmi D/O Manjunath Ramdurg