Partly allowed¶45

Sri Basavaraju v. Sri Kumar

Partition – Joint family property

Karnataka HC2 Jul 2025RSA/1248/2021

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RSA No.1248/2021, High Court of Karnataka, H.P. Sandesh J., decided 02.07.2025; second appeal under S.100 CPC; partition of joint family property of propositus Siddaiah at Gubbi/Tumakuru; sons Basavaraj and Ganganna entitled to half share each; plaintiff Kumar and defendant No.4 Sunanda granted equal shares out of father Ganganna's share; decree modified, appeal partly allowed; no substantial question of law framed; concurrent findings of trial court and first appellate court; respondents included unrepresented and abated parties; no monetary quantum involved; no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Decree modified: the plaintiff (Kumar) and defendant No.4 (Sunanda) were declared entitled to share equally out of the share of their father Ganganna in the suit schedule properties. ¶45

Sri Basavaraju Vs Sri Kumar — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:23793 RSA No. 1248 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1248 OF 2021 (PAR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI BASAVARAJU, S/O SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, R/AT LINGAMANNAHALLI VILLAGE, KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRIT-572216.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI B.R. PRABHULINGA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI KUMAR, S/O GANGANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶14

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

GANGANNA, S/O SIDDAPPA,

¶16

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶17

RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT GOPALAPURA, GOPALAPURA POST, MLA CHANNABASAPPA FARM HOUSE, KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572216.

¶18

SHEIK HYDER, S/O NOOR AHMED, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT LINGAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572216.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:23793 RSA No. 1248 of 2021

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

SUNANDA,

¶23

W/O SOMASHEKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT KUNIGAL ROAD, BANASHANKARI, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572201.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI.M.B.CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; APPEAL AGAINST R-3 IS ABATED; APPEAL AGAINST R-4 IS DISMISSED)

¶26

¶27

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.08.2019 PASSED IN R.A.NO.56 OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGE AND DECREE DATED 18.12.2010 PASSED IN OS.NO.86/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC. GUBBI.

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant

¶32

and learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶33

This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding passed by the courts below.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:23793 RSA No. 1248 of 2021

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that one Siddaiah is the propositus of the family and he had two sons viz., Basavaraj and Ganganna. The suit is filed by the son of Ganganna viz., Kumar. He also arrayed his sister Sunanda as defendant No.4 and he arrayed his senior uncle as defendant No.1. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that family was having the property and on account of death of original propositus his two sons Basavaraj and Ganganna are entitled for half share in the joint family property.

¶38

The trial court while considering the factual aspects that Ganganna was alive and his children son and daughter, one is the plaintiff and the other is defendant No.4 and shared 1/6^th of the property in the ratio of 1: 3 including the share of the senior uncle Basavaraj and the same is confirmed by the appellate court since at the time of disposal of the appeal also Ganganna was alive and the same was taken note of in para 25 of the judgment and rightly comes to the conclusion that Ganganna has got half share and he has got two children i.e., daughter and a son and plaintiff and defendant No.4 who are the children along with the father get 1/3^rd out of half share and hence, taken the same as 1/6^th share.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:23793 RSA No. 1248 of 2021

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Ganganna is no more and on account of death of Ganganna, the share is enlarged and both of them are entitled out of the half share of Ganganna in the suit schedule properties equally.

¶43

No grounds to admit and frame substantial question

¶44

of law. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

¶45

Appeal is allowed in part modifying the same as the plaintiff and defendant No.4 are entitled for share equally out of the share of their father Mr.Ganganna

¶46

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶47

SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

Sri Basavaraju v. Sri Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Basavaraju v. Sri Kumar

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

Smt. H.J. Hemalatha Vs a v Sharadadevi

Mr J R Mundkur Vs Sri Veerendra Kathuria

Manjegowda Vs Smt Somamma

Smt. N. Hemavathi Vs Nanjundappa

Sri v Chandrashekaraiah Vs Sri Shivarudraiah

Mahantappa Vs Bheemappa