Disposed¶33

Smt. A.S. Shankaramma, v. Smt. Latha

Karnataka HC27 Oct 2025RSA/1366/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RSA No. 1366 of 2025, High Court of Karnataka (Bengaluru), decided 27.10.2025 by Justice H.P. Sandesh; second appeal under Sec.100 CPC disposed of without framing substantial question of law; partition/partition-related suit OS No.445/2012 confirmed via R.A. No.5/2021; claim by children of second wife; Section 16(3) Hindu Marriage Act; Revanasiddappa and others v. Mallikarjuna (Apex Court, Civil No.2844/2011, 01.09.2023); sale deed dated 29.11.2010; sale by Lokamma wife of Nagarajappa; direction to seek equity before FDP Court.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal disposed of without admission; appellant left free to urge his pleadings before the FDP Court seeking equity in view of the sale made by Lokamma, wife of Nagarajappa. ¶33

Smt. A.S. Shankaramma, Vs Smt. Latha — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Second appeal disposed of without admission; appellant left free to urge his pleadings before the FDP Court seeking equity in view of the sale made by Lokamma, wife of Nagarajappa.

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether any ground exists to admit the second appeal and frame substantial question(s) of law as contended by the appellant's counsel.

¶28

Court's answer

Both the trial Court and the appellate Court considered the material on record, including Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act and the Apex Court judgment in Revanasiddappa, so that both questions of fact and questions of law were addressed by the courts below.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

There is no ground to admit the second appeal or frame a substantial question of law as contended by the appellant's counsel.

¶28

Key takeaways

The appellant, who purchased the property vide sale deed dated 29.11.2010, can urge his pleadings before the FDP Court seeking equity in view of the sale made by Lokamma, wife of Nagarajappa.obiter¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal under S.100 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2025 in R.A. No.5/2021 (Senior Civil Judge, Kadur), which had dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 13.11.2020 in OS No.445/2012 (1st Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kaduru). The dispute concerned plaintiffs claiming as children of Nagarajappa through his second wife, where the property was sold by Lokamma, wife of Nagarajappa, and the plaintiff-children were not parties to the sale deed in favour of the appellant-purchaser (sale deed dated 29.11.2010). The courts below had considered Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act regarding validity of the marriage and taken note of the Apex Court judgment in Revanasiddappa and others v. Mallikarjuna (Civil No.2844/2011, dated 01.09.2023). Held (H.P. Sandesh, J.): no ground to admit the second appeal or frame a substantial question of law, both question of fact and question of law having been considered below; the second appeal was disposed of with the observation that the appellant may urge his pleadings before the FDP Court seeking equity in view of the sale made by Lokamma.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:42537 RSA No. 1366 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1366 OF 2025 (PAR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. A. S. SHANKARAMMA, W/O. SRI. H.S. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT ANTHARAGHATTE VILLAGE, ANTHARAGHATTE POST, CHOWLAHIRIYUR HOBLI, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT- 577 548.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. GIREESHA R. J.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT. LATHA, W/O. SRI. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NEAR PANCHAYATH OFFICE, NEHARU ROAD, AJJAMPURA, AJJAMPURA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT- 577 547.

¶14

KUMARI/SMT. BABY, D/O. SRI. NAGARAJAPPA @ T. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, HOUSE HOLD WORK, NEAR PANCHAYATH OFFICE, ANTHARAGHATTE POST, CHOWLAHIRIYUR HOBLI, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT- 577 548.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:42537 RSA No. 1366 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.06.2025. PASSED IN R.A. NO.5/2021 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KADUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.11.2020 PASSED IN OS NO.445/2012 ON THE FILE OF 1^ST ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KADURU.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

Heard Sri.Gireesha.R.J learned counsel for the appellant.

¶23

On perusal of the reasons assigned in the trial Court order and also the Appellate Court order depicts that plaintiffs are the children of Nagarajappa and property belongs to Nagarajappa who sold the property and the plaintiffs are not the parties to the sale deed executed in

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:42537 RSA No. 1366 of 2025

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

favour of the appellant. Property was sold by the wife of Nagarajappa who succeeded to the estate of the Nagarajappa along with the plaintiffs and when such being the material available on record, trial Court has taken note of Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act with regard to the validity of the marriage, since plaintiffs claim that they are the children of second wife of said Nagarajappa. The appellate Court also while reconsidering the material on record has considered Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act and taken note of the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Revanasiddappa and others v. Mallikarjuna delivered in Civil No.2844/2011 dated 01.09.2023 and when such materials were considered both question of fact and question of law is considered by the trial Court and appellate Court.

¶27

I do not find any ground to admit the second

¶28

appeal and frame substantial question of law as contented by the appellant's counsel and no doubt it is his contention that he had purchased the property vide sale deed dated

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:42537 RSA No. 1366 of 2025

¶30

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

29.11.2010 and the appellant can urge his pleadings before the FDP Court seeking equity in view of sale made by Lokamma, wife of Nagarajappa. With these

¶33

observations, the second appeal is disposed of .

¶34

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶35

DS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53

Smt. A.S. Shankaramma, v. Smt. Latha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. A.S. Shankaramma, v. Smt. Latha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Chikkanarayanappa Vs Smt Bhagyamma

Ramesh Vs S Bettegowda

Sri. Krishnappa K. R. Vs Sri. Thopaiah

Kusuma Vs Jayashankara

Smt. Leelamma Dead by Lrs Smt Padma Vs Smt. Premakumari

Smt. Parvathamma Vs Ganesh Kumar