Dismissed¶¶58

Venkatesh v. Smt Saroja

Karnataka HC24 Jul 2025RSA/1368/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Bengaluru, RSA No.1368/2024 (PAR), decided 24-07-2025 by H.P. Sandesh, J. Second appeal under S.100 CPC dismissed at admission stage; no substantive question of law framed. First Appellate Court's equal-share decree upheld with reference to Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, AIR 2020 SC 3717 (daughter coparcener, share equal to son, father alive or not). Trial Court had granted 1/24th share via notional partition under S.6 Hindu Succession Act (propositus late Govindaiah died before 09.09.2005). Parties: brothers/sisters and LRs of deceased sister; property at Belagola Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District.

What did the court decide?

No error was committed by the First Appellate Court in modifying the Trial Court's judgment and granting the share equally after considering Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma. ¶¶46

Venkatesh Vs Smt Saroja — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:28358 RSA No. 1368 of 2024

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1368 OF 2024 (PAR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

VENKATESH S/O LATE GOVINDAIAH @ HOSAMANE GOVINDAIAH,

¶10

AGED 55 YEARS,

¶11

MANJUNATH, S/O LATE GOVINDIAH @ HOSAMANE GOVINDAIAH AGED 54 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF BASAVANAGUDI BEEDI, PALANAHALLI VILLAGE, BELAGOLA HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571606

¶14

SAVITHRAMMA, W/O LATE RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT BASAVANAGUDI BEEDI, PALANAHALLI VILLAGE, BELAGOLA HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571606

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:28358 RSA No. 1368 of 2024

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

RADHA, D/O LATE RAJANNA, W/O SRINIVAS, AGED 38 YEARS, R/O PEEHALLI VILLAGE, ARAKERE HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA MANDYA DISTRICT – 571606

¶18

SWAMY, S/O LATE RAJANNA, AGED 36 YEARS,

¶19

KARIYAPPA, S/O LATE RAJANNA, AGED 34 YEARS,

¶20

BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF BASAVANAGUDI BEEDI, PALANAHALLI VILLAGE, BELAGOLA HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571606

¶21

…APPELLANTS

¶22

(BY SRI. KRISHNAPPA N R, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶23

SMT. SAROJA D/O LATE GOVINDAIAH @ HOSAMANE GOVINDAIAH, (DEAD BY LR'S)

¶24

1(A) S. GOVINDARAJU, S/O SRINIVAS, AGED 52 YEARS, R/O YENNEHOLE-

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:28358 RSA No. 1368 of 2024

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

KOPPALU VILLAGE, CHINAKURALI HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK. MANDYA DISTRICT – 571455

¶28

1(B) Y.S. SUDHARANI D/O SRINIVAS, AGED 45 YEARS, RESIDENT OF CHINAKURALI HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571455

¶29

1(C) Y.S.SHOBARANI, D/O SRINIVAS, AGED 40 YEARS R/OF KYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK. MANDYA DISTRICT-571427

¶30

PADMA, D/O LATE GOVINDAIAH @ HOSAMANE GOVINDAIAH W/O CHANDRU, AGED 60 YEARS, R/OF KUDALAKUPPE VILLAGE, K.SHETTIHALLI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT -571807

¶31

MAHALAKSHMI, D/O LATE GOVINDAIAH @ HOSAMANE GOVINDAIAH W/O C N MANJEGOWDA, AGED 58 YEARS, R/OF 2^ND STAGE, SRIRAMAPURA, MYSURU-570023

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI MUKUND P, ADVOCATE)

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:28358 RSA No. 1368 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.03.2023 PASSED IN R.A.NO.18/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SRIRANGAPATNA AND ETC.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶40

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the

¶41

learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

¶42

The suit was filed by the sisters against their brothers claiming that the suit schedule properties are an ancestral properties. The Trial Court having considered the material and record comes to the conclusion that there is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties as well as the properties concerned. On perusal of the records, it discloses that notional partition was granted in the original suit and the same has been challenged in the appeal by the very plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:28358 RSA No. 1368 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

having considered the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2020 SC 3717 in the case of VINEETA SHARMA v. RAKESH SHARMA AND OTHERS wherein it

¶46

is held that the daughter is also entitled for the share that of a son whether the father is alive or not and the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that all are equally entitled for the partition and daughters have also been recognized as coparceners along with the sons. Having considered the case of the Vineeta Sharma referred supra, the First Appellate Court granted the share equally. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the First Appellate Court in modifying the judgment of the trial Court.

¶47

The counsel for the appellants would

¶48

vehemently contend that allotting of share equally by the First Appellate Court is not correct and this Court has to frame substantive question of law that the First Appellate Court committed an error in relying upon the judgment of Vineeta Sharma’s case referred above holding the

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:28358 RSA No. 1368 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

plaintiffs are entitled for 1/6^th share and not justified in modifying the same since the Trial Court granted only 1/24^th share to plaintiffs in view of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act by way of notional partition keeping in mind that late Govindaiah was not alive on 09.09.2005. Hence, the contention of the counsel for the appellants that modification is not in accordance with law. The said submission cannot be accepted. The counsel for the respondents also brought to notice of this Court that in view of the judgment of Vineeta Sharma referred supra, the First Appellate Court rightly modified the judgment of the Trial Court and there cannot be any national partition and the parties are sisters and brothers are also not in dispute and hence, they are equally entitled for a share in the property left by the propositus. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and frame any substantive question of law as contented by the counsel for the appellants.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:28358 RSA No. 1368 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55