Smt Baby Devadthi Vs Sri Annappa — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smt Baby Devadthi Vs Sri Annappa — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Modification of the Trial Court's judgment and decree to grant 1/4th share each to the four children of Krishnappa, with plaintiffs and defendants to divide shares among themselves within their respective branches; interlocutory applications, if any, stand dismissed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the shares in the suit properties should stand allotted per capita among all claimants (as decreed by the courts below), or as 1/4th share each to the four children/branches of Krishnappa, with the members of each branch claiming shares among themselves.

Court's answer

The RSA is disposed of by modifying the Trial Court's judgment and decree: instead of the per capita division, each of the four children of Krishnappa (named Channamma/Nagi/Manji/Subbi at ¶85; the mother's branch children spelled 'Chennamma' at ¶79) is granted 1/4th share, and the plaintiffs and defendants are to claim shares among themselves subject to the respective children.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Partition — mode of division: per capita vs. branch-wise (per stirpes). Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 23.06.2022 in R.A.No.40/2013 (Senior Civil Judge, Kundapura), which dismissed the first appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2013 in O.S.No.51/2004 (II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundapura) granting partition of property originally granted under the Land Reforms Act to Krishnappa, husband of Narsi. The Trial Court had divided the property into 20 equal shares with reference to good and bad soil. The appellant's sole grievance was that shares were allotted per capita instead of 1/4th share each to the four branches. Held (H.P. Sandesh J., oral judgment, at admission stage): the decree is modified to grant 1/4th share each to the four children of Krishnappa — Channamma (spelled 'Chennamma' elsewhere in the judgment), Nagi, Manji and Subbi — with the plaintiffs and defendants to claim shares among themselves subject to the respective children. Interlocutory applications, if any, dismissed. No precedent was cited or engaged with.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:26727 RSA No. 1576 of 2022

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

BEFORE

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

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1576 OF 2022 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SMT. BABY DEVADTHI D/O LATE GOVINDA DEVADIGA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O SOORKUNDA, BYNDOOR VILLAGE AND POST, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI-576201

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. AJITH A SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SRI. ANNAPPA S/O LATE MARLIHENGSU, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,

LATE SRI MUDOORA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS

SMT. NETHRAVATHI, W/O LATE MUDOORA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,

LAXMAN AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:26727 RSA No. 1576 of 2022

HC-KAR

RAVINDRA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

RESPONDENT NO.2 IS THE WIFE WHILE RESPONDENTS 3, 4, 5 AND 6 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE MUDOORA.

LAXMANA DEVADIGA S/O LATE NAGI HENGSU, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,

LATE NAGA DEVADIGA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS

SMT. LAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,

SUSHEELA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

DAMODHARA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

SULOCHANA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

SATISH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

ASHOKA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

RESPONDENT 8 IS THE WIDOW WHILE RESPONDENTS 9 TO 13 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE NAGA DEVADIGA

LATE THIMMA DEVADIGA

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:26727 RSA No. 1576 of 2022

HC-KAR

KAVERI AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,

KAMALA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

VASU AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

BALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

GIRIJA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

SMT. MOOKAMBU AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

SMT. RUKKKU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

NARASIMHA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

RESPONDENTS 21 TO 23 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE MANJI

MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

VASU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:26727 RSA No. 1576 of 2022

HC-KAR

KRISHNA

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

GANGADHAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

SMT. NEELU AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

SMT. BHARATHI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

RESPONDENTS 24 TO 29 ARE CHILDREN OF SMT. MOOKAMBU.

SMT. NIRMALA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

SHIVA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, CHILDREN OF SMT. RUKKU

RESPONDENTS 30 AND 31 ARE CHILDREN OF SMT. RUKKU.

ROHITH

AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,

RAMDAS AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,

NARAYANA DEVADIGA S/O LATE NAGI HENGSU, AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS,

RESPONDENTS WERE RESIDENTS OF SOORKUNDA, BYNDOOR VILLAGE, POST : MAYYADI, UDUPI DISTRICT-576214 THERY ARE COURRENTLY RESIDING AT KELA MANE,

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:26727 RSA No. 1576 of 2022

HC-KAR

YEDTHARE VILLAGE, YEDTHARE POST, KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI-576214.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.DHANANJAYA, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. VANITHA U.M., ADVOCATE FOR R1, R17, R21 TO R23, R27 TO R31)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.06.2022 PASSED IN R.A.NO.40/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KUNDAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.10.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.51/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNDAPURA.

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

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the counsel appearing for the appellant and also the counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 17, 21 to 23, 27 to 31.

The counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that this appeal is not challenging the allotment of share, but allotment of share of per capita and ought to have granted 1/4^th share each. Originally, the property

was granted under the Land Reforms Act in favour of

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:26727 RSA No. 1576 of 2022

HC-KAR

Krishnappa i.e., the husband of Narsi and they have four children by name Chennamma, Nagi, Manji and Subbi and the said Narsi is no more and all these parties are represent their branch thus, ought not to have decided and allotted the share of per capita instead of allotting the share of 1/4^th . If any persons represent their respective branches, they can claim the share among themselves. The counsel appearing for the respondent also not disputes the relationship between the parties. The property was originally allotted in favour of husband of Narsi i.e., Krishnappa and no doubt, the Trial Court granted the relief of partition and while granting the relief, taken note of the fact that the parties who are representing the different branches, divided into 20 pair and equal shares with reference to the good and bad soil and plaintiff No.2 is entitled for allotment of one such share in the said properties and decreed the same and ought not to have done the same but ought to have to have done only 1/4^th share because they represent respective their branches.

Having considered the grounds which have been

urged before this court and also there is a force in the

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:26727 RSA No. 1576 of 2022

HC-KAR

contention of the appellant’s counsel that it requires only modification of the share, i.e., 1/4^th each on the children of Sri Krishnappa, who was having four children namely Channamma, Nagi, Manji and Subbi and the plaintiffs and defendants claim share among themselves subject to the respective children’s. Accordingly, this RSA is disposed of modifying the judgment and decree of the Trial Court granting 1/4^th share each on the children of Krishnappa.

In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if any,

do not survive for consideration and the same stand dismissed.

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

SN

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66