Sri Tukaram Rao Vs Sri Smt Sudha — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sri Tukaram Rao Vs Sri Smt Sudha — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Second appeal disposed of at the admission stage without interference with the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court (plaintiff entitled to 1/5th share each with defendant Nos.1 to 4); the appellant is permitted to plead equity before the FDP Court in respect of the property he purchased from the other family members.

Issue for consideration

Whether the registered partition deed dated 14.12.2012 entered between defendant Nos.1 to 4 binds the plaintiff, who was not a party/signatory to it, so as to defeat her claim of partition. +3 more

Court's answer

The registered partition deed dated 14.12.2012 does not bind the plaintiff since she was not a party to it; consequently, the contention that there was already a partition cannot be accepted.

Ratio / Principle

Lakshman Rao Dhumale died intestate; property of a male Hindu devolves upon his wife and children, and accordingly the plaintiff (his daughter, a fact not in dispute) is entitled to one share in the properties left by him.

Key takeaways

The First Appellate Court's modification of the trial Court's decree (granting 1/5th share each to the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4), though made in the absence of an appeal by the plaintiff, cannot be faulted and is a matter of question of law; the appellant's contention that it ought not to have modified is rejected.ratio¶¶44
No error was found in the re-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court; no grounds are made out to interfere with their findings, to admit the second appeal, or to frame substantial question of law.ratio¶¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (H.P. Sandesh, J.) disposed of Regular Second Appeal No. 1594 of 2025 under Section 100 CPC, filed by defendant No.5 (a purchaser) against concurrent findings in favour of the plaintiff, daughter of the deceased propositus. Held: (i) the registered partition deed dated 14.12.2012 executed between defendant Nos.1 to 4 does not bind the plaintiff, who was not a party to it, and the plea of an earlier partition therefore fails; (ii) Lakshman Rao Dhumale having died intestate, the property of a male Hindu devolves upon his wife and children, entitling the plaintiff to one share; (iii) the First Appellate Court's modification of the trial Court's decree to grant 1/5th share each to the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4, though made without an appeal by the plaintiff, was sustainable as a question of law; (iv) no substantial question of law arose to admit the second appeal; the appellant remains at liberty to plead equity before the FDP Court over the property purchased by him.

NC: 2025:KHC:41754 RSA No. 1594 of 2025

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1594 OF 2025 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SRI TUKARAM RAO S/O LATE SRI. NARAYAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, FLOOR MILL OWNER, R/O. NEW BARANDURU VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK-577301.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN BASAREDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. SUDHA Digitally signed W/O KRISHNOJI RAO DHARWADKAR, by AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, HEMALATHA A HOUSEHOLD, R/O HIREKERURU TOWN Location: HIGH COURTOF HAVERI DISTRICT-581111. KARNATAKA

SMT. YASHODHA BAI, W/O LATE SRI LAKSHMAN RAO DHUMALE, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST.

SRI SURESH @ SURI RAO, S/O LATE SRI LAKSHMAN RAO DHUMALE, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:41754 RSA No. 1594 of 2025

HC-KAR

SRI RAVI @ RAVI KUMAR, S/O LATE SRI LAKSHMAN RAO DHUMALE, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST.

SRI DHANARAJ, S/O LATE SRI LAKSHMAN RAO DHUMALE, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,

THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT: NEW BARANDURU VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK-577301.

…RESPONDENTS

THIS RSA FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.08.2025 PASSED IN RA.NO.87/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.04.2023 PASSED IN OS.NO.28/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI.

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

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard the appellant-defendant No.5’s counsel.

This matter is listed for admission. This second appeal

is filed against the concurrent finding. The claim of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that she is the daughter of Mr.M.Lakshman Rao Dhumale, S/o Nagendra Rao, who

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:41754 RSA No. 1594 of 2025

HC-KAR

died leaving behind his wife (defendant No.1), daughter (plaintiff) and three sons (defendant Nos.2 to 4). The plaint schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties and the plaintiff is in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. There is no partition between the parties. Hence, claimed 1/5^th share in the suit schedule properties. In spite of the demand made by her, they have not given any share and also it is contented that there was a partition and the plaintiff is not a signatory to the said document of partition. Hence, claimed the share over the properties. In response to the suit, defendants have appeared through their respective counsel to contest the case and filed written statement separately. Defendant No.1 has denied the plaint averments. But she has admitted that suit schedule properties are ancestral properties and the plaintiff is having 1/5^th share in the suit schedule properties and this defendant is also having right to get 1/5^th share. Defendant No.1 never denied the plaintiff to give a share in the suit schedule properties. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 admitted that the plaintiff is the

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41754 RSA No. 1594 of 2025

HC-KAR

member of the Hindu joint family. Defendant No.5 denied

the entire plaint averments and contend that plaintiff has not revealed the true and material facts before the Court and partition already taken place between the family members and they have executed the sale deed. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for any share.

The trial Court having considered the pleadings of parties and taken note of earlier registered partition, comes to the conclusion that it does not binds the plaintiff since the plaintiff is not a party to the said partition deed

and hence granted the share in respect of the suit schedule properties granting 5/25^th share in the plaint schedule and defendant No.1 is entitled for 1/25^th share in the plaint schedule properties. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal is filed by the appellant-defendant No.5 and questioned the reasoning of the trial Court in R.A.No.87/2023. The First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo formulated the point and comes to the conclusion that trial

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:41754 RSA No. 1594 of 2025

HC-KAR

Court has not committed any error and has confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. However, modified the share as 1/5^th share each to the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 in the suit schedule properties. Being aggrieved, the second appeal is filed before this Court by the purchaser (defendant No.5).

The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant in the second appeal is that in spite of registered partition deed among the family members, the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court committed an error. Counsel would contend that when the plaintiff has not challenged the partition and mutation entry, she ought not to have sought for the relief of partition. The counsel would vehemently contend that the Appellate Court committed an error in modifying the judgment of the trial Court and granting 1/5^th share. It ought not to have modified the same in the absence of an appeal filed by the plaintiff and hence, this Court has to frame substantial question of the law.

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:41754 RSA No. 1594 of 2025

HC-KAR

Having heard the appellant’s counsel and also the reasons assigned by the trial Court, the plaintiff claims that suit schedule properties are joint family properties. There was no partition and she is entitled for 1/5^th share and also contended that partition deed entered between defendant Nos.1 to 4 is not binding on plaintiff and the contention of the defendants that there was a registered partition deed held on 14.12.2012 cannot be accepted.

Having considered the material, the trial Court comes to the conclusion that there was a registered partition, but plaintiff is not a party to the said partition deed. The First Appellate Court also on reassessing the material available on record only modified the judgment of the trial Court that each of them are entitled for 1/5^th share and no doubt in the absence of any appeal, the same is modified. But the contention of the appellant’s counsel that it ought not to have modified, cannot be accepted and the same is on the question of law and trial Court granted only 5/25^th share and the fact that plaintiff is also a daughter of

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:41754 RSA No. 1594 of 2025

HC-KAR

Lakshman Rao Dummale is not in dispute. When he died intestate and property of a male Hindu devolves upon the wife and children and accordingly the plaintiff is entitled for one share.

Taking the said fact into consideration that when the plaintiff-respondent No.1 is not a party to the partition deed, the very contention of the counsel that there was already a partition cannot be accepted on the ground that she was not a party to the partition.

Hence, I do not find any error on the part of the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court in reappreciation of both oral and documentary evidence. The plaintiff is entitled for one share of the properties left by the father, Lakshman Rao Dhumale and accordingly the same has been modified by the First Appellate Court.

Hence, no grounds are made out to interfere with the findings of the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court and to admit the second appeal and frame substantial question of law. However, the counsel appearing for the

8 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41754 RSA No. 1594 of 2025

HC-KAR

appellant would contend that appellant may be permitted to plead equity before the FDP Court in respect of the

property which he had purchased.

Hence, the appellant is at liberty to plead equity before the FDP Court in respect of the right over the property, which he had purchased from the other family members.

With this observation, the second appeal is disposed

of.

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

HA

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52