Disposed¶49

Ranganatha v. Smt Jayalakshmamma

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2025RSA/2103/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; RSA No. 2103 of 2023; Justice H.P. Sandesh; decided 04.11.2025; second appeal under Sec.100 CPC against judgment and decree dated 05.07.2022 in R.A.No.25/2018, Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri; partition suit; propositus Chikkanna; sons Rangadhamaiah and Seenappa; concurrent finding on Item No.1 not disturbed; no substantial question of law framed; shares in Item Nos.2 and 3 modified — appellant/defendant No.8 and defendant No.9 (Seenappa branch) entitled to half share each instead of 7/28th share each; appeal disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Modification of the decree in respect of Item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit schedule properties — the appellant/defendant No.8 and defendant No.9 held equally entitled to half share each; the concurrent finding in respect of Item No.1 left undisturbed.

Ranganatha Vs Smt Jayalakshmamma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether defendant Nos.8 and 9, who represent the branch of Seenappa (one of the two sons of propositus Chikkanna), were correctly allotted 7/28th share each instead of half share each in Item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit schedule properties. +1 more

¶45

Court's answer

The court found force in the appellant's contention that defendant Nos.8 and 9, representing the branch of Seenappa, ought to have been granted half share (and not 7/28th share) in Item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit schedule properties.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

No substantial question of law was required to be framed or admitted; the concurrent finding of the courts below in respect of Item No.1 was left undisturbed.

¶46

Key takeaways

The shares in Item Nos.2 and 3 stand modified in this second appeal: the appellant/defendant No.8 and defendant No.9 are equally entitled to half share each in Item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit schedule properties of Chikkanna, and the second appeal is disposed of on this basis.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal (RSA No. 2103 of 2023) under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2022 in R.A.No.25/2018 (Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri), in a partition suit concerning the properties of propositus Chikkanna, who had two sons, Rangadhamaiah (defendant No.1) and Seenappa. The Trial Court had granted relief to the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 6 over Item Nos.1 to 3 and 1/6th share each to defendant Nos.8 and 9 in Item Nos.2 and 3; the First Appellate Court confirmed the decree, modifying the shares in Item Nos.2 and 3 to 2/28th each for the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 6 and 7/28th each for defendant Nos.8 and 9. Held: (i) no substantial question of law arose since the finding on Item No.1 was concurrent, and it was left undisturbed; (ii) defendant Nos.8 and 9, representing the branch of Seenappa, were entitled to half share and not 7/28th share each in Item Nos.2 and 3; accordingly the shares in Item Nos.2 and 3 were modified in the second appeal, with the appellant/defendant No.8 and defendant No.9 held equally entitled to half share each, and the appeal was disposed of.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:44398 RSA No. 2103 of 2023

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

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

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2103 OF 2023 (PAR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

RANGANATHA S/O LATE SEENAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT LAKSHMIDEVIPURA VILLAGE, MEDIGESHI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK-572132

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. G S VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT JAYALAKSHMAMMA W/O KAMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O MINASANDRA VILLAGE, HOLAVANAHALLI HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK-572129

¶15

RANGADHAMAIAH S/O LATE CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,

¶16

RANGANATHA S/O RANGADHAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶17

RAMAKRISHNAPPA S/O RANGADHAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:44398 RSA No. 2103 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

SHIVAKUMAR S/O RANGADHAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶21

THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO R ARE R/AT LAKSHMIDEVIPURA, MEDIGESHI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK-57213

¶22

BHAGYAMMA W/O RANGADHAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NEAR LAGGERE BUS STOP, GANGARAJU BUILDING, NEAR ESHWAR TEMPLE, M.R. RAMAIAH EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560054

¶23

NAGARATHNAMMA W/O DEVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, AVINAMADUGU VILLAGE, DODDERI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK-57213

¶24

HALLAMMA

¶25

W/O MUDDHARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, R/O HALETHIMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, PURAVARA HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK-57213

¶26

RANGALAKSHMAMMA W/O NAGARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O BITTANKURIKE VILLAGE, DODDERI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK-57213

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. BALAGANGADHAR G S.,ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2, R4 TO R7 AND R3, R8 & R9 ARE SERVED)

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44398 RSA No. 2103 of 2023

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.07.2022 PASSED IN R.A.NO.25/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI AND ETC.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶35

This matter is listed for admission. Hearing the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

¶36

The suit was filed by the plaintiff. At the first instance, the Trial Court granted the relief in favour of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 6 in respect of Item Nos.1 to 3 of the suit schedule property and granted the relief in favour of defendant Nos. 8 and 9 in Item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit schedule property granting 1/6^th share each. The same is challenged before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.25/2018 by the appellants. The First Appellate Court having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court and modified the

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:44398 RSA No. 2103 of 2023

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

same in respect of Item Nos.2 and 3 granting 2/28^th share each in favour of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 6 and defendant Nos.8 and 9 are entitled for 7/28^th share each in Item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit schedule property properties. The same is challenged before this Court.

¶41

The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant is that he has challenged the finding in respect of Item No.1 is concerned that is a concurrent finding. The counsel would vehemently contend that the proportionate share granted by the Trial Court in favour of appellant i.e., 7/28^th share in respect of Item Nos.2 and 3 as against the half share which the appellant and respondent No.8 are entitled in accordance with law. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court genealogical tree in respect of the propositus one Chikkanna and also brought to notice of this Court that the said Chikkanna had two sons i.e., Rangadhamaiah i.e., defendant No.1 and another son by name Seenappa. Though defendant No. 7 was made as party, both the Courts have not given any share in favour of defendant No.7. But while granting the relief in favour of Defendant nos.8 and 9, 7/28^th share each was

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:44398 RSA No. 2103 of 2023

¶43

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

allotted. But when Chikkanna had two sons i.e., Rangadhamaiah and Seenappa and the property belongs to Chikkanna, the Trial Court ought to have been divided the suit schedule properties equally between the Rangadhamaiah and Seenappa. It is also important to note that plaintiff, defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the legal heirs of Rangadhamaiah. When defendant Nos.8 and 9 represent the branch of Seenappa, ought to have been granted half share and not 7/28^th share in Item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit schedule properties.

¶46

The learned counsel appearing with respondents also not disputes the genealogical tree of Chikkanna that chikkanna had two sons i.e., Rangadhamaiah and Seenappa. It is also the fact that Ranganatha (defendant No.8) and Rangalaxamma (defendant No.9) represents the branch of Seenappa. When such being the case, there is a force in the contention of the appellant’s counsel that half share ought to have been granted in favour of defendant Nos.8 and 9 and except granting of relief of proportionate share is concerned, the finding of the Trial Court with regard to Item No. 1 is concerned, I do not find any ground to admit and frame

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:44398 RSA No. 2103 of 2023

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

substantive question of law since there is a concurrent finding in respect of Item No. 1 is concerned. Only to the extent of share in respect of Item Nos.2 and 3 is concerned, the same is modified in this second appeal. No need of framing any substantive question of law in the case on hand since, it is only for modification of the proportionate share in favour of the appellant/defendant No.8 as well as defendant No.9 as both are equally entitled for half share in Item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit schedule properties of Chikkanna. With this observation, the second appeal is disposed of.

¶50

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶51

Ranganatha v. Smt Jayalakshmamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranganatha v. Smt Jayalakshmamma

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

Sri. Hanumanthaiah Vs Sri. Karuppa Gounder

Nagarathnamma Vs Sri Narasimha Murthy N v

Sri Ajjegowda Vs Smt Lakshmamma

Smt. Late Yashodha Vs Puttegowda

Hanumamma Vs Smt. Manjulamma

Smt M Uma Vs Sri Ramalinga Reddy