Smt. B Renukamma Vs Smt. B Kotramma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smt. B Renukamma Vs Smt. B Kotramma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants/defendants; with both substantial questions answered (first negative, second affirmative), the second appeal is dismissed and the First Appellate Court's decree granting the plaintiff 1/11th share in the suit 'B' schedule property stands.

Issue for consideration

Whether the First Appellate Court committed an error in not noticing that the plaintiff's suit for partial partition was not maintainable? +1 more

Court's answer

The suit for partial partition is maintainable: the plaintiff, married about 25 years before filing, lacked knowledge of her father's prior sale of Sy.No.235/A(P); defendants provided no details of that sale nor sought its inclusion; hence her stray cross-examination admission of awareness cannot take away her right to claim partition of the available suit 'B' schedule property. First substantial question of law answered in the negative.

Ratio / Principle

It is undisputed that the suit 'B' schedule property is ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendants; the katha stands in the name of their father Vamadevappa, who died intestate leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants.

Key takeaways

The suit is not invalid for non-joinder of necessary party: the alleged omitted co-heir, elder brother Basavaraja, had been given in adoption out of the family, as admitted by defendant No.3 himself; therefore the Trial Court erred on this ground.ratio¶71
Defendant No.3's own admission that there was no partition between himself and his six sisters after their father's demise establishes the plaintiff's entitlement to her legal share, vindicating the First Appellate Court's decree; second substantial question of law answered in the affirmative.ratio¶72

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Partition / Second Appeal (Sec.100 CPC, Karnataka HC, RSA 440/2019, decided 06.11.2025, Justice Rajesh Rai K) - Defendants' second appeal against Senior Civil Judge, Harapanahalli decree granting plaintiff 1/11th share in ancestral suit 'B' schedule property (katha in deceased father Vamadevappa's name). Held: (i) Suit for partial partition is NOT unmaintainable merely because plaintiff omitted already-sold joint family land (Sy.No.235/A(P)): plaintiff married ~25 years before suit, lived apart, defendants concealed sale particulars and made no application to add the property; plaintiff's stray cross-examination admission of awareness cannot defeat her partition right - Q.1 answered NEGATIVE. (ii) Suit not defective for non-joinder: omitted elder brother Basavaraja was given in adoption out of the family, as defendant No.3 himself admitted - Trial Court erred. (iii) Defendant No.3's categorical admission that no partition took place between him and his six sisters after the father's death itself proves the plaintiff's lawful share, justifying the First Appellate Court's decree - Q.2 answered AFFIRMATIVE. Appeal DISMISSED.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45111 RSA No. 440 of 2019

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 440 OF 2019 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SMT. B RENUKAMMA W/O. MAHESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDENT OF KENCHAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, HADAGALI TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT-582 102.

SMT. KARIBASAMMA W/O. SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS KOLLUR VILLAGE, BELLARY DISTRICT-583 102.

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SRI. B SIDDAPPA S/O. SRI. VAMADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDENT OF KANCHIKERE VILLAGE, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-583 131.

SMT. MALAMMA W/O. BASAVARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDENT AT YELLAPURA VILLAGE, KURUGUDU TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT-583 116

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:45111 RSA No. 440 of 2019

HC-KAR

SMT. D. MANJAMMA W/O. PRADEEP, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT GIRIYAPURA VILLAGE, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 548.

SMT. B NAGAMMA W/O. THIRUPATHI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT NAGALAPURA VILLAGE, SANDOOR TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT-586 119.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. RAVI PRAKASH V, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. B KOTRAMMA W/O. HEMANNA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT KANCHIKERE VILLAGE, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-583 131.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. RUDRAPPA P, ADVOCATE)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.12.2018 PASSED IN RA NO 7/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HARAPANAHALLI ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.07.2018 PASSED IN OS NO 178/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARAPANAHALLI.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45111 RSA No. 440 of 2019

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

This is defendants' second appeal.

It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit 'B' schedule property is the ancestral property and joint family property of herself and defendants. Originally said property belongs

to one Bidari Kotrabasappa. After his death, his only son Bidari Vamadevappa continued in possession. The plaintiff and defendants are the children of said Vamadevappa. After his death, the plaintiff and defendants continued in possession of the suit 'B' schedule property. The katha of the said property is still standing in the name of their father. Things stood thus, in the first week of February, 2014, defendant No.3, who is the brother of plaintiff, tried to obtain illegal katha in his name and to alienate the suit schedule 'B' property in order to meet his bad vices. As such, when the plaintiff approached him to effect partition

of suit schedule property, he declined the same. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession.

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:45111 RSA No. 440 of 2019

HC-KAR

Defendant No.3, having contested the matter by filing written statement, denied the plaint averments contending that the genealogy produced by the plaintiff is false/incorrect and she has not filed the suit in respect of all the joint family properties. Hence, the suit is bad for partial partition.

The Trial Court, after considering the rival pleadings, framed relevant issues and after examining the evidence in detail, dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to prove that she is a joint family member by producing correct genealogy of her family and also she sought partial partition of joint family properties in the suit, which is bad under law.

On appeal by the plaintiff, the First Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of evidence, has observed that the plaintiff is also having legitimate share in the suit 'B' schedule property, since defendant No.3 has categorically admitted in his evidence that himself and his six sisters have inherited legitimate share in the suit 'B' schedule

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45111 RSA No. 440 of 2019

HC-KAR

property. Accordingly, allowed the appeal by granting 1/11^th share in the suit 'B' schedule property to the plaintiff.

Aggrieved by the same, the defendants are before this Court.

I have heard Sri. Ravi Prakash V, learned counsel for

the appellants/defendants and Sri. Rudrappa. P, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

The primary contention of the defendants/appellants is that the First Appellate Court has erred in allowing the appeal by granting 1/11^th share to the plaintiff in the suit 'B' schedule property solely relying on the evidence of defendant No.3 that himself and his six sisters are having equal right in the suit 'B' schedule property. He further contended that the plaintiff, being well aware about the sale of remaining joint family properties by her father, by suppressing the said aspect filed the suit only for partial partition, which is unsustainable under law. Further, the

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45111 RSA No. 440 of 2019

HC-KAR

Trial Court has rightly held that the suit is also liable to be rejected on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal.

Per contra , the learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent contends that the Trial Court has totally erred while dismissing the suit solely on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to claim partition in respect of property bearing Sy.No.235/A(P) measuring 3 acres, in view of her admission in the cross-examination that the said property was allotted to the share of her father. According to the learned counsel, the plaintiff got married 25 years prior to the date of filing of the suit and defendant No.3, being her brother was residing along with her father. As such, she was unaware about the sale of remaining joint family properties by her father. Hence, she filed the partition in respect of the available land i.e. the suit 'B' schedule property. In such circumstance, the suit cannot be dismissed on that ground and also for nonjoinder of necessary party i.e. her elder brother one

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45111 RSA No. 440 of 2019

HC-KAR

Basavaraja, who had gone in adoption. As such, the First Appellate Court has rightly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for both the parties, so also to the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts.

This Court while admitting this appeal, has framed

the following substantial questions of law:

i) Whether the First Appellate Court committed an error in not noticing that the suit filed by the plaintiff for partial partition, was not maintainable?

ii) Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in decreeing the suit for partition and declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/11^th share in the suit 'B' schedule property?

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:45111 RSA No. 440 of 2019

HC-KAR

As could be gathered from records, the suit 'B' schedule property originally belongs to one late Bidari Kotrabasappa. After his death, father of plaintiff and defendants one Vamadevappa was put in possession of the said property. The katha of the property is still standing in the name of said Vamadevappa and he died instate leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants. Hence, it is undisputed that the suit 'B' schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and the defendants.

The plaintiff has filed the present suit for partition and separate possession with respect of suit 'B' schedule property, which was opposed by contesting defendant No.3 on the ground that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable on two counts i.e. the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary party i.e. the elder brother of plaintiff and defendants one Basavaraja, who had gone in adoption and that the suit has been filed only for partial partition in respect of suit 'B' schedule property leaving the property bearing Sy.No.235/A(P).

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:45111 RSA No. 440 of 2019

HC-KAR

The Trial Court has dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to include the remaining joint family properties, despite knowing fully the said aspect. On perusal of the evidence on record, it can be seen, the plaintiff was given in marriage approximately 25 years prior to filing of the suit. According to her, her father was residing along with defendant No.3 and as such, she was unaware of the sale transaction in respect of property bearing Sy.No.235/A(P). Though she admitted in her cross-examination that she was aware about the said sale transaction, she stated that she was unable to secure the details of the same. Admittedly, the property bearing Sy.No.235/A(P) was sold by the father of plaintiff and defendants prior to 20 years from the date of filing the suit and that the defendants also failed to provide any information in respect of the said sale transaction, despite knowing fully about the same. Further, the defendants also not made any application to include the said property in the suit. Since the plaintiff got married 25 years prior to

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:45111 RSA No. 440 of 2019

HC-KAR

the date of filing of the suit, obviously she could not have the knowledge of the said sale transaction. As such, she filed the suit in respect of the available land i.e. suit 'B' schedule property. In such circumstance, the stray admission of the plaintiff in the cross-examination that she was aware of the earlier sale transaction in respect of other joint family properties itself cannot be take away her right to claim partition in the suit 'B' schedule property.

The Trial Court has also erred by holding that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party i.e. the elder brother of the plaintiff and defendants for the reason that it is admitted by defendant No.3 himself that his elder brother Basavaraja had been given in adoption.

Primarily the admission of defendant No.3 that there was no partition between himself and six sisters after the demise of his father in respect of ancestral and joint family properties itself establishes that the plaintiff is entitled for her legal share in the suit 'B' schedule property. This aspect of the matter has been rightly dealt by the First

11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45111 RSA No. 440 of 2019

HC-KAR

Appellate Court. In that view of the matter, I answer the above raised first substantial question of law in the "negative" and the second substantial question of law in the "affirmative". Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2