Smt Marimadamma @ Sannamma Vs Somashekara Karishetty — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smt Marimadamma @ Sannamma Vs Somashekara Karishetty — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

In RSA.No.494/2013: Whether the Courts below were right in deciding the suit (O.S.No.103/1999) based on the judgment passed in O.S.No.132/1992 without an independent finding? +5 more

Court's answer

This Court answered substantial questions of law Nos.1 and 2 in RSA.No.494/2013 in the affirmative, holding that the Courts below were right in deciding the suit in O.S.No.103/1999 on the basis of the judgment passed in O.S.No.132/1992 without an independent finding.

Ratio / Principle

This Court held that the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.132/1992 was binding on the trial court in O.S.No.103/1999, answering substantial question No.2 in RSA.No.494/2013 in the affirmative.

Key takeaways

Defendant No.2 in O.S.No.132/1992 failed to prove the pleaded prior partition; the joint family status subsists, and the Courts below were therefore right in concluding that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties despite the asserted severance of status on 22.01.1971 (substantial question No.1 in RSA.No.471/2013 answered in the affirmative).ratio¶¶28
Since the defendants took a specific defence of prior partition, the burden of establishing it lay on them; no documents were produced, and the Courts below accordingly and rightly held the suit schedule properties to be joint family properties with no partition effected by metes and bounds.ratio¶¶176

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Ashok S. Kinagi J.), 03.07.2025 (NC: 2025:KHC:24469) — Connected regular second appeals under S.100 CPC, RSA No.471/2013 (by Marimadamma @ Sannamma, defendant No.2 in O.S.No.132/1992, widow of K. Siddashetty) and RSA No.494/2013 (by S. Madashetty, purchaser of the suit properties), DISMISSED. All substantial questions of law in both appeals answered in the affirmative. Concurrent findings confirmed: defendant No.2 failed to prove the pleaded prior partition (settlement/severance of 22.01.1971 not established, burden lying on the defendants who took the plea), the suit schedule properties continue to be joint family properties with no partition by metes and bounds; the partition decree in O.S.No.132/1992 (judgment dated 10.12.2003) stands — plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.3 each 4/9th share, defendant No.2 1/9th share; the purchaser-plaintiff in O.S.No.103/1999 (decreed in part, judgment dated 18.02.2006) is protected only to the extent of his vendor's (defendant No.2's) undivided 1/9th share; the respondents' suit was maintainable during K. Siddashetty's lifetime and the partition decree survives despite his succession to the estate of Mandi Karishetty. Judgments and decrees of the trial courts (10.12.2003 and 18.02.2006) and of the first appellate court in R.A.Nos.41 and 79/2006 (29.11.2012) confirmed; no costs; IA.No.1/2014 disposed as not surviving.

NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 471 OF 2013 (PAR) C/W

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 494 OF 2013

IN RSA No. 471/2013

BETWEEN:

SMT. MARIMADAMMA @ SANNAMMA, W/O LATE K.SIDDASHETTY, AGED 55 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT BELAKAVADI VILLAGE, B.G.PURA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430.

Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. K G SADASHIVAIAH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

…APPELLANT

SOMASHEKARA KARISHETTY, S/O LATE K.SIDDASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

CHANDRASHEKARAMAHADEVASHETTY, S/O LATE K.SIDDASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT:

BELAKAVADI VILLAGE, B.G.PURA HOBLI,

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013

HC-KAR

MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. L RAJA FOR R1 & R2., ADVOCATE)

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 29.11.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.41/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., MALAVALLI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.12.2003 PASSED IN OS.NO.132/1992 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) ALAVALLI.

IN RSA NO. 494/2013

BETWEEN:

SRI S. MADASHETTY, S/O LATE SIDDASHETTY, AGED 62 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT BELAKAVADI VILLAGE, B.G.PURA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430.

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. K G SADASHIVAIAH.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

SOMASHEKARA KARISHETTY, S/O LATE SIDDASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

CHANDRASHEKARA

S/O LATE SIDDASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT: BELAKAVADI VILLAGE,

*Page No.2 is retyped and replaced vide Chamber order dated 07.01.2026

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013

HC-KAR

B.G.PURA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430.

SMT. MARIMADAMMA @ H. SANNAMMA W/O SIDDASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT BELAKAVADI VILLAGE, B.G.PURA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430.

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. L RAJA FOR R1 & R2., ADVOCATE

R3 SERVED)

THIS RSA FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 29.11.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.79/2006 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALAVALLI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 10.12.2003 PASSED IN OS.NO.103/1999 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), MALAVALLI.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

ORAL JUDGMENT

RSA.No.471/2013 is filed by the appellant

challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2012, passed in R.A.No.41/2006 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malavalli and the judgment and decree

*Page No.3 is retyped and replaced vide Chamber order dated 07.01.2026

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013

HC-KAR

dated 10.12.2003, passed in O.S.No.132/1992 by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Malavalli.

RSA.No.494/2013 is filed by the appellant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2012, passed in R.A.No.79/2006 by the learned by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malavalli, and the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2006, passed in O.S.No.103/1999 by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Malavalli.

For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. In RSA.No.471/2013, the appellant was defendant No.2, respondent No.1 was plaintiff No.1 and respondent No.2 was defendant No.3. In RSA.No.494/2013, the appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondents No.1 and 2 were the defendants. Respondent No.3 in RSA.No.494/2013 is the appellant in RSA.No.471/2013.

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of these appeals are as follows:

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013

HC-KAR

In O.S.No.132/1992.

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants

for partition and separate possession. One K.Siddasetty is the father of the plaintiff and defendant No.3. He married Mahadevamma as per the customs prevailing in their community. After her demise, K.Siddasetty married to defendant No.2 on 13.03.1969. It is contended that the plaintiff's grand father died approximately 15 years ago, and defendant No.1, changed the katha in his name and started living separately showing a hostile attitude towards

the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 attempted to sell the ancestral properties without the consent of the plaintiffs. It is contended that in December 1991, defendant No.1 got the Katha changed in the name of defendant No.2. It is contended that defendant No.2 is a stranger to the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs’ requested the defendants to effect a partition for which defendant No.1

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013

HC-KAR

turned deaf ear, and the panchayat held was of no avail.

Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a

suit for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

The defendants filed a written statement

denying the averments made in the plaint, and it is contended that the plaintiffs suppressed the true facts. It is contended that the suit is not maintainable for want of a necessary parties and misjoinder of parties. It is contended that the suit is filed only to harass the defendants. It is contended that the plaintiffs have not declared anything regarding the other properties that were

alienated by the plaintiffs with one Siddamma as the guardian of the minor plaintiffs. The suit for partition is not maintainable, and it is contended that defendant No.1 is the husband of defendant No.2, who performed the posthumous rituals incurring the loan. Defendant No.1 was

suffering from leprosy and the other ailments. It is contended that the plaintiff did not choose to come

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013

HC-KAR

forward to take care of defendant No.1 and perform the last rituals.

It is contended that defendant No.2 is the

legally wedded wife of defendant No.1. The plaintiffs are the children of defendant No.1, through his first wife i.e, Devamma. The paternal grandfather of the plaintiffs or father-in-law of the defendant had distributed the family properties among the plaintiffs, making the guardian one Siddamma, and allotted the properties bearing Sy.No.642/A1, 637/3, 32/2, 33/B, 72/B to the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 with defendant No.2 was put in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties,

and Katha was changed to their respective names. The plaintiff sold the properties fee to their share on attaining the age of majority. The suit schedule properties were sold for legal necessity under a registered sale deed dated 17.07.1992 in favour of one Madashetty for a valuable consideration, and Madashetty is in possession and

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013

HC-KAR

enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. Hence, he

prays to dismiss the suit.

In.O.S.No.103/1999

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for declaration of title, possession and consequential relief of permanent injunction. It is contended that the plaintiffs purchased the suit properties on 14.07.1992 for a valuable consideration of Rs.38,000/-, Rs.38,000/- and Rs.6,000/respectively. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The defendants have no manner of right, title or interest over the suit properties. The vendor of the plaintiff had exclusive right, title and interest over

the suit properties. The defendants are attempting to trespass over the suit properties. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file the instant suit. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

The defendants filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. The possession and

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013

HC-KAR

enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit properties, and the exclusive right and interest of the vendor of the plaintiff is denied. It is contended that, defendants had filed a suit in O.S.No.132/1992 for partition and separate possession. It

is contended that the defendants had objected to the revenue entries made in the plaintiff name and the same was cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner by the order dated 13.06.1997. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the suit.

The trial Court, in both the suits, framed the following issues:-

In.O.S.No.132/1992

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties?

2. If so, whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties?

3. Whether the second defendant proves that she is the legally wedded wife of deceased first defendant as contended in para 16 of her written statement?

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013

HC-KAR

4. Whether the second defendant proves that herself and her deceased husband (first defendant) have sold the suit schedule properties in favour of S.Madashetty under a registered sale deed dated 17.07.1992 for legal necessity?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed?

6. What order or decree?

In.O.S.No.103/1999

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 14.07.1992?

2.Whether the plaintiff proves his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?

3.Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference by the defendants?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration?

5. What decree or order?

substantiate their case, plaintiff No.1 was examined as

PW1, one witness was examined as PW2 and 22

documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P22. In rebuttal,

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013

HC-KAR

defendant No.2 was examined as DW1, examined one witness as DW2 and marked 15 documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D15.

The plaintiff in O.S.No.103/1999 to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW1, examined three witnesses as PW2 to PW4 and marked 10 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined as DW1 and marked 8 documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D8.

The trial Court after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and on assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issues in O.S.No.103/1999, i.e., issue Nos.1 to 3 in the negative,

issue No.4 partly in the affirmative and issue No.5 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed in part vide judgment dated 18.02.2006. It is ordered that the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration of title and possession to the extent the vendor of the plaintiff is

12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013

HC-KAR

entitled in the suit properties as per the judgment in O.S.No.132/1992 and accordingly, entitled only to a 1/9^th share in the suit schedule properties.

The trial Court answered issues in O.S.No.132/1992, i.e., issue Nos.1, 2, 5 in the affirmative, issue No.3 partly in the affirmative, issue No.4 in the negative and issue No.6 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed vide judgment dated 10.12.2003. It is ordered that plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.3 each are entitled to a 4/9^th share of the suit schedule properties. Defendant No.2 is entitled to a 1/9^th share in the suit schedule properties.

Defendant No.2 in O.S.No.132/1992 aggrieved, by the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2003 preferred an appeal in R.A.No.41/2006, and the plaintiff in O.S.No.103/1999 filed an appeal in R.A.No.79/2006 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malavalli.

13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013

HC-KAR

The first appellate Court clubbed both the appeals, and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties framed the following common points for consideration

1. Whether the plaintiff in O.S.No.132/1992 proved that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties?

2. Whether the 2^nd defendant proves that, she is legal wedded wife of decease 1^st defendant and herself and deceased husband (1^st defendant O.S.132/92) have sold suit schedule properties , in favour of the S.Madashetty under register sale deed dated;17.07.1992 for their legal necessity?

3. Is the plaintiff entitled to share in the suit schedule properties as prayed for in the plaint?

4. Whether the plaintiff in O.S.No.103/99 proves he is a absolute owner of the suit schedule properties on the basis of registered sale deed dated:14.07.1992 from that date he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties?

5. Whether the plaintiff proves alleged interference by the defendants in the suit schedule property?

14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013

HC-KAR

6. Whether the plaintiff are entitled relief of declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for in the suit?

7. Whether the judgment and decree of the trial court calls any interference by this court?

8. What order or decree?

The first appellate Court, after re-assessing the

verbal and documentary evidence, answered point Nos.1, 3 and 6 in the affirmative, point Nos.2, 4, 5 and 7 in the negative and point No.8 as per the final order. The appeals were dismissed vide judgment dated 29.11.2012. The judgments and decrees passed by the trial Courts were confirmed.

Defendant No.2, in O.S.No.132/1992 aggrieved, by the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.41/2006

preferred a second appeal in R.S.A.No.471/2013, and the plaintiff in O.S.No.103/1999 aggrieved by the impugned judgment in R.A.No.79/2006 filed a second appeal in RSA.No.494/2013.

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013

HC-KAR

Learned counsel for the plaintiff in

O.S.No.103/1999 is also appearing for defendant No.2 in O.S.No.132/1992, heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff in O.S.No.132/1992.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff in O.S.No.103/1999 submits that the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule properties from defendant No.2 in O.S.No.132/1992. Based on the registered sale deed, the plaintiff in O.S.No.103/1999 became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule properties are not amenable to the partition in view of the registered sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in O.S.No.132/1992

in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.No.103/1999. He also submits that, the first appellate Court, considering the judgment passed in O.S.No.132/1992, dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.103/1999. He submits that the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.132/1992 was also under a challenge in R.A.No.41/2006. He submits that the Courts

16 -

NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013

HC-KAR

below have committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff in O.S.No.132/1992 submits that both the Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of fact against the plaintiff in O.S.No.103/1999, and defendant No.2 in O.S.No.132/1992. He also submits that both the Courts below have protected the interest of the plaintiff in O.S.No.103/1999. He submits that the plaintiff in O.S.No.103/1999, is entitled to a share of his vendor. He submits that both Courts below have rightly considered

the evidence on record, and passed the impugned judgments. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

This Court, admitted the appeals, to consider the following substantial questions of law:

17 -

NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013

HC-KAR

In RSA.No.494/2013 dated 27.06.2014.

1. Whether the Courts below are right in deciding the suit based on the judgment passed in O.S.No.132/1992 without its independent finding?

2. Whether the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.132/1992 was binding on the Trial Court?

Following substantial question of law in

RSA.No.471/2013

1. Whether the Courts below are right in coming to the conclusion that, the suit properties are joint family properties and there is a joint family status in existence inspite of the fact that there was severance of status of the joint family on 22.01.1971?

2. Whether the Courts below are right in coming to the conclusion that, the suit of the respondents maintainable during the life time of K.Siddashetty as he was enjoying his absolute properties subsequent to settlement deed dated 22.01.1971?

3. Whether the Courts below are right in coming to the conclusion that, the appellant is only entitled for 1/9^th share in the suit properties inspite of proving the fact that she is the wife of K.Siddashetty?

18 - NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013

HC-KAR

4. Whether the courts below are right in decreeing the suit for partition inspite of the fact that K.Siddashetty the father of the respondents succeeded to the estate of Mandi Karishetty as a successor in interest?

Regarding Substantial Questions of Law:

That all the substantial questions of law are

interrelated with each other and are taken for common discussion to avoid the repetition of the facts.

The plaintiff, in O.S.No.132/1992 filed a suit for partition and separate possession, contending that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the

plaintiff and the defendants. No partition is effected between the parties to the suit. The defence of the defendants is that, there was a prior partition, and in the said partition, the property bearing Sy.No.642/A1, 637/3, 32/2, 33/B and 72/B fell to the share of the plaintiffs, and the suit schedule properties fell to the share of the defendant's husband.

19 - NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013

HC-KAR

Defendant No.1, along with defendant No.2 are

in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and the katha was effected in the name of the defendants. The defence of the defendants is that the said fact was denied by the plaintiff contending that there are no family arrangements, as contended by the defendants between the parties to the suit, and further, the defendants, to prove that there was a prior partition, defendant No.2 in O.S.No.132/1992 examined herself as DW1. She deposed that there was a partition between the plaintiff and defendant No.1.

To prove the prior partition, defendant No.2 has not produced any documents to demonstrate that there was a prior partition between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. When the defendants have taken a specific defence regarding the prior partition, the burden is on the defendants to establish that there was a prior partition. In the absence of the documents, the Courts below have held that the suit schedule properties are the joint family

20 -

NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013

HC-KAR

properties of the plaintiff and the defendants, and no

partition is effected between the parties to the suit by metes and bounds. The trial Court has decreed the suit, granting the plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.3 each a 4/9^th share in the suit schedule properties and defendant No.2 entitled to 1/9^th share in the suit schedule properties.

The first appellate Court, considering the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 132/1992 held that the plaintiff in O.S.No.103/1999 purchased the suit schedule property from defendant No.2 in O.S.No.132/1992. The plaintiff in O.S.No.103/1999 had purchased the undivided share of defendant No.2. The first appellate Court, considering the sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in O.S.No.132/1992, has protected the interest of the purchaser and held that the plaintiff in O.S.No.103/1999 is entitled to a share of defendant No.2

to the extent of 1/9^th share in the suit schedule properties.

Both the Courts below, have considered the entire

21 -

NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013

HC-KAR

evidence on record, and rightly passed the impugned

judgments.

As observed above, defendant No.2 in

O.S.No.132/1992 has failed to prove the prior partition, and the joint family status is in existence as of today.

In view of the above discussions, I answer the substantial questions of law Nos.1 and 2 in RSA.No.494/2013 are answered in the affirmative. Substantial questions of law Nos.1 to 4 in

RSA.No.471/2013 in the affirmative. In view of the above discussions, I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

1. The Appeals are dismissed.

The judgments and decrees passed in R.A.No.41/2006, and R.A.No.79/2006 dated

29.11.2012 on file of the Learned Senior Civil Judge

22 -

NC: 2025:KHC:24469 RSA No. 471 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 494 of 2013

HC-KAR

and JMFC, Malavalli and the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.132/1992 dated 10.12.2003 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Malavalli, and the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2006 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Malavalli, passed in O.S.No.103/1999, are hereby confirmed.

No order as to the costs.

In view of the dismissal of the appeal,

IA.No.1/2014 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, IA.No.1/2014 is disposed of.

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

SSB,RCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7

Issues for consideration

6 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
In RSA.No.494/2013: Whether the Courts below were right in deciding the suit (O.S.No.103/1999) based on the judgment passed in O.S.No.132/1992 without an independent finding?¶¶157
The court held
This Court answered substantial questions of law Nos.1 and 2 in RSA.No.494/2013 in the affirmative, holding that the Courts below were right in deciding the suit in O.S.No.103/1999 on the basis of the judgment passed in O.S.No.132/1992 without an independent finding.ratio¶¶192
2.
In RSA.No.494/2013: Whether the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.132/1992 was binding on the Trial Court?¶¶158
The court held
This Court held that the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.132/1992 was binding on the trial court in O.S.No.103/1999, answering substantial question No.2 in RSA.No.494/2013 in the affirmative.ratio¶¶192
3.
In RSA.No.471/2013: Whether the Courts below were right in concluding that the suit properties are joint family properties and joint family status exists despite the alleged severance of status of the joint family on 22.01.1971?¶¶161
The court held
Defendant No.2 in O.S.No.132/1992 failed to prove the pleaded prior partition; the joint family status subsists, and the Courts below were therefore right in concluding that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties despite the asserted severance of status on 22.01.1971 (substantial question No.1 in RSA.No.471/2013 answered in the affirmative).ratio¶¶28
4.
In RSA.No.471/2013: Whether the Courts below were right in concluding that the respondents' suit was maintainable during the lifetime of K. Siddashetty, he having enjoyed his absolute properties subsequent to the settlement deed dated 22.01.1971?¶¶162
The court held
This Court answered substantial question No.2 in RSA.No.471/2013 in the affirmative, upholding that the respondents' suit was maintainable during the lifetime of K. Siddashetty notwithstanding the settlement deed dated 22.01.1971 (answer completes the sentence begun in ¶192).ratio¶¶193
5.
In RSA.No.471/2013: Whether the Courts below were right in confining the appellant to a 1/9th share in the suit properties despite her proving she is the wife of K. Siddashetty?¶¶163
The court held
This Court answered substantial question No.3 in RSA.No.471/2013 in the affirmative, upholding that the appellant (defendant No.2 in O.S.No.132/1992) was entitled only to a 1/9th share in the suit properties (answer completes the sentence begun in ¶192).ratio¶¶193
6.
In RSA.No.471/2013: Whether the Courts below were right in decreeing the suit for partition despite K. Siddashetty, father of the respondents, having succeeded to the estate of Mandi Karishetty as successor in interest?¶¶166
The court held
This Court answered substantial question No.4 in RSA.No.471/2013 in the affirmative, upholding the decree for partition notwithstanding that K. Siddashetty had succeeded to the estate of Mandi Karishetty as successor in interest (answer completes the sentence begun in ¶192).ratio¶¶193