Mr . B v Gangadhara S/O Venkategowda Vs B v Asha — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mr . B v Gangadhara S/O Venkategowda Vs B v Asha — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Second Appeal allowed; judgment and decree dated 18.08.2008 in O.S.No.18/2003 and judgment and decree dated 18.02.2012 in R.A.No.31/2010 modified: each of the plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 4 to have 1/4th share in items 1, 3, 4 and 6; each of the plaintiff and defendants No.3 and 4 to have 1/8th share in item No.5; defendant No.2 to have 5/8th share in item No.5.

Issue for consideration

Substantial question of law: Whether the quantification of the share by the Trial Court, confirmed by the First Appellate Court, is in accordance with law?

Court's answer

Venkate Gowda died during the pendency of the appeal and the devolution of his share was required to be taken into account in quantifying the shares.

Ratio / Principle

Venkate Gowda and his wife both died intestate; their property devolves upon all their children, so the plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 4 each have 1/4th share in items No.1, 3, 4 and 6.

Key takeaways

The mother held 1/2 share in item No.5 and the appellant held the other 1/2; the mother's 1/2 share devolved upon all four children, giving each child 1/8th share in item No.5.ratio¶63
In item No.5 the plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 4 have 1/8th share each and the remaining 1/2 share belongs to the appellant; to that extent the judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are modified.ratio¶67

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Partition and separate possession – propositus Venkate Gowda and his wife both died intestate – Trial Court (O.S.No.18/2003, Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Turuvekere) decreed 1/5th share to the plaintiff-daughter in items 1, 3, 4 and 6 and 1/8th share in item No.5, dismissing the claim to item No.2 as sold with the purchaser not impleaded – First Appellate Court (R.A.No.31/2010) confirmed – Regular Second Appeal under S.100 CPC by defendant No.2 (son) – Substantial question of law: whether the quantification of shares was in accordance with law – Held: Venkate Gowda died during the pendency of the appeal and the devolution of his share had to be reckoned; on the intestacy of both parents the property devolves on all four children, so the plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 4 each take 1/4th in items 1, 3, 4 and 6; in item No.5 the mother's 1/2 share devolves on all four children (1/8th each) while the appellant retains his 1/2 – decrees of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court modified accordingly; Second Appeal allowed (order dated 03.07.2025, Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.).

NC: 2025:KHC:23902 RSA No. 964 of 2012

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 ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 964 OF 2012 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

MR . B V GANGADHARA S/O VENKATEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT BADAGARHALLI VILLAGE, DABBEGHATTA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK - 572 227.

PRESENTLY

R/AT NO.10/1, PATEL CHELUVAPPA STREET, J.C.NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 006.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. KALYAN., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by BELUR RANGADHAMA NANDINI

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

B V ASHA D/O VENKATEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

VENKATEGOWDA S/O LATE HONNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT BADAGARAHALLI VILLAGE, DABBEGHATTA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK.

B V SUNANDA W/O JAVAREGOWDA

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:23902 RSA No. 964 of 2012

HC-KAR

D/O VENKATEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT GARDEN HOUSE BYADARAKODAGIHALLI TURUVEKERE TALUK- 572 227.

B.V.BHARATHI

D/O VENKATEGOWDA W/O H.S.JAYAKUMAR, BEO., AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT SHAKTHINAGAR, TURUVEKERE TOWN - 572 227.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SADASHIVAIAH K G., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. BHARGAV G., ADVOCATE FOR R4)

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 18.02.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO. 31/2010 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TURUVEKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.08.2008 PASSED IN OS.NO.18/2003 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, TURUVEKERE.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:23902 RSA No. 964 of 2012

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is arising from the concurrent finding in a suit for partition and separate possession.

The suit for partition is filed by the daughter of the propositus -Venkate Gowda who was defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 is the son of Venkate Gowda and brother of the plaintiff.

When the suit was filed, the mother was not alive.

Later two more sisters of the plaintiff are arrayed as defendants No.3 and 4.

The plaintiff claimed 1/3^rd share in all the suit schedule properties comprising 6 properties. The defendants contested the suit. Defendant No.2 took a contention that item No.5 property is the joint property of defendant No.2 and the mother of the plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 4.

The Trial Court noticed that item No.2 property stood in the name of defendant No.2 and the mother. Accordingly, the suit is decreed granting 1/5^th share in items

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:23902 RSA No. 964 of 2012

HC-KAR

No.1, 3, 4 and 6 in the suit schedule properties and 1/8^th share in item No.5 property.

Suit in respect of item No.2 is dismissed on the premise that the property was already sold and the purchaser is not made a party in the suit.

Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, defendant No.2 filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellantdefendant No.2 would submit that by the time the suit was filed, mother was not alive and mother died intestate. The mother's share would devolve upon the daughters as well as the husband and the son. This aspect is not taken into consideration by the Trial Court.

He would further submit that in respect of item No.5 property, the Trial Court granted 1/8^th share without taking into consideration the devolution of share of 1/2 share

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:23902 RSA No. 964 of 2012

HC-KAR

held by the mother. Thus, he would contend that the impugned judgment and decree have to be modified allotting the share inherited by the children after the demise of the mother.

Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/ respondent No.1 would contend that the share allotted by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court is in accordance with law and there is no need to modify the judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.

The following substantial question of law would arise for consideration:

Whether the quantification of the share by the Trial Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court is in accordance with law?

There is no dispute that Venkate Gowda was the propositus and his wife predeceased Venkate Gowda, even

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:23902 RSA No. 964 of 2012

HC-KAR

before the suit was filed. Venkate Gowda died during the pendency of this appeal. Thus, the devolution of Venkate Gowda's share should also be taken into account. It is submitted that respondent No.2- Venkate Gowda is no more and his legal representatives are already on record.

The genealogy is not in dispute. Venkate Gowda and his wife are survived by three daughters and one son. After the demise of Venkate Gowda and his wife who died intestate, admittedly, the property of Venkate Gowda and his wife would devolve upon all the children. Thus, plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 4 will have 1/4^th share in items No.1, 3, 4 and 6 properties.

There is no dispute that item No.2 property was sold prior to the suit and purchaser is not made a party.

It is also forthcoming from the record that the mother had 1/2 share in item No.5 property and the appellant-Gangadhar had 1/2 share in item No.5 property, 1/2 share of mother in item No.5 property would devolve upon all 4 children.

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:23902 RSA No. 964 of 2012

HC-KAR

Thus, the plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 4 will have 1/8^th share in item No.5 property. Remaining 1/2 share belongs to appellant. To the said extent, the judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are modified.

Substantial question of law is answered

accordingly.

Hence, the following:

ORDER

(i) The Second Appeal is allowed.

(ii) The judgment and decree dated 18.08.2008 in O.S.No.18/2003 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) Turuvekere are modified.

(iii) The Judgment and decree dated 18.02.2012 in R.A.No.31/2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Turuvekere are modified.

8 -

NC: 2025:KHC:23902 RSA No. 964 of 2012

HC-KAR

(iv) Each of the plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 4 will have 1/4^th share in item No.1, 3, 4 and 6 of schedule properties.

(v) Each of the plaintiff and defendants No.3 and 4 will have 1/8^th share in item No.5 property.

(vi) Defendant No.2 will have 5/8^th share in item No.5 property.

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27