Sri Shivakumar Vs Smt Siddagangamma — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sri Shivakumar Vs Smt Siddagangamma — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the decree passed by the First Appellate Court (granting 1/4th share each to the plaintiffs and to Renukesh, following Vineetha Sharma) requires interference in these second appeals. +1 more

Court's answer

The property in Basappa's hands was ancestral, and therefore the First Appellate Court's modification of the Trial Court decree following the dictum of Vineetha Sharma (granting each plaintiff 1/4th share and 1/4th share to Renukesh, now with his wife Jayasudha and daughter Thrisha) stands endorsed by this Court.

Ratio / Principle

Even if the suit property is considered Basappa's individual property, since Basappa died intestate each of the plaintiffs is entitled to 1/4th share along with Renukesh.

Key takeaways

The decree passed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference.ratio¶86
If the appellant is aggrieved, he may seek division of Renukesh's share in an equitable manner in the final decree proceedings; his right to seek the necessary share of Renukesh enjoyed by defendants 2 and 3 (Jayasudha and Thrisha) is reserved.ratio¶87

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular second appeals (RSA Nos.1344/2024 c/w 1369/2024, under S.100 CPC) by Shivakumar, purchaser-defendant No.4, against the first-appellate judgments and decrees dated 06.08.2024 in R.A.Nos.32/2023 and 20/2023 (Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gubbi), which modified the Trial Court decree dated 19.08.2019 in O.S.No.145/2014 (Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Gubbi) in a partition suit by three daughters of Basappa. Applying Vineetha Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020)9 SCC 1, the First Appellate Court had granted 1/4th share each to the plaintiffs and to Renukesh, whose wife Jayasudha and daughter Thrisha had sold the entire suit property to the appellant. The High Court held that the property in Basappa's hands was ancestral and that, even if treated as his individual property, his intestacy entitled each of the plaintiffs to 1/4th share along with Renukesh; the appellate decree needed no interference. Admission was declined and both appeals were dismissed, with the appellant's right reserved to seek equitable division of Renukesh's share (enjoyed by defendants 2 and 3, Jayasudha and Thrisha) in the final decree proceedings.

NC: 2026:KHC:35574 RSA No. 1344 of 2024 C/W RSA No. 1369 of 2024

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1344 OF 2024 (PAR) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1369 OF 2024

IN RSA No.1344/2024

BETWEEN:

SRI SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE BOMMALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O HESARAHALLI VILLAGE, NITTUR HOBLI AND POST, DISTRICT TUMKUR PIN CODE- 572101

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SMT SIDDAGANGAMMA W/O K.N. SURESH, D/O LATE BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.1236, 1^ST MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, L N COLONY YESHWANTHPURA BANGALORE -560 022

SMT GIRIJA D/O LATE BASAPPA, W/O VEERESH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO 4, 2^ND MAIN, 4^TH CROSS, B.K. NAGAR, BANGALORE- 560 022

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:35574 RSA No. 1344 of 2024 C/W RSA No. 1369 of 2024

HC-KAR

SRI JAGADEESH S/O LATE SOMAKKA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

SMT ANNAPURNA D/O LATE SOMAKKA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

R3 AND R4 ARE RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.11, 1^ST STAGE, 3^RD PHASE, GOKULA, YESHWANTHPURA, BENGALURU – 560 022

SMT. R.J. JAYASUDHA W/O LATE RENUKESH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

THRISHA D/O LATE SOMAKKA AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS MINOR

REP. BY NATURAL GUARDIAN HER MOTHER SMT R JAYASUDHA

R5 AND R6 ARE R/AT C/O MALLIKARJUNAIAH COMPOUND, BACKSIDE OF BAPUJI SCHOOL, HORAPET, TUMKUR CITY, TALUK AND DISTRICT TUMAKURU PINCODE – 572101

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRABHULINGA MURTHY B R, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;

SRI THULASIRAM SINGH FOR SRI N.S.NARASIMHA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R5;

R6 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R5)

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:35574 RSA No. 1344 of 2024 C/W RSA No. 1369 of 2024

HC-KAR

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.08.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.32/2023 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.08.2019 PASSED IN OS NO.145/2014 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBI.

IN RSA No.1369/2024

BETWEEN:

SRI SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE BOMMALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/O HESARAHALLI VILLGE NITTUR HOBLI AND POST DIST : TUMKURU PINCODE : 572101

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI JAGADESH S/O BASAPPA S/O LATE SMT SOMAKKA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

ANNAPURNA D/O BASAPPA D/O LATE SOMAKKA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

R1 AND R2 ARE R/AT HOUSE NO.11, 1^ST STAGE 3^RD PHASE, GOKULA YESHWANTHPURA BANGALORE -560 022

SMT SIDDAGANGAMMA W/O K N SURESH

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:35574 RSA No. 1344 of 2024 C/W RSA No. 1369 of 2024

HC-KAR

D/O LATE BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.1236, 1^ST MAIN 3^RD CROSS, L N COLONY YASHWANTHPURA BANGALORE -560 022

SMT GIRIJA W/O VEERESH D/O LATE BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.4, 2^ND MAIN 4^TH CROSS, B K NAGAR BANGALORE -560 022

SMT R J JAYASUDHA W/O LATE RENUKESH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

THRISHA D/O LATE RENUKESH AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS MINOR REP. BY HER MOTHER AS NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT R J JAYASUDHA

R5 AND R6 ARE R/AT HORAPET, TUMKUR TOWN TUMKUR DISTRICT PINCODE : 572101

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. PRABHULINGA MURTHY B R, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;

SRI THULASIRAM SINGH FOR SRI N.S.NARASIMHA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R5;

R6 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R5)

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:35574 RSA No. 1344 of 2024 C/W RSA No. 1369 of 2024

HC-KAR

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.08.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.20/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBI, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.08.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.145/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBI.

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Chandrashekar P. Patil, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Prabhulinga Murthy B.R. learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4, Sri Thulasiram Singh, advocate for Sri N.S.Narasimha Swamy, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

Parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as per their original ranking before the Trial Court, for the sake of convenience.

Defendant No.4 being the purchaser of the suit property is the appellant. He is challenging decreeing of the suit by the Trial Court in O.S.No.145/2014 modified by the First Appellate Court in R.A No.32/2023.

Facts of the case are as under:

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:35574 RSA No. 1344 of 2024 C/W RSA No. 1369 of 2024

HC-KAR

4.1 Even according to the appellant/defendant No.4, Basappa was the common prepositus. He had four children viz., Somakka, Siddagangamma and Girija who are plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and a son by name Renukesh. Shivamma, wife of Basappa who was first defendant, died during the pendency of suit.

4.2 Renukesh's wife Smt.Jayasudha and her daughter Kum.Thrisha have sold the entire suit property in favour of the 4^th defendant. First daughter of Basappa i.e., Somakka, second daughter Siddagangamma and third daughter Girija filed the present suit in O.S.No.145/2014 for the relief of partition and separate possession. During pendency of the suit, plaintiff No.1/Somakka died and her legal representatives are brought on record.

Learned Trial Judge took into consideration that Basappa died and the property being ancestral property, granted 1/8^th share to the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs filed an appeal in R.A.No.20/2023 on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gubbi, contending that the grant of shares by the Trial Court is incorrect.

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:35574 RSA No. 1344 of 2024 C/W RSA No. 1369 of 2024

HC-KAR

Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, applying the principles of law enunciated in the case of Vineetha Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma reported in (2020)9 SCC 1 , granted

1/4^th share to each of the plaintiffs and also the first defendant. R.A No.32/2023 filed by the fourth defendant/purchaser was dismissed.

Being aggrieved by the same, these two appeals are filed.

Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.4 Sri Chandrashekar P.Patil would submit that the Renukesh died out of AIDS disease.

After the death of Renukesh, his wife Smt. Jayasudha and her daughter Thrisha, in order to meet the medical expenses of Renukesh and for their livelihood have sold the property in favour of appellant/defendant No.4. Therefore the share of defendant Nos.2 and 3 is to be worked out in an equitable partition in favour of defendant No. 4 and sought for admitting the appeal.

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:35574 RSA No. 1344 of 2024 C/W RSA No. 1369 of 2024

HC-KAR

He also contended that decreeing of the suit by the Trial Judge is incorrect, modified by the First Appellate Court has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice.

Per contra , learned counsel for respondents support the impugned judgment.

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

On such perusal of material on record, it is noticed that property earlier belonged to Basappa. Admittedly all the parties are children of said Basappa. Property in the hands of Basappa was the ancestral property and therefore following the dictum of Vineetha Sharma supra, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, modified the decree passed by the Trial Court and granted each of the plaintiffs 1/4^th share and 1/4^th share to Renukesh, which has been now granted to the share of his wife Jayasudha and daughter-Thrisha together.

Admittedly when the suit property belonged to Basappa, even if it is to be considered as individual property of Basappa,

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:35574 RSA No. 1344 of 2024 C/W RSA No. 1369 of 2024

HC-KAR

since Basappa died intestate, each of the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/4^th share along with Renukesh.

Thus, decree passed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference.

However, if the Appellant is aggrieved, he may seek for the share of Renukesh to be divided in an equitable manner in the final decree proceedings.

With that observation and reserving the right to seek necessary share in the final decree proceedings of Renukesh which has been enjoyed by the second and third defendant namely Smt.Jayasudha and Kum.Thrisha, the following:

ORDER

(i) Admission declined.

(ii) Appeals dismissed .

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

kcm

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 81