The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:21972 RSA No. 607 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 620 of 2023 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.607 OF 2023 (PAR) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 620 OF 2023 (PAR) IN RSA No.607/2023 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. D. THANUJA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS W/O LATE UMESHA Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 2. KUM. LAKSHMI
Legal Reasoning
AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS D/O LATE UMESHA SINCE MINOR, REP BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER – SMT. D THANUJA APPELLANTS 1 AND 2 ARE R/AT CHIKKANAIKANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK – 573 116 (BY SRI MANJUNATHA H R, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:21972 RSA No. 607 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 620 of 2023 HC-KAR AND: 1. SMT TRIVENI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS D/O LATE MALAIGOWDA W/O MANJUNATHA R/O YACHENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK – 573 116 2. SRI MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O LATE MALALIGOWDA R/O CHIKKANAIKANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK – 573 116 [ DEFENDANT No.1 BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT & RESPONDENT No.2 BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT DIED LEAVING BEHIND THE PLAINTIFFS AND OTHER DEFENDANTS, HENCE, NOT MADE AS PARTY] …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.12.2022 PASSED IN R.A.No.120/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNARAYAPATNA AND ETC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21972 RSA No. 607 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 620 of 2023 HC-KAR IN RSA NO.620/2023 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. D. THANUJA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS W/O LATE UMESHA 2. KUM. LAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS D/O LATE UMESHA SINCE MINOR, REP BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER – SMT. D THANUJA APPELLANTS 1 AND 2 ARE R/AT CHIKKANAIKANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK – 573 116 (BY SRI MANJUNATHA H R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. TRIVENI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS D/O LATE MALAIGOWDA W/O MANJUNATHA R/O YACHENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK – 573 116 2. SRI MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O LATE MALALIGOWDA …APPELLANTS - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21972 RSA No. 607 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 620 of 2023 HC-KAR R/O CHIKKANAIKANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK – 573 116 [ DEFENDANT No.1 BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT & RESPONDENT No.2 BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT DIED LEAVING BEHIND THE PLAINTIFFS AND OTHER DEFENDANTS, HENCE, NOT MADE AS PARTY] …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.12.2022 PASSED IN R.A.No.75/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE DDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNARAYAPATNA AND ETC. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:21972 RSA No. 607 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 620 of 2023 HC-KAR ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both the appeals. 2. These appeals are arising out of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.593/2014 wherein suit is filed for the relief of partition and separate possession and 1/4th share was given out of 1/3rd share of the plaintiff’s father in respect of the suit schedule property. The same has been challenged before the First Appellate Court by the plaintiff as well as the defendants granting of share 1/4th share out of 1/3rd share and the First Appellate Court having considered the grounds which have been urged in both the appeals i.e., R.A. Nos.120/2019 and 75/2020 and also considering material on record, appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed granting 1/3rd share by modifying the judgment of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants/appellants in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of VINEETA SHARMA vs RAKESH SHARMA reported in (2019) 6 SCC 164 wherein the Apex Court specifically held that daughter is also having equal share by partition even though father is alive or not - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:21972 RSA No. 607 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 620 of 2023 HC-KAR before 01.01.2005. Being aggrieved by the judgments and decree of both the Courts, the present appeals are filed by the defendants questioning the allowing of the appeal and modifying the judgment as well as granting the share in favour of respondent No.1. 3. The learned counsel of the appellant would vehemently contend that when there was a document of Ex.D1 and the said document has been signed by the plaintiff, she cannot claim any partition knowingfully well that there was a document of partition and she gave a consent for that partition deed and the same was not considered by both the Courts. Hence, this Court has to admit the appeal framing the substantive question of law since the plaintiff has admitted the Palupatti dated 03.06.2012. 4. Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, the fact that the suit was filed for the relief of partition and also there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the property is belongs to the family and same is an ancestral property and same is also admitted by the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:21972 RSA No. 607 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 620 of 2023 HC-KAR witnesses before the Trial Court. The Trial Court taken note of the fact that the property is an ancestral property and said fact is also admitted by DW1 in his cross-examination and the Trial Court also considered the admission on the part of DW1 wherein though DW1 contented that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was given to the plaintiff and clear admission was given that the same is not stated in the document of Ex.D1 and Ex.D1 is also between defendant No.2 and his children. No doubt, the plaintiff has signed the document of partition but there is a clear admission at Ex.D1 that no share is given to the plaintiff and payment of Rs.2,00,000/- also not mentioned in Ex.D1. When such admission is given, both the Courts have considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record in a proper perspective and rightly comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of partition having considered the principles laid down in the judgment of VINEETA SHARMA referred supra. Hence, I do not find any error committed by both the Courts in considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record. Unless, there is a perversity in the finding of both the Courts, the question of framing substantive question of law admitting the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:21972 RSA No. 607 of 2023 C/W RSA No. 620 of 2023 HC-KAR second appeal does not arise. Hence, there is no ground to frame the substantive question of law and to admit the appeal. 5. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
Decision
ORDER The second appeals are dismissed. In view of dismissal of the main appeals, I.As. if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN