The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:22955-DB RFA No. 1144 of 2018 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1144 OF 2018 (PAR) BETWEEN: BHADRAPPA S/O LATE JULAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O SIDDARAHATTI VILLAGE, TIRUGUNA, K.R.PETE POST, AMBLE HOBLI-577 101 CHIKMAGALURU TALUK & DISTRICT
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. GURURAJ R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KENCHAMMA W/O BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, R/O SIDDARAHATTI VILLAGE, TIRUGUNA, AMBLE HOBLI-577 101 CHIKAMAGALUR TALUK & DISTRICT 2. SANNAIAH S/O LATE JULAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …APPELLANT - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:22955-DB RFA No. 1144 of 2018 HC-KAR R/O SIDDARAHATTI VILLAGE, TIRUGUNA, AMBLE HOBLI-577 101 CHIKAMAGALUR TALUK & DISTRICT 3. JAVARAJAPPA S/O LATE JULAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O SIDDARAHATTI VILLAGE, TIRUGUNA, AMBLE HOBLI-577 101 CHIKAMAGALUR TALUK & DISTRICT 4. MANJAPPA S/O LATE JULAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O SIDDARAHATTI VILLAGE, TIRUGUNA, AMBLE HOBLI-577 101 CHIKAMAGALUR TALUK & DISTRICT 5. JAYAMMA W/O RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O SIDDARAHATTI VILLAGE, TIRUGUNA, AMBLE HOBLI-577 101 CHIKAMAGALUR TALUK & DISTRICT 6. GIRISHA S/O BHADRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O SIDDARAHATTI VILLAGE, TIRUGUNA, AMBLE HOBLI-577 101 CHIKAMAGALUR TALUK & DISTRICT - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:22955-DB RFA No. 1144 of 2018 HC-KAR 7. PARAMESHA S/O BHADRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O SIDDARAHATTI VILLAGE, TIRUGUNA, AMBLE HOBLI-577 101 CHIKAMAGALUR TALUK & DISTRICT 8. SAVITHRAMMA W/O BHADRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O SIDDARAHATTI VILLAGE, TIRUGUNA, AMBLE HOBLI-577 101 CHIKAMAGALUR TALUK & DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.N.MANJUNATH PRASAD FOR R-1 AND R-2; R-3 TO R-8 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.03.2018 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHIKKAMAGALURU IN O.S.NO.61/2015 AND THIS APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED AS PRAYED FOR BY DISMISSING THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:22955-DB RFA No. 1144 of 2018 HC-KAR ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) 1. This appeal is filed by the defendants in a suit filed for partition. 2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff and the defendants No.1 to 5 are the children of one Sri.Julaiah and Smt.Gangamma. The parents died intestate leaving the plaintiff and the defendants as their legal heirs. The father of the plaintiff and the defendants died on 27.07.2010 and the mother also passed away intestate. The plaintiff, who is the daughter, had filed a suit for partition claiming 1/6th share. The defendant had filed the written statement stating that the plaintiff had been married off, after spending huge sums of money and had been given gold ornaments and valuables at the time of marriage. It was contended that there was a registered partition in the family on 21.12.2004 and that the plaintiff therefore could not maintain the suit for partition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:22955-DB RFA No. 1144 of 2018 HC-KAR 3. The Trial Court had framed the following issues for its consideration. “1) Whether plaintiff proves that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the same? 2) Whether the plaintiff proves that item No.3, 4,5,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 and 15 are acquired from the income of joint family? 3) Whether the defendants prove that there was partition/division family vide registered partition deed dated 21.12.2004? in the 4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as sought for in the plaint? 5) What order or decree?” 4. After considering the contentions and the evidence on record, the Trial Court answered the first four issues in the affirmative and decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/6th share over the suit schedule properties. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was a registered partition deed on 21.12.2004 and that the suit filed without seeking to set-aside the partition - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:22955-DB RFA No. 1144 of 2018 HC-KAR deed was bad in law. It is further contended that the plaintiff had been married off, after being giving her due share and therefore, she could not maintain her suit for partition. 6. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the Trial Court has specifically considered the contentions of the parties with reference to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act,1956 (for short hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) as amended. 7. Sub Section (5) of Section 6 of the Act specifically provides that the provisions of Sub Section (4) of the Act would not apply to a partition which has been effected before 20th day of December, 2004. “Section 6(5): Nothing contained in this section shall apply to a partition, which has been effected before the 20th day of December, 2004. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section “partition” means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:22955-DB RFA No. 1144 of 2018 HC-KAR Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court.” 8. The explanation further provides that for the purpose of this Section, partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 or partition effected by a decree of the Court. 9. In the instant case, it is the admitted case of the parties that there was a registered partition effected by the partition deed dated 21.12.2004. The specific case of the defendants was that on 21.12.2004, the partition was effected by a registered deed, which was registered at the office of the Sub-Registrar at Chikkamagaluru as document No.2485. It is, therefore clear that the plaintiff who is admittedly a daughter, would have a share in the joint family properties since the partition was effected after 20.12.2004, which is the date provided under the statute. The Trial Court has considered this specific - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:22955-DB RFA No. 1144 of 2018 HC-KAR contention and has come to the conclusion that since the partition was effected by a registered deed after 20.12.2004, the said partition deed cannot be relied upon to deny the share to the plaintiff, who was the daughter. The finding that the properties were joint family properties is also not in dispute. 10. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the finding of the Trial Court that the properties are partible cannot be interfered with. The appeal therefore, fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case,
Decision
there will be no order as to costs. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1