SMT RUKMINI @ GULABI W/O LATE HONNAPPA @ SITARAM A vs SMT KRISHNI @ PARVATI W/O SADASHIVA NAIK
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
RSA No. 1244 of 2007
C/W RSA No. 1256 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
th
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1244 OF 2007 (PAR)
C/W
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1256 OF 2007
IN RSA NO. 1244/2007
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RUKMINI @ GULABI
DEAD BY LR’S
APPELLANT 2 TO 4 ARE THE LRS
2. SRI DATTA @ YESHWANT
DEAD BY LR’S
2A. SUSHMA D/O LATE DATTA @ YESHWANT NAIK
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O. #53/A, SAWANTWADA, ASNOTI,
KARWAR, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581303.
2B. RESHMA D/O LATE DATTA @ YESHWANT NAIK
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/O. #53/A, SAWANTWADA, ASNOTI,
KARWAR, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581303.
2C. SANDEEP S/O LATE DATTA @ YESHWANT NAIK
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/O. #53/A, SAWANTWADA, ASNOTI,
KARWAR, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581303.
3. SRI KOYAR @ KESHAV S/O LATE HONNAPPA
@ SITARAM NAIK
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
AGRICULTURE,
ROHAN
HADIMANI
T
Digitally signed by ROHAN
HADIMANI T
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2026.10.30 16:54:47
+0530
- 2 -
RSA No. 1244 of 2007
C/W RSA No. 1256 of 2007
4. SRI KRISHNA
S/O LATE HONNAPPA SITARAM NAIK
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, AGRICULTURE
ALL ARE R/O DEVALIWADA, ASNOTI,
TALUK: KARWAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA
…APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. GAYATRI S.R., ADVOCATE.)
AND:
1. SMT KRISHNA @ PARVATI
W/O SADASHIVA NAIK
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’S
1A. SRI PANDURANG S/O SADASHIV NAIK
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/O. KUMARPANTHAVADA, KODIBAG,
KARWAR, UTTARA KANNADA DIST.581303.
1B. SRI DEVIDASA S/O SADASHIV NAIK
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/O. KUMARPANTHAVADA, KODIBAG,
KARWAR, UTTARA KANNADA DIST.581303.
1C. SMT. SUMATI D/O SADASHIV NAIK
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/O. KUMARPANTHAVADA, KODIBAG,
KARWAR, UTTARA KANNADA DIST.581303.
1D. SRI GAJANAN S/O SADASHIV NAIK
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/O. KUMARPANTHAVADA, KODIBAG,
KARWAR, UTTARA KANNADA DIST.581303.
1E. SRI VINOD S/O SADASHIV NAIK
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/O. KUMARPANTHAVADA, KODIBAG,
KARWAR, UTTARA KANNADA DIST.581303.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAYKUMAR B. HORATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1(B) &
R1(D);
SRI SHEKHARGOUDA M. NAGANURI, ADVOCATE FOR
R1(A,C&E).
- 3 -
RSA No. 1244 of 2007
C/W RSA No. 1256 of 2007
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED
14.10.2003 IN O.S.NO.17/1994 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), KARWAR, DECREEING THE SUIT THAT
RD
THE RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED FOR 1/3 SHARE IN THE SUIT
SCHEDULE PROPERTIES AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 05.03.2007 PASSED IN R.A.NO.41/2003, BY THE
DISTRICT JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT-II, KARWAR,
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT.
IN RSA NO.1256/2007
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RUKMINI @ GULABI
DEAD BY LR;S
APPELLANT NOS.2 TO 4 ARE THE LR’S
2. SRI DATTA @ YESHWANT
DEAD BY LR’S
2A. SUSHMA D/O LATE DATTA @ YESHWANT NAIK
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O. #53/A, SAWANTWADA, ASNOTI,
KARWAR, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581303.
2B. RESHMA D/O LATE DATTA @ YESHWANT NAIK
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/O. #53/A, SAWANTWADA, ASNOTI,
KARWAR, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581303.
2C. SANDEEP S/O LATE DATTA @ YESHWANT NAIK
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/O. #53/A, SAWANTWADA, ASNOTI,
KARWAR, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581303.
3. SRI KOYAR @ KESHAV
S/O LATE HONNAPPA SITARAM NAIK
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
AGRICULTURE,
- 4 -
RSA No. 1244 of 2007
C/W RSA No. 1256 of 2007
4. SRI KRISHNA
S/O LATE HONNAPPA SITARAM NAIK
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, AGRICULTURE
ALL ARE R/O DEVALIWADA, ASNOTI,
TALUK: KARWAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. GAYATRI S.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT KRISHA @ PARVATI
W/O. SADASHIV NAIK
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’S
2A. SRI PANDURANG S/O SADASHIV NAIK
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/O. KUMARPANTHAVADA, KODIBAG,
KARWAR, UTTARA KANNADA DIST.581303.
2B. SRI DEVIDASA S/O SADASHIV NAIK
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/O. KUMARPANTHAVADA, KODIBAG,
KARWAR, UTTARA KANNADA DIST.581303.
2C. SMT. SUMATI D/O SADASHIV NAIK
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/O. KUMARPANTHAVADA, KODIBAG,
KARWAR, UTTARA KANNADA DIST.581303.
2D. SRI GAJANAN S/O SADASHIV NAIK
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/O. KUMARPANTHAVADA, KODIBAG,
KARWAR, UTTARA KANNADA DIST.581303.
2E SRI VINOD S/O SADASHIV NAIK
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/O. KUMARPANTHAVADA, KODIBAG,
KARWAR, UTTARA KANNADA DIST.581303.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAYKUMAR B. HORATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1(B) &
R1(D);
SRI SHEKHARGOUDA M. NAGANURI, ADVOCATE FOR
R1(A,C&E).
- 5 -
RSA No. 1244 of 2007
C/W RSA No. 1256 of 2007
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED
14.10.2003, IN O.S.NO.17/1994 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), KARWAR DECREEING THE SUIT THAT
RD
THE RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED FOR 1/3 SHARE IN THE
SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTIES AND THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 05.03.2007, PASSED IN R.A.NO.41/2003 BY
THE DISTRICT JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT-II, KARWAR,
GRANTING HALF SHARE AS CLAIMED BY THE RESPONDENT
BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE TRIAL
COURT.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 16.09.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE
CAV JUDGMENT
The defendants being aggrieved by the judgment and
decree dated 14.10.2003, passed in O.S.No.17/1994, by
the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Karwar, (‘trial Court’ for
rd
short), decreeing the suit of the plaintiff granting 1/3
share in the suit schedule properties and the judgment
and decree dated 05.03.2007, passed in R.A.No.41/2003,
by the District Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Karwar (‘First
Appellate Court’ for short), decreeing the suit of the
plaintiff granting half share in the suit schedule properties,
preferred the present appeal in RSA No.1244/2007.
- 6 -
RSA No. 1244 of 2007
C/W RSA No. 1256 of 2007
2. RSA No.1256/2007 is also filed by the
defendants assailing the judgment and decree in
O.S.No.17/1994 and in the cross objection filed by the
plaintiffs in R.A.No.41/2003, decreeing the suit of the
plaintiff for half share in the suit properties.
3. As these two appeals arise out of the same
judgment and decree as well on the cross objection filed in
the regular appeal before the First Appellate Court, these
two appeals are taken together for disposal.
4. For the convenience and easy reference, the
parties are referred as ‘plaintiff’ and ‘defendants’ as
referred before the trial Court.
5. Facts of the case in brief are that, the plaintiff
namely Smt.Krishni @ Parvati filed the suit against 04
defendants before the trial Court in O.S.No.17/1994,
seeking the following reliefs:
a) A declaration that the plaintiff is entitled
to half share in the suit schedule
properties;
- 7 -
RSA No. 1244 of 2007
C/W RSA No. 1256 of 2007
b) partition and separate possession of the
plaintiff’s half share in the suit schedule
properties by metes and bounds and
wherever such of the properties are not
capable of being partitioned, the
provisions of the Partition Act may be
applied; the suit house bearing No.69A
may be allotted to the share of the
plaintiff;
c) further mesne profits may be awarded to
the plaintiff from defendants;
d) costs of this suit may be awarded to the
plaintiff from defendants;
e) such other reliefs as the Court may deem
fit, may kindly be awarded to the plaintiff
from the defendants.
Suit schedule properties are described as under:
Sl. Village Sy.No. Area Assessment Nature of
No. land
1. Kolge 5/1 00-09-00 1-43 Occupancy
2. Kolge 5/5 00-05-00 0-80 Occupancy
This land has been acquired by west coast railway corporation
Rs.8,000-00 at 80% acquisition amount paid to the defendant
No.1
3. Kolge 302/2 00-27-00
00-00-08PK
02-91
Occupancy
00-26-08
4. Kolge 302/4 11-93 Occupancy
02-06-12
00-02-00PK
nd
-out of this 1/2
02-04-12
share
5. Kolge 305/5A 00-27-08 2-89 Occupancy
Together with stones bearing
Sy.Nos.69A and 71D.
- 8 -
RSA No. 1244 of 2007
C/W RSA No. 1256 of 2007
6. Savantwada 44/1 00-34-00
00-01-00
3-34 Occupancy
00-33-00
Together with H.No.53A
7. Madhewada 12/1 00-13-00
00-00-08
Occupancy
0-78
00-12-08
(Bagayat)
HOUSES:
(1) House No.69A situated in Suit Sy.
No.302/5A of Kolage Village in Karwar Taluka
constructed by the plaintiff, about 3 years back
by spending Rs.25,000-00 and given to her son's
wife's maternal uncle-Rama Naik on leave and
licence basis. This house may be allotted to the
share of the plaintiff.
(2) House No.53A situated in Suit S.No.44/1
of savantwada Village in Karar Taluka, Family
House.
(3) House No.71D situated in Suit
S.No.302/5 A of Kolage Village in Karwar Taluka
constructed by Defendant no.1 from joint family
funds and given to Prabhakr Pandu Naik of Asnoti
on leave and licence basis.
6. The plaintiff’s contention is that, parents of the
plaintiff namely Yeshawant Honnappa Naik @ Komarpant
and his wife Savitri had two children namely Honnappa @
Sitaram and the plaintiff Krishni. The said Honnappa @
- 9 -
RSA No. 1244 of 2007
C/W RSA No. 1256 of 2007
Sitaram had married with Rukmini the first defendant and
they have three sons who are defendants No.2 to 4. It is
the contention of the plaintiff that, defendant No.4 namely
Koyar @ Keshav born after the death of Honnappa @
Sitaram. The plaintiff got married with Sadashiv Ganesh
Naik in the year 1954. Her father died on 14.12.1961
leaving behind his wife Savitri, son Honnappa, the
daughter plaintiff. Her father was cultivating the suit lands
as tenant, out of which suit land bearing Sy.No.12/1 (item
No.7 shown in the schedule) was held by him as a
permanent tenant. He built a residential house in suit
Sy.No.44/1 (item No.6). The said house was numbered as
53A in the Panchayat records (item No.2 of the house
property). First defendant managed to get her name alone
entered to the said house as manager of the family. First
defendant’s husband Honnappa @ Sitaram died on
14.04.1964 leaving behind the defendants No.1 to 4 and
his mother Savitri. There was no partition between father
of the plaintiff and the said Honnappa, mother of the
plaintiff Savitri and the plaintiff. The entire properties are
- 10 -
RSA No. 1244 of 2007
C/W RSA No. 1256 of 2007
in joint possession of the plaintiff and defendants. The
mother of the plaintiff Savitri died in the year 1966 leaving
behind the plaintiff and her son Honnappa as her heirs and
thereby the plaintiff contended that, she is having half
share in the suit properties.
7. The plaintiff further contended that, she has
constructed a small residential house in the southern
portion of the suit Sy.No.302/5A (item No.5) about 2½
years back by spending a sum of ₹25,000/- and the said
house bears No.69/A described in the suit item No.1 of the
house property. After the death of Honnappa, the name of
first defendant was entered as the manager of the joint
family in the records of rights in respect of the suit lands
and also the house property. The first defendant promised
the plaintiff that, she would allot the said house to the
share of the plaintiff in the partition. The plaintiff
approached the defendants several times for partition, but
the defendants went on postponing the same. Thereafter
they refused to effect partition and to give separate
possession of plaintiff’s half share in the suit properties.
- 11 -
RSA No. 1244 of 2007
C/W RSA No. 1256 of 2007
Hence the plaintiff constrained to file the suit seeking half
share in the suit properties.
8. In response to the summons issued, the
defendants entered appearance and resisted the suit by
filing written statement. The defendants contended that,
suit for declaration and partition is not maintainable. Land
bearing Sy.No.5/1, 5/5, 302/2, 302/4, 302/5A of Kolge
village and Sy.No.44/1 of savantwada village are the
chalageni and exclusive tenanted properties of the
husband of defendant No.1. He has taken the said lands as
independent lease from the erstwhile owners. The father
of the plaintiff never cultivated the said lands as tenant
during his lifetime nor he was the tenant of the said lands.
Father of the plaintiff surrendered possession of two lands
bearing Sy.No.311 and 300/2 of Kolge Village to the owner
of the said land and his tenancy rights whatsoever existing
in respect of the said lands was also ceased as per the
order passed by the Tahsaildar, Karwar in the Case
No.5145/617/54-55 dated 28.12.1954, vide mutation
entry No.2165 of Kolge Village. Thereby, the father of the
- 12 -
RSA No. 1244 of 2007
C/W RSA No. 1256 of 2007
plaintiff is no way concerned to the said lands and the
plaintiff has no locus standi to claim any right or interest
over the suit properties.
9. Further it is contended that, the marriage of the
plaintiff was took place in the year 1954. Since then she
started residing at Kodibagh in her husband’s house. She
never come forward to cultivate the suit lands or to
continue the chalageni tenancy rights from the owner in
respect of the suit land at any point of time and she has
never been the tenant of the suit lands. Only because the
plaintiff happens to be the daughter of Yeshwant
Honnappa Naik, is not sufficient to claim right in the suit
properties. Till the death of husband of the first defendant,
he was paying geni to his owners. After his death, the first
defendant alone has paid geni to the owners till
01.03.1974. The husband of the first defendant died in the
year 1964 and after his death, the first defendant and her
sons have taken the chalageni leasehold right from the
respective landlords on payment of paddy crop and
- 13 -
RSA No. 1244 of 2007
C/W RSA No. 1256 of 2007
payment of geni in kind of cash. There is absolutely no
nucleus of any kind of the ancestral properties.
10. After the commencement of Land Tribunal, the
first defendant and her two sons filed Form No.7 before
the Land Tribunal, Karwar and the Land Tribunal, Karwar,
has granted occupancy rights in respect of the suit
properties (supra) in the name of first defendant and in
the name of defendants No.1 to 3, in their independent
capacity. There is no existence of a joint family
relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants. The
plaintiff cannot be treated as a joint family member as she
was married long back. The tribunal has granted
occupancy rights to defendants No.1 to 3 in respect of the
suit lands, vide order dated 13.12.1978. In view of the
order of the Land Tribunal, this Court has no jurisdiction to
consider whether the suit lands are self acquired tenancy
holdings of the defendants or the joint family properties.
The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to consider the tenancy
issue as held in the judgment reported in AIR 1994 SC
1190 . It is the exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal only.
- 14 -
RSA No. 1244 of 2007
C/W RSA No. 1256 of 2007
11. The only land bearing Sy.No.12/1 measuring to
an extent of 13 guntas was the mulageni tenancy holding
of the father of the plaintiff and the said land was barren
land having no income and not useful for any purpose.
After the death of father of plaintiff, the said land was also
taken on lease by defendant No.1 from the owner of the
said land and paying the rent. The plaintiff never made
attempt to take the said land on lease after the death of
her father. Thereby the said land also became the
independent and exclusive tenancy holding of the husband
of defendant No.1. The plaintiff was never in possession of
the suit land and she has no locus standi to file the suit.
12. It is further stated that, it is false that father of
the plaintiff had built a residential house bearing
panchayat No.53A in Sy.No.44/1. The said house is totally
newly constructed house. The defendants No.1 and 3 are
residing in the said house. The plaintiff’s father never
resided in the said house. So also, the claim of the plaintiff
that she has constructed the house in Sy.No.302/2 by
spending ₹25,000/- and the said house bearing
- 15 -
RSA No. 1244 of 2007
C/W RSA No. 1256 of 2007
Sy.No.69/A and 71/D. The said house is constructed by
first defendant in the year 1986-87 under the HUDCO
scheme sponsored by the Government by securing
₹4,500/- granted by BDO, Karwar. In the house bearing
No.71D, defendant No.4 is residing with his family
members. Apart from that, defendant No.2 also
constructed a house in Sy.No.302/5A, which is numbered
as 69A in the village panchayat records. It is false that the
first defendant promised the plaintiff that she would allot
the house No.69A to the plaintiff. The conduct of the
plaintiff is quite unnatural. The defendants are in actual
possession of the entire suit lands and 03 residential
houses. The cause of action stated by the plaintiff is
baseless and outcome of her own imagination. She is not
entitled for any relief. On these grounds, the defendants
prayed for dismissal of the suit.
13. On the above pleadings, the trial Court has
framed the following:
- 16 -
RSA No. 1244 of 2007
C/W RSA No. 1256 of 2007
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit
schedule properties are the ancestral joint
family properties of herself and the
defendants, are the joint possession of the
same as contended?
2. Whether the defendants prove that the
suit schedule properties are the tenanted
properties which they got under the Land
Reforms Act in their individual capacity
and the plaintiff has nothing to do with
the same?
3. Whether the defendant prove, that the
suit house has been constructed by them
and are in exclusive possession of the
same?
4. Whether the plaintiff prove, cause of
action for the suit?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief
sought for?
6. What order or Decree?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she had
constructed the suit house No.69A & 71D
by spending Rs.25,000/- each of Gram
Panchayat Asnoti Village as contended in
para No.2 of the plaint?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that her late
father had a residential house in suit land
- 17 -
RSA No. 1244 of 2007
C/W RSA No. 1256 of 2007
bearing Survey No.44/1 of Savantwada
Village and same was reconstructed?
14. The plaintiff in order to prove her case,
examined herself as PW1 and 02 witnesses are examined
as PW2 and PW3 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1
to P23. On behalf of the defendants, first defendant is
examined as DW1 and got marked the documents as
Ex.D1 to D26. The trial Court after appreciation of the
evidence on record and after hearing the learned
respective counsels for both the parties proceeded to pass
the impugned judgment dated 14.10.2003, whereby the
suit of the plaintiff was decreed in part by ordering that
rd
the plaintiff is entitled for 1/3 share in the entire landed
properties except in Sy.No.302/4 and house properties
rd
and the defendants are entitled for 2/3 share together.
For separating the shares of the plaintiff and defendants,
the Commissioner be appointed under Section 54 of
Amended CPC and ordered for drawing up of preliminary
decree accordingly.
- 18 -
RSA No. 1244 of 2007
C/W RSA No. 1256 of 2007
15. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment
passed by the trial Court, the defendants No.1 to 3
preferred appeal before the First Appellate Court in
R.A.No.41/2003. The First Appellate Court, after re-
appreciation of the evidence on record, dismissed the
appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff
has filed the cross-objection wherein the plaintiff has
sought for half share in the scheduled properties. The First
Appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by
defendants No.1 to 3, whereas the First Appellate Court
has allowed the cross-objection of the plaintiff and thereby
the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is set
aside and it is ordered that, the plaintiff is declared to be
entitled to half share in all the suit properties and the
remaining half share should go to Honnappa Yeshwant
Naik represented by defendants No.1 to 4 together.
16. Being aggrieved by the said impugned
judgment, the defendants the preferred RSA
No.1244/2007 and being aggrieved by the decreetal of the
suit by allowing the cross objection granting half share to
- 19 -
RSA No. 1244 of 2007
C/W RSA No. 1256 of 2007
the plaintiff, the defendants have preferred appeal in RSA
No.1256/2007.
17. The learned counsel for the appellants has
relied upon the following judgments in support of their
case:
a. The Karnataka Housing Board v. Smt. Kamala, W/o.
Manick Muchandi, in RFA No.100385/2017 and connected
matters, disposed of on 24.04.2025.
b. Nimbavva S/o. Basalingayya Hiremath and Others v.
Channaveerayya S/o. Gurushantayya
Gurulingadevaramath @ Mathad, in RFA No.4150/2012
and connected matters, disposed of on 26.08.2013.
c. Sri. Kalsu Sukru Gouda and Another v. Sri. Ninga Vasu
Gouda and Another , in W.P. No.100269/2022, disposed of
on 31.07.2026.
18. The learned counsel for the respondents has
relied upon the following judgments in support of their
case:
d. Smt. Mallawwa Laxman Yadahalli v. Sri. Siddappa
Mallappa Khavatakoppa and Others, in RFA
No.100340/2017, disposed of on 14.07.2025.
e. N. Padmamma and Others v. S. Ramakrishan Reddy and
Others, reported in (2015) SCC 417.
- 20 -
RSA No. 1244 of 2007
C/W RSA No. 1256 of 2007
f. Smt. Lakshmamma v. Smt. Shanthamma and Others, in
RSA No.1208/2021, disposed of on 10.03.2022.
g. Girija, W/o. Shivanangouda Patil and Others v.
Ramanagouda, S/o. Basangouda Patil and Others, in RFA
No.100194/2015, disposed of on 03.03.2022.
19. Perused the records and considered the
submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for
both parties.
20. At the time of admission of these two appeals,
the following substantial questions of law were framed for
consideration:
a. Whether the Courts below were justified in holding that
the plaintiff in the trial Court is entitled to a share in the
suit schedule properties, notwithstanding Section
2(12)(a) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, when the
plaintiff had married in the year 1954 itself?
b. Consequently, whether, the plaintiff is entitled to any
right or share in the suit schedule properties,
notwithstanding the fact that she had married in the
year 1954?
21. The learned counsel for the appellants-
defendants contended that both the Courts below had
committed errors of law as well as errors in the
- 21 -
RSA No. 1244 of 2007
C/W RSA No. 1256 of 2007
appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on
record. It was argued that the Courts below had failed to
properly consider the relevant materials and the legal
principles governing tenancy under the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act.
22. The principal contention of the appellants is that
the Courts below ought to have held that the respondent-
plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the suit schedule
properties, as the said properties are the exclusive and
self-acquired properties of the appellants.
23. It was further contended that, in view of
Section 112-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the
Civil Court has no jurisdiction to determine whether the
land held by a person as a tenant was held by him in his
individual capacity or for the benefit of the joint family.
24. The learned counsel further submitted that
Form No.7 was filed by the predecessor of the appellants
in his individual capacity and not in his capacity as the
Kartha of the joint family or on behalf of the joint family.
Therefore, according to the appellants, the plaintiff had
- 22 -
RSA No. 1244 of 2007
C/W RSA No. 1256 of 2007
failed to establish, by placing cogent evidence on record,
that the suit schedule properties were joint family
properties.
25. Reliance was placed on Section 2(12)(a) of the
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, which defines the expression
"family" in relation to an individual having a spouse or
spouses as including such individual, the spouse or
spouses, minor sons and unmarried daughters. It was also
contended that Section 236 of the Act clarifies that an
unmarried daughter means a daughter who has never
been married.
26. In the present case, the plaintiff admittedly got
married in the year 1954. Therefore, it was argued that
she does not fall within the definition of "family" under
Section 2(12)(a) of the Act and, consequently, cannot
claim any share in the suit schedule properties on the
basis of the said provision.
27. The learned counsel further contended that,
since the plaintiff falls outside the purview of the aforesaid
definition, she cannot claim a right to seek partition of the
- 23 -
RSA No. 1244 of 2007
C/W RSA No. 1256 of 2007
tenanted lands. It was argued that the object of the
provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act is to protect
tenancy rights and to prevent the transfer or devolution of
such rights in a manner contrary to the provisions of the
Act.
28. It was also contended that Sections 21 and 61
of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act have an overriding
effect and operate as safeguards in respect of tenancy
rights in agricultural lands.
29. The learned counsel for the appellants further
submitted that the First Appellate Court had committed an
error in answering Point No.5 framed by it and in granting
a half share to the plaintiff. It was argued that the Trial
Court, while answering the additional issue, had held that
the plaintiff had failed to establish that she had
contributed towards the construction of the houses
situated on the tenanted lands and had, therefore, rightly
rejected her claim in that regard.
30. According to the appellants, the First Appellate
Court had erred in allowing the plaintiff's claim in the
- 24 -
RSA No. 1244 of 2007
C/W RSA No. 1256 of 2007
absence of sufficient evidence on record. It was further
contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking the
relief of declaration and partition was barred by limitation.
31. On these grounds, the learned counsel for the
appellants submitted that the judgments and decrees
passed by the Courts below are unsustainable in law and
prayed that both the appeals be allowed and the suit filed
by the plaintiff be dismissed.
32. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondent-plaintiff contended that, although the tenancy
rights in respect of the suit schedule lands had originally
been granted in favour of the plaintiff's father, he had
cultivated the said lands during his lifetime for the benefit
of the joint family.
33. It was further submitted that, after the death of
the plaintiff's father and subsequently, the death of the
plaintiff's brother, who was the husband of defendant
No.1, defendant No.1 managed to get her name entered in
the revenue records in respect of the suit schedule
properties.
- 25 -
RSA No. 1244 of 2007
C/W RSA No. 1256 of 2007
34. The learned counsel for the respondent
contended that the plaintiff, being the daughter of the
original holder of the properties, is entitled to a share
therein along with the legal heirs of her deceased brother.
It was argued that the suit schedule properties constitute
joint family properties and that the First Appellate Court
was justified in allotting an equal half share to the plaintiff,
with the remaining half share being allotted to defendant
Nos.1 to 4.
35. The learned counsel for the respondent further
submitted that the lands had not been surrendered to the
Government by the plaintiff's father, who was the original
tenant, and that the grant of occupancy rights in his
favour did not, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, preclude the plaintiff from claiming her
lawful share in the properties.
36. Reliance was also placed on Section 24 of the
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, which provides for the
heritability of tenancy rights, subject to the applicable
statutory provisions.
- 26 -
RSA No. 1244 of 2007
C/W RSA No. 1256 of 2007
37. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the
respondent supported the judgment and decree passed by
the First Appellate Court and prayed for dismissal of the
appeals.
38. The principal question that arises for
consideration is whether the plaintiff, who admittedly got
married in the year 1954, is entitled to a share in the suit
schedule properties, having regard to the provisions of
Section 2(12)(a) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.
39. In support of their contentions, the learned
counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgments
referred to supra. In particular, reliance was placed on the
judgment passed in W.P. No.100269/2022, wherein the
legal consequences arising from the definition of the
expression "family" under Section 2(12) of the Karnataka
Land Reforms Act were considered.
40. The appellants contended that, in view of the
statutory definition, a married daughter cannot claim a
share in the land in respect of which occupancy rights
have been conferred upon her father.
- 27 -
RSA No. 1244 of 2007
C/W RSA No. 1256 of 2007
41. However, the learned counsel for the
respondent submitted that the facts of the present case
are distinguishable from those involved in the judgments
relied upon by the appellants. According to the
respondent, the dispute in the present case does not
merely concern the exclusion of a married daughter from
the definition of "family" under the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act, but also involves her entitlement to succeed
to the estate of her deceased father under the applicable
provisions of the Hindu Succession Act.
42. It was contended that the suit schedule
properties were not the exclusive properties of the
plaintiff's father, as asserted by the appellants, but were
treated and enjoyed as joint family properties. The learned
counsel further submitted that the original tenant had not
surrendered the lands to the Government and that the
rights acquired in respect of the said lands formed part of
his estate.
43. The learned counsel for the respondent placed
reliance upon the judgments cited supra, particularly the
- 28 -
RSA No. 1244 of 2007
C/W RSA No. 1256 of 2007
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, wherein the
rights of married daughters in respect of properties
acquired through tenancy rights were considered.
44. It is observed in the said judgment that,
although married daughters may be excluded from the
definition of "family" under the Karnataka Land Reforms
Act for the purposes governed by the said definition, their
rights of inheritance under the Hindu Succession Act are
also required to be considered independently, subject to
the nature of the property and the applicable statutory
provisions.
45. The said judgment further observes that
excluding married daughters from inheritance in respect of
lands in which occupancy rights have been conferred upon
a tenant may give rise to questions concerning the
applicability of the Hindu Succession Act and the
constitutional principles of equality enshrined in Articles 14
and 15 of the Constitution of India.
46. The principle emerging from the said decision,
as relied upon by the respondent, is that once ownership
- 29 -
RSA No. 1244 of 2007
C/W RSA No. 1256 of 2007
rights have been conferred upon a tenant and the land has
become part of his estate, the devolution of such property
is required to be examined in accordance with the
applicable law of succession.
47. In the present case, it is the specific contention
of the plaintiff that her father cultivated the suit schedule
lands for the benefit of the joint family and that the rights
acquired in respect of the said lands were not intended to
be confined exclusively to him in his individual capacity.
48. Therefore, the question that arises for
consideration is not merely whether the plaintiff falls
within the definition of "family" under Section 2(12)(a) of
the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, but also whether, having
regard to the nature of the rights acquired in respect of
the suit schedule properties and the applicable provisions
of the Hindu Succession Act, she is entitled to claim a
share therein.
49. The Courts below have considered the nature of
the suit schedule properties and the rival claims of the
parties. The Trial Court, while determining the respective
- 30 -
RSA No. 1244 of 2007
C/W RSA No. 1256 of 2007
shares of the parties on the basis of the principle of
notional partition, granted the plaintiff a one-third share,
whereas the First Appellate Court granted her a half share
in the suit schedule properties.
50. Having regard to the submissions advanced by
the learned counsel for both parties and the legal
principles laid down in the judgments cited supra, this
Court is of the view that the plaintiff's claim cannot be
rejected solely on the ground that she was married in the
year 1954. Her entitlement to a share in the suit schedule
properties is also required to be examined in the context
of her rights of succession under the applicable law.
51. Accordingly, the first substantial question of law
is answered in favour of the plaintiff, holding that her
marriage in the year 1954 does not, by itself, disentitle
her from claiming a share in the suit schedule properties,
subject to the determination of the nature of the
properties and the applicable law of succession.
52. The second substantial question of law concerns
whether the plaintiff is entitled to any right or share in the
- 31 -
RSA No. 1244 of 2007
C/W RSA No. 1256 of 2007
suit schedule properties, notwithstanding the fact that she
was married in the year 1954.
53. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is the
daughter of Yeshwant Naik, the propositus, and that she
had a brother by name Honnappa. Honnappa died leaving
behind defendant Nos.1 to 4, who are his wife and
children.
54. The plaintiff's mother, who was the wife of
Yeshwant Naik, died in the year 1966, whereas the
plaintiff's father, Yeshwant Naik, died in the year 1961.
55. The plaintiff claims a share in the suit schedule
properties on the ground that the properties were joint
family properties and that, being the daughter of the
propositus, she is entitled to succeed to the same in
accordance with the applicable provisions of the Hindu
Succession Act.
56. As discussed above, the mere fact that the
plaintiff was married in the year 1954 does not, by itself,
conclude the question of her entitlement to a share in the
suit schedule properties. It is necessary to examine the
- 32 -
RSA No. 1244 of 2007
C/W RSA No. 1256 of 2007
nature of the properties, the rights acquired by the original
tenant and the applicable statutory provisions governing
succession.
57. In view of the findings recorded by the First
Appellate Court and the legal principles relied upon by the
respondent, this Court finds no sufficient ground to
interfere with the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to
a share in the suit schedule properties.
58. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that,
the trial court in its judgment in OS No.17/1994 decreed
the suit of the plaint in respect of the entire landed
properties, except in Sy.No.302/4 and house properties.
Whereas, the appellate court in RA No.41/2003 while
dismissing the appeal and allowing the cross objection,
declared that, the plaintiff is entitled to half share in all the
suit schedule properties.
59. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellants
submits that, in so far as decreeing of the suit in all the
properties are concerned there shall be modification
- 33 -
RSA No. 1244 of 2007
C/W RSA No. 1256 of 2007
stating that the plaintiff is not entitled for share in the land
bearing Sy.No.302/4 and house properties.
60. It is relevant to mention that, in so far as
decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in respect of entire
landed properties except in Sy.No.302/4 and house
properties, the plaintiff has not preferred any appeal with
regard to rejection of her claim in respect of Sy.No.302/4
and house properties.
61. Therefore, this court of the opinion that, the
order passed by the first appellate court granting decree
infavor of the plaintiff in respect of all the suit properties is
concerned it shall be modified stating that, the plaintiff is
not entitled for any share in respect of the land bearing
Sy.No.302/4 as well house properties. Accordingly, the
appeal in RSA No.1244/2007 needs to be allowed in part.
62. The First Appellate Court has granted a half
share to the plaintiff and held that the remaining half
share is to be allotted collectively to defendant Nos.1 to 4.
63. Accordingly, the second substantial question of
law is also answered in favour of the plaintiff.
- 34 -
RSA No. 1244 of 2007
C/W RSA No. 1256 of 2007
64. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court
finds that the appellants have failed to establish sufficient
grounds warranting interference with the judgment and
decree passed by the First Appellate Court in respect of all
the suit schedule properties except in suit Sy.No.302/4
and house properties. Consequently, appeal in RSA
No.1244/2007 to be allowed in part and the appeal in RSA
No.1256/2007 is devoid of merit and liable to be
dismissed.
65. Accordingly, this court proceed to pass the
following;
ORDER
Appeal in RSA No.1244/2007 is allowed in part .
The judgment and decree passed by the first appellate
court in R.A. No.41/2003, on the file of the District
Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Karwar, is confirmed except
in respect of the share of the plaintiff in land bearing
Sy.No.302/4 and house properties.
Appeal in RSA No.1256/2007 is dismissed
confirming the order passed by the first appellate court
- 35 -
RSA No. 1244 of 2007
C/W RSA No. 1256 of 2007
on the cross objection filed by the plaintiff in respect of
allotting her half share.
Send back the trial Courts records along with the
copy of this judgment.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(RAJESHWARI N.HEGDE)
JUDGE
MRK-upto para 16.
AC-para 17 to end.
Ct-cmu