RSA1223-16-19-09-2016.Pdf

- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19 th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY R.S.A.NO.1223/2016 (PAR) BETWEEN : SMT. CHIKKA REDDAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS W/O M. MOHAN AGRICULTURIST D/O LATE VENKATAPPA RESIDING AT: M. GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE BYRAKUR HOBLI MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 131 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHESHADRI N.S., ADVOCATE) AND : 1. SMT. CHOWDAMMA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS W/O CHANGAPPA RESIDING AT CHIKKA PADMAGHATTA VILLAGE KAPALA MADAGU GRAMA PANCHAYAT MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 131 2. SMT. THIMAKKA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS W/O LATE VENKATAPPA - 2 - 3. SMT. DHODDA REDDAMMA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS D/O LATE VENKATAPPA W/O KEMBODI NARAYANAPPA 4. SRI. REDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O LATE VENKATAPPA RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO 4 RESIDING AT: N. VADDAHALLI VILLAGE, PADHMAGHATTA POST MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 131 5. SMT. KAVITHA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS W/O RAMAPPA RESIDING AT: SEESANDHRA VILLAGE HUTTUR POST AND HOBLI KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT – 563 131 6. SRI. CHIKKAREDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS AGRICULTURIST S/O LATE THIMMAIAH 7. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS D/O THIMMAIAH AGRICULTURIST 8. SMT. NETHRAVATHI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS D/O THIMMAIAH AGRICULTURIST RESPONDENT NO. 5 TO 8 RESIDING AT: CHIKKA PADHMAGHATTA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 131 - 3 - 9. SMT. MUNEMMA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS D/O LATE VENKATAPPA W/O MUNI VENKATAPPA RESIDING AT: N. VADDA HALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 131 10. SMT. CHANGAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS D/O LATE VENKATAPPA W/O RAMA KRISHNAPPA RESIDING AT: H. KODIHALLI VILLAGE BYRAKUR HOBLI MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 131 SRI. LATE VENKATARAMAPPA (REP. BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES) 11. SMT. ESWARAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS W/O VENKATARAMAPPA 12. SMT. SAKAMMA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS D/O VENKATARAMAPPA 13. SRI. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS S/O VENKATARAMAPPA RESPONDENT NO. 11 TO 13 ARE RESIDING AT: N. VADDANA HALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 131 14. SMT. VIJAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS W/O SATHYAPPA D/O LATE VENKATARAMAPPA - 4 - 15. SMT. ANITHA D/O LATE VENKATARAMAPPA RESPONDENT NO.14 & 15 ARE RESIDING AT: NAGAVAR VILLAGE MUSTOOR POST MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 131 16. SMT. PEDDAKKA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS W/O LATE VENKATARAVANAPPA D/O MUNISWAMY RESIDING AT: SIDDANAHALLI VILLAGE BYRAKUR HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 131 17. SRI. CHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O MUNISWAMY AGRICULTURIST SMT. LAKSHMAKKA (REP. BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES) 18. SRI. SRINIVASALU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O APPAIAH 19. SRI. RAJASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS S/O SRINIVASALU 20. SRI. NATARAJA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS S/O SRINIVASALU RESPONDENT NO .17 TO 20 RESIDING AT: N. VADDA HALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 131 - 5 - 21. SMT. VENKATARAJAMMA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS W/O LATE VENKATARAVANAPPA D/O MUNISWAMY RESIDING AT: NAGAVARA VILLAGE BYRAKUR HOBLI MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 131 22. SRI. RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O MUNISWAMY RESIDING AT: : N. VADDA HALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 131 23. SMT. NARAYANAMMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS D/O MUNISWAMY W/O SRINIVASA REDDY RESIDING AT: BATTAMDODDI VILLAGE KARASANAPALLI POST PADAPANAJANI MANDALAM PALAMANER TALUK CHITTOR DISTRICT ANDRA PRADESH – 515 001 ... RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.02.2016 PASSED IN RA NO.197/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., KOLAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.10.2014 PASSED IN OS NO.232/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., MULBAGAL, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 6 - J U D G M E N T Taking note of the fact that pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit has been examined by the trial court, the trial court has raised issue No.3 as preliminary issue. The said issue has been discussed in detail in para 14 of the judgment of the Trial Court. 2. The suit filed was one for partition and separate possession of one third share on the ground that plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of one of the sons of Muniswamy. The first defendant is the other son and defendants 2 to 4 are legal heirs of one more son of Muniswamy. The suit schedule properties are either ancestral properties or acquired out of the joint family funds. 3. The relationship of the parties is admitted. It is also admitted that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties. However, the suit was contested on the ground of not including all the joint family properties, non- - 7 - joinder of necessary parties and on the ground that the Trial Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction. 4. Having held the issue relating to pecuniary jurisdiction in favour of the plaintiff, the Trial Court decreed the suit in part. On the appeal filed by one of the LRs of defendant No.1, the lower appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court with modification as to shares of the parties. 5. I have gone through the reasons assigned at para 14 of the judgment with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction of the court below. The reasons assigned are just and proper. Lower appellate Court has corrected shares of each parties having regard to the amendment to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act. No substantial question of law would arise for consideration in this appeal. Hence, the appeal is rejected. SD/- JUDGE *mn/- .

Load more