Sri.G.R.Basavaraju v. Smt. Pratiba

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1893 OF 2017 (PAR)

Between:

Sri G.R.Basavaraju Aged about 56 years, S/o Late G.S.Rudranna R/at Lakshmi Nivas 2nd cross, S.S.Puram Tumakuru-572102. …Appellant (By Sri K.K.Vasanth, Advocate) And:

Smt. Pratiba Aged about 61 years, W/o R.Manohar R/at Shruthi Nilaya, 5th A cross, Maruthinagar, Tumakuru. And presently R/at No.Ozus, 3rd cross Chaitanya Layout, Near Mukthamba Paramashivaiah Kalyana Mantapa, Geddalahalli Main Road Tumakuru-572102. …Respondent (By Sri Chandrashekar L, Advocate)

by VEERENDRA KUMAR K M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

This RFA is filed under section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of CPC, against the judgment and decree dated

23.08.2017 passed in OS.No.6/2013 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru, partly decreeing the suit for partition and mesne profits.

This RFA, coming on for orders, this day, judgment was delivered therein as under:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR)

This appeal is filed by the defendant in O.S.No.6/2013 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tumakuru challenging judgment and decree dated 23.08.2017.

¶2Heard Sri K.K.Vasanth, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri L.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶3The respondent was the plaintiff in the suit. She brought a suit for partition in respect of two properties bearing Municipal Katha old

No.2/1879, 2/1880 new No.342/399 measuring 100+85/2 x 80 feet and 62 x 30 feet situated at 2nd Cross, Someshwarapuram, Tumakuru and an industrial building constructed on Plot No.20C of Antharasanahalli Industrial Area, Tumakuru. Subsequently the plaintiff deleted item No.2 i.e., industrial building from the suit claiming that it was her self-acquired about which there was no dispute. Therefore the suit continued only in relation to first item of the plaint schedule.

¶4It is stated that first item of the plaint schedule belonged to one Rudranna as he had purchased it under a registered sale deed dated

18.11.1959. He died on 04.10.1993 leaving behind a widow, 6 daughters and a son. Therefore it is quite obvious that all the heirs had 1/8th share each.

¶5It appears that two daughters, namely, Shanthala Uma released their respective

shares in favour of their mother and thereby the share of the mother i.e., widow of Rudranna enlarged to 3/8th share.

¶6Thereafter as evidenced by Ex.D.2 three sisters, namely, Siddagangamma, N.Neelambike @ Neela and Sidhamani @ Sudha received gold jewellery weighing grams cash of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakhs only) and relinquished their rights in respect of other properties in favour of their brother. About this partition there is no dispute. There remained the share of the plaintiff. Therefore she brought a suit for partition.

¶7The trial court after holding trial decreed the suit declaring that the plaintiff was entitled to 1/7th share plus 1/6th share in 3/7th share of Gangamma i.e., mother. The defendant has disputed this allotment of shares made by the trial court.

¶8Sri K.K.Vasanth, learned counsel for the appellant submits that after death of Rudranna, his widow and children each became entitled to 1/8th share. Because of release made by two daughters in favour of widow, the latter's share enlarged to 3/8th share. After the death of the widow, her children became entitled to 1/7th share each in 3/8th share of Gangamma. Thereby the plaintiff would become entitled to her original share i.e., 1/8th share plus 1/7th share in 3/8th share of Gangamma i.e., totally 3/56th share (1/7 + 3/8) which works out to 5/28 after further simplification. That means the plaintiff gets 5/28th share in item No.1 of plaint schedule.

¶9Learned counsel for respondent accepts the calculation of shares made by Sri K.K.Vasanth.

¶10Since property was self acquisition of Rudranna, we find that

calculation thus made by Sri K.K.Vasanth, learned counsel for appellant is correct.

Our calculation would also show that the plaintiff's actual share is 5/28. Therefore to this extent, decree of the trial court is modified and it is held that the plaintiff will take 5/28th share in item No.1 of the plaint schedule. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

¶11Preliminary decree shall be drawn to this effect. Rest of the judgment of the trial court is confirmed. There is no order as to costs.

¶12Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of in view of disposal of the main appeal.

Sd/- (SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR) JUDGE

Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

KMV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7