Sri Veerabhadrappa v. Smt Sushilamma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2191 OF 2023 (PAR) BETWEEN:

¶1SRI VEERABHADRAPPA S/O GADIGYAPPA AGED 57 YEARS,

¶2SRI SHASHIBHUSHAN S/O GADIGYAPPA AGED 48 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT SHAKUNAVALLI VILLAGE, JADE HOBLI, SORABA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 419 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MAHESH R. UPPIN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VEERESH MAHESH UPPIN, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1SMT SUSHILAMMA W/O SUBHASH KADAPPANAVAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O SHAKUNAVALLI VILLAGE, JADE HOBLI, SORABA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 419.

¶2SMT BASAMMA W/O BASAVANTHAPPA AGE 58 YEARS, by ANNAPURNA G Location: High Court of Karnataka e -e2e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR NC:(2026:KHC:40322 RSA(No.(2191(of(2023 CNR:(KAHC010678422023 R/O,BENGERI,VILLAGE,, PLOT,NO.9, HUBLI,-,580,020.,

3., SRI,SHANMUKHAPPA, S/O,MALLAPPA,BANAPPANAVAR,, AGED,72,YEARS,, R/O,SHAKUNAVALLI,VILLAGE,, JADE,HOBLI,,SORABA,TALUK,, SHIVAMOGGA,DISTRICT,-,577,419., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,PRABHUGOUDA,V.B.,,ADVOCATE,FOR,C/R1), , THIS, RSA, IS, FILED, UNDER, SECTION, 100, OF, CPC,, AGAINST, THE, JUDGMENT, AND, DECREE, DATED, 15.09.2023, PASSED,IN,RA.NO.14/2021,ON,THE,FILE,OF,THE,SENIOR,CIVIL, JUDGE, AND, JMFC,, SORABA,, DISMISSING, THE, APPEAL, AND, CONFIRMING,THE,JUDGMENT,AND,DECREE,DATED,12.02.2021, PASSED, IN, O.S.NO.221/2015, ON, THE, FILE, OF, THE, CIVIL, JUDGE,AND,JMFC,,SORABA., , THIS,APPEAL,,COMING,ON,FOR,ADMISSION,,THIS,DAY,, JUDGMENT,WAS,DELIVERED,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,V,SRISHANANDA ORAL(JUDGMENT

¶1Heard, Sri., Veeresh, Mahesh, Uppin,, learned, counsel, for, the, appellants., None, appears, for, the, respondents. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:40322

¶2Defendants No.1 and 2 are the appellants challenging the decree passed in OS No.221/2015 granting share to the respondent No.1/plaintiff confirmed in R.A. No. 14/2021.

¶3Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

3.1. A suit for partition and separate possession of the in respect of the following properties (hereafter referred as suit properties) came to be filed by the plaintiff thseeking 1/4 share in the suit properties. ಎ-'ೆಡೂ2.

¶17ೊರಬ 4ಾಲೂ:ಕು, ಜVೆ 1ೋಬ6, ಶಕುನವ67 )ಾ%ಮದ ಸ.ೆ ನಂ. 125 " ರ#: 3 ಎಕ$ೆ 24 ಗುಂ&ೆ 'ೆgÉ ತ) ಜ*ೕನು.

¶27ೊರಬ 4ಾಲೂ:ಕು, ಜVೆ 1ೋಬ6, ಶಕುನವ67 )ಾ%ಮದ ಸ.ೆ ನಂ. 65 " 1 ರ#: 2 ಎಕ$ೆ 10 ಗುಂ&ೆ ಇದರ#: 0-12 ಗುಂ&ೆ ಖ$ಾಬುವ-ಾ-ಾತ 03 ಎಕ$ೆ 13 ಗುಂ&ೆ 'ೆ$ೆ ಜ*ೕನು.

¶37ೊರಬ 4ಾಲೂ:ಕು, ಜVೆ 1ೋಬ6, ಶಕುನವ67 )ಾ%ಮದ ಸ.ೆ ನಂ. 126 " ರ#: 3 ಎಕ$ೆ 16 ಗುಂ&ೆ ಇದರ#: 0-03 ಗುಂ&ೆ ಖ$ಾಬುವ-ಾ-ಾತ 03 ಎಕ$ೆ 13 ಗುಂ&ೆ ಖು¶Ì ಜ*ೕನು.

¶4ೊರಬ ಾಲೂಕು, ಜೆ ೋಬ, ಶಕುನವ ಾಮದಸೆ ನಂ. 228 ರ# 2 ಎಕ$ೆ 13 ಗುಂ&ೆತ) ಜ*ೕನು.

¶5ೊರಬ ಾಲೂಕು, ಜೆೋಬ, ಶಕುನವ ಾಮದಸೆ ನಂ. 103 ರ# 0-27 ಗುಂ&ೆಖು¶Ì ಜ*ೕನು.

¶6ೊರಬ ಾಲೂಕು, ಜೆೋಬ, ಶಕುನವ ಾಮದಸೆ ನಂ. 51/1 " ರ# 4 ಎ'ೆರ 09 ಗುಂ&ೆಇದರ# 1 ಎಕ$ೆ 01 ಗುಂ&ೆಇದರ# ಗುಂ&ೆ ಖ$ಾಬುವ-ಾ-ಾತ 03 ಎಕ$ೆ 01 ಗುಂ&ೆಖು¶Ì ಜ*ೕನು.

¶7ೊರಬ ಾಲೂಕು, ಜೆ ೋಬ, ಶಕುನವ ಾಮಪಂ/ಾ01 ಾ"2ಯಶಕುನವ ಾಮದ4ಾ ೆನಂ. 116, ಆ62 ನಂ. 43 " ರ#ರುವ 2 ಾಸದಮ7ೆಗಳ9 ಮತು2 :ತ2ಲುಮುಂ/ೆಅ<ಸ=ಳಇದ'ೆ> /ೆಕು>ಬಂ?ಃ ಪAವ 'ೆ>: BಾನಪC DE ಮಲಪCನವರಮ7ೆ, ಪFGಮ'ೆ> ರುದಪC DE $ಾಜಪC ಇವರ ಸHತು2, ಉತ2ರ'ೆ>: ಮ#'ಾಜು ನ :$ೇಮಠ ಇವರ ಕುಟುಂಬದಆ62, ದLಣ'ೆ>: ಾ? ಮ7ೆಅಜNಪC ಇವರ:ತ2ಲುಗಳ9.

3.2. In the plaint, it is contented that plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are the siblings and they are all children of Gadigyappa and Bangaramma. After the death of Gadigyappa and Bangaramma, all the parties to the suit succeeded to the suit properties equally.

3.3. Defendant No.3 was married and she is residing in her husband's place and plaintiff was married to Sri. Subhash and she is residing with him.

3.4. However, on account of strained matrimonial relationship, plaintiff started residing in Shakunavalli Village.

3.5. After death of Gadigyappa, defendant No.1 managed the suit properties as the kartha. When the plaintiff demanded share in the property, same was refused and therefore a legal notice was issued. Despite the service of notice there was no compliance to the callings of notice and thus sought for decreeing the suit.

3.6. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant No.1 appeared and filed written statement contending that admitting the relationship and also the nature of property.

3.7. It is contended that marriage of the plaintiff and defendant No.3 was performed by spending the money

from the joint family income and therefore they are not entitled for the share.

3.8. It is also contented that except Item No.5, other items of the properties are the ancestral properties, but at the time of marriage, gold and cash was given as dowry and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled for any share.

3.9. Learned trial Judge after raising necessary issues based on the rival contentions of the parties recorded the evidence of the parties and after hearing the arguments, decreed the suit of the plaintiff granting 1/4th share as prayed for.

3.10. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants No.1 and 2 filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in R.A. No.14/2021.

3.11. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the

parties and on re-appreciation of the material on record, dismissed the appeal.

¶4Being further aggrieved by same, present second appeal is filed.

¶5Sri. Veeresh Mahesh Uppin, learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum would contend that both the Courts failed to note the huge amount of dowry was given at the time of marriage of the plaintiff and defendant No.3, which has been suppressed by the plaintiff. Therefore, defendants No.1 and 2 are entitled to keep the family properties towards their share and thus not for admitting the appeal on the following substantial questions of law:

(i) Whether both the courts below are erred in holding that the defendant No.1 not is entitled to the money spent on the marriage of Plaintiff and Defendant No.3 and the 7.5 Tolas of Gold paid to them at the time of marriage in their respective shares.

(ii) Whether both the courts below are right in holding that the sale of item No.5 of the suit schedule property is not for family necessity.

(iii) Whether both the courts below are right in not considering the fact that the suit is barred by Limitation.

¶6Counsel for respondent is absent. Having heard the arguments of counsel for the appellant, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶7On such perusal of the material on record, if the defendants have spent money for the marriage expenses, which will work out to the share of the plaintiff to the extent of 1/4th, the same can be subject matter of enquiry into the mesne profits as is contemplated under Order XX Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the Final Decree Proceedings.

¶8Mere meeting the expenses for the marriage would not take away the legal right of the plaintiff seeking partition in the suit properties.

¶9Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the substantial questions of law. Hence, following order is passed: ORDER

(i) Admission declined.

(ii) Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42