IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 BEFORE The Hon’ble Mr.Justice B.M.Shyam Prasad Regular Second Appeal No.2231 of 2018 (PAR) Between:
SMT. R.N.LAXMINARASU WIFE OF SRI JAYARAMU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.No.237, 2ND FLOOR, 2ND MAIN ROAD, RAMACHANDRAPURA, BENGALURU – 560 021 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI C.R.SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE) And:
1. SMT.SOWBHAGYAMMA WIFE OF VENKATANAGAIAH, DAUGHTER OF LATE KEMPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.660, E.W.S. 6TH ‘B’ CROSS, 7TH MAIN ROAD, KENGERI UPANAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 060 2. SRI JAYARAMU SON OF LATE KEMPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.237, 2ND FLOOR, 2ND MAIN ROAD, RAMACHANDRAPURA, BENGALURU – 560 021 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V.SHANKARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
V/O DATED 28.11.2019 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 19.09.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.5133/2018 (OLD NO.R.A.NO.14/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, TO SIT AT KANAKAPURA DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED : 26.02.2015 PASSED IN O.S.No.280/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT KANAKAPURA.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Judgment This appeal is filed by the defendant No.2 in O.S.No.280/2010 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Kanakapura impugning the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2015 therein and the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2018 in R.A.No.5133/2018 (old R.A.No.14/2015) on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara (sitting at Kanakapura).
2. The respondent No.1 has filed the suit in O.S.No.280/2010 against her brother - respondent No.2 and his wife, the appellant. There is no dispute about the relationship amongst the parties and that the suit schedule properties are the absolute properties of deceased Kamegowda, father of the respondents. In fact, the appellant has filed the written statement stating that the suit schedule properties are the self acquired properties of deceased Kamegowda. Therefore, the khatha for the subject properties, was initially made in the name of the respondent No.2, and later made in the name of the appellant. This is in addition to the contention that the appellant and the respondent No.2 have already got constructed a residential house in Bengaluru for the respondent No.1 in lieu of her share in the suit schedule properties.
3. The Courts below have granted equal share to the respondent No.1 with the respondent No.2 in view of the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The applicability of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in the facts and circumstances of the case would be indisputable and in such event the respondent No.1 would be entitled for equal share as a class-I legal heir of the deceased Kamegowda. A useful reference could be made in this regard to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uttam V. Saubhag Singh and others reported in [(2016) 4 SCC 68]. In the light of the admitted facts and circumstances of the case and the settled law, no substantial question arises in this appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
4. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2018 do not survive for consideration, and the same is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- Judge KPS