- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23791 RSA No. 1438 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1438 OF 2021 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. INDRAMMA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS W/O LATE SIDDALINGASWAMY 2. SRI MADHU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O LATE SIDDALINGASWAMY 3. SMT. VIDHYA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS D/O LATE SIDDALINGASWAMY, APPELLANTS 1 TO 3 ARE ALL R/AT IGGALURU VILLAGE AND POST, VERUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI CHANNAPATTANA TALUK RAMNAGAR DISTRICT - 562 138 …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. RAJESHWARI M, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R.B. SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MARAMMA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, W/O LATE SHIVAMADAPPA Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23791 RSA No. 1438 of 2021 MADENAHALLI VILLAGE, CHIKKARASINAKERE HOBLI MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 422. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GANESH M.V, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.11.2020 PASSED IN RA.No.58/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.08.2017 PASSED IN OS.No.45/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAPATTANA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding passed by the courts below. The appellate court has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants in R.A.No.58/2018 by - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23791 RSA No. 1438 of 2021 modifying the judgment of the trial court. The appellants have challenged the judgment and decree of granting of 1/4 share in favour of the plaintiff and appellate court proceeded to grant the relief in favour of plaintiff by modifying the same as half share and dismissed the appeal of the appellants. The appellate court has also proceeded to grant half share in favour of the plaintiffs even in respect of the properties, which have been sold by her brother. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has brought to the notice of this court that the properties which have been sold by her brother were not the properties which have been included in the plaint and even not challenged the sale made by the brother only share was claimed in respect of 3 items of the properties. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the trial court granted 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties and the same is not correct, it ought to have granted 1/2 share. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the propositus of the family is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23791 RSA No. 1438 of 2021 Swatantrappa. The said Swatantrappa had three sons viz., Yediyurappa, Madappa and Shivanna and a suit is also filed in respect of share of Yediyurappa and the dispute inter se is between the children of Yediyurappa i.e., Maramma who is the sister of Siddalingaswamy who was no more and hence, the wife and children of Siddalingaswamy were brought on record as defendant Nos.1 to 3. 6. Having considered the material on record, Yediyurappa and two children viz., Sidalingaswamy and plaintiff Maramma, both of the them are equally entitled for a share out of the properties, which remains for partition. 7. The appellate court committed an error in granting the relief in respect of the property which have been sold by Siddalingaswamy, the same was not the case of the plaintiff in the original suit having challenged the sale and even not claimed any share. When such being the case, the appellate court ought not to have granted the relief in respect of the properties, which have been sold and the same is not the subject matter of the suit and hence, in view of the fact that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23791 RSA No. 1438 of 2021 both of them are equally entitled for share, which is the also the only issue between the parties. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant also does not dispute the relationship between Siddalingaswamy and Maramma. Maramma is the sister of the son of Yediyurappa Siddalingaswamy i.e., the defendants / appellants are the wife and children of Siddalingaswamy. When such being the case, instead of admitting the appeal and framing substantial question of law and having regard to the fact that the issue is only with regard to granting of share is concerned, by modifying the same, this second appeal can be disposed of without admitting as the same is purely question of law and the same is also not disputed by the appellants that Maramma is the sister of the husband of defendant No.1. 9. Having considered the judgment of the trial court, awarding 1/4th share in favour of the plaintiff is not correct it oughtto have granted 1/2 share in the property of Yediyurappa and the appellate court also committed an error in granting a share in respect of property, which has already been sold by Siddalingaswamy which is not the subject matter of the issue in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23791 RSA No. 1438 of 2021 the original suit and hence, the same is modified. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: O R D E R (i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment of the appellate court is modified granting half share in favour of the plaintiff out of the share of the Yediyurappa in respect of the suit schedule properties and other relief granted in appeal is hereby set aside. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45 CT: BHK