Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 38902 (KAR)

OBAKKA v. BOOTHAIAH

RSA/1091/2013 · 2025-09-12

Anant Ramanath Hegde

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36489 RSA No. 1091 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1091 OF 2013 (DEC) BETWEEN: 1. OBAKKA W/O SIDDAPPA,AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE, R/O MODURU VILLAGE,JAJURU HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK,CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 2. BORAKKA W/O ANJANEYA,AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE,R/O MODURU VILLAGE, JAJURU HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 3. JAYAMMA W/O HANUMAPPA,AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE, R/O MODURU VILLAGE,JAJURU HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK,CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 4. HANUMAKKA W/O OBAIAH,AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE, R/O MODURU VILLAGE, JAJURU HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. N. ASHOK KUMAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36489 RSA No. 1091 of 2013 AND: 1. 1(A) BOOTHAIAH SINCE DIED REP. BY LRS AKKAMMA W/O LATE BOOTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS OCCUPATION HOUSE WIFE, R/O T. VEERAPURA,RAYADURGA TALUK, ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT,ANDRA PRADESH STATE, PIN - 515863. 1(B) OBANNA, S/O LATE BOOTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE, R/O T. VEERAPURA,RAYADURGA TALUK, ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT,ANDRA PRADESH STATE, PIN - 515863. 1(C) NINGAPPA S/O LATE BOOTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE, R/O T. VEERAPURA,RAYADURGA TALUK, ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT,ANDRA PRADESH STATE, PIN - 515863. 1(D) GANGADHARA S/O LATE BOOTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE, R/O T. VEERAPURA,RAYADURGA TALUK, ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT, ANDRA PRADESH STATE, PIN - 515863. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36489 RSA No. 1091 of 2013 1(E) LAKSHMI W/O NARASIMHA, D/O OF LATE BOOTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS OCCUPATION HOUSE WIFE, R/O GUDIHALLI VILLAGE, MYALAHALLI POST, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, PIN - 577522. 2. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURIST, R/O GUDIHALLI VILLAGE, THALAKU HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, PIN - 577543. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R. RAVIKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H. K. KENCHEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A-E); SRI. D.K. ROHITH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 05.03.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.16/2012 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHALLAKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 08.02.2012 PASSED IN OS.NO.141/2009 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, CHALLAKERE. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36489 RSA No. 1091 of 2013 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT This second appeal is against a concurrent finding in the suit for partition, declaration and separate possession. 2. The suit is decreed granting 1/3rd share to the plaintiff, 1/3rd share to defendants No.1 to 5 and 1/3rd share to defendant No.6. 3. It is relevant to mention that defendant No.6 filed counter claim claiming 1/3rd share. 4. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the defendants Nos.1 to 5 filed two regular appeals namely RA.No.15/2012 and RA.No.16/2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Challakere. RA.No.15/2012 is filed challenging the decree in favour of defendants No.1 to 5 and RA.No.16/2012 is filed challenging the decree passed in counter claim by defendant No.6. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36489 RSA No. 1091 of 2013 5. Both appeals namely RA.No.15/2012 and RA.No.16/2012 are dismissed. The defendants No.1 to 5 have filed RSA.No.1306/2013 challenging the decree in RA.No.15/2012 and this RSA.No.1091/2013 challenging the decree in RA.No.16/2012. Vide judgment dated 27.01.2020, this Court has dismissed RSA.No.1306/2013. 6. These both appeals namely RSA.1306/2013 and RSA.No.1091/2013 are admitted on 27.01.2020 to answer the following substantial questions of law: "(i)Whether the Courts below were justified in granting 1/3rd share to the plaintiff, notwithstanding the fact that the suit schedule property was not the ancestral property, but was the property allotted to the defendant No.1 by the Government? (ii) Whether the Courts below failed to consider that the defendant No.6 could not have been a member of the joint family after her marriage? (iii) In respect of the land granted by the Government to a male member of the family, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36489 RSA No. 1091 of 2013 could another male member of the same family be termed to be a joint tenant or a tenant in common?" 7. The substantial question of law No.(i) pertains to RSA.No.1306/2013. It is already answered in favour of the respondent in the said RSA No.1306/2013 and against the present appellants. Hence, it need not be answered again. 8. The substantial question of law that is required to be answered in this appeal is the substantial question of law No.(ii). 9. The admitted genealogy tree is as under:- ANGADI OBAIAH S/O PALAIAH (DIED) Obakka Obaiah Marakka Palaiah Gowramma Died issueless died on died issueless died Aged about 44 yrs 27-06-2012 6th defendant 1st defendant Boothaiah 51 years Plaintiff Obakka Borakka Jayamma Hanumakka - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36489 RSA No. 1091 of 2013 W/o Siddappa W/o Anjineya W/o Hanumappa W/o Obaiah Age 53 years Age 50 years 48 years 43 years 2nd defendant 3rd defendant 4th defendant 5th defendant 10. One Angadi Obaiah son of Palaiah was the propositus. He died before 1950. He had 2 sons namely Obaiah and Palaiah and 3 daughters namely Obakka, Marakka and Gowramma. Obakka and Marakka died issueless. 11. The suit is filed by Boothaiah, the son of Palaiah, against Obaiah, 1st defendant and his 4 daughters and also against Gowramma, 6th defendant. 12. The plaintiff claimed that his father had 1/3rd share in the suit property and defendant No.1 has 1/3rd share in the suit property and defendant No.6, Gowramma has 1/3rd share in the suit property. 13. Defendants Nos.1 to 5 contested the suit and took a stand that the property is granted to Obaiah on 15.02.1950 and the grant is made exclusively in favour of Obaiah and it is not the joint family grant. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36489 RSA No. 1091 of 2013 14. 6th defendant - Gowramma also filed written statement, and supported the plaintiff’s claim and urged that the property is granted to the family and she is also having 1/3rd share in the suit property. Defendant No.6 filed a counter claim claiming 1/3rd share. 15. Trial Court held that the property is the joint family property and granted 1/3rd share to the plaintiff and 1/3rd share to defendant No.6 who had filed counter claim. 16. There is no specific order as to how much share is allotted to defendants No.1 to 5. Going by the finding of the trial Court that the suit property is the joint family property, it is to be understood that 1/3rd share is awarded in favour of defendant No.1. 17. As already noticed, two appeals were filed by defendants No.1 to 5. Challenging the judgments and decrees passed by the trial Court in the suit as well as in the counter claim and both appeals are dismissed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36489 RSA No. 1091 of 2013 18. Learned for the defendants No.1 to 5/appellants would urge that though RSA.No.1306/2013 is dismissed holding that the suit property is the joint family property of the plaintiff and defendant No.1, still the contention that Gowramma, 6th defendant is not entitled to share, is available for the appellants on the premise that Gowramma was married and was not the member of the family when the property was granted on 15.02.1950. It is also the further submission that Gowramma being the female is not the member of the joint family and benefit of grant by the Government in favour of Obaiah i.e. 1st defendant does not enure to the benefit of defendant No.6. 19. Learned counsel would also submit that when the portion of the granted property was sold in 1986, Gowramma was paid Rs.1,000/- and the plaintiff was paid Rs.1,000/- and this fact would establish that they have no right over the property. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36489 RSA No. 1091 of 2013 20. Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant No.6 would submit that the property was granted on 15.02.1950 in favour of Obaiah and his family members and Gowramma was also a family member. When the property was granted, Gowramma was not married, as such, the grant is to be held as the joint family grant comprising Obaiah, Palaiah and Gowramma. 21. This Court considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 22. As already noticed, the relationship of the parties is not in dispute. Angadi Obaiah, the propositus died before 1950. Admittedly, Angadi Obaiah did not possess any land when he died. The land is granted in the name of Obaiah, the first defendant, on 15.02.1950 by the Government. 23. Now the question is whether the property is the joint family grant or individual grant. This Court in RSA.No.1306/2013 filed by the present appellants - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36489 RSA No. 1091 of 2013 challenging the decree in favour of plaintiff who is the son of Palaiah, has come to the conclusion that the property is the joint family grant. This judgment is not questioned and has attained finality. Thus, there is no difficulty in holding that the property is not the exclusive property of Obaiah. 24. The next question is whether Gowramma, 6th defendant was also the member of the joint family when the property was granted on 15.02.1950. If it is established that Gowramma was married before 15.02.1950, then Gowramma will not acquire any share over the property. If it is not established that Gowramma was not married before 15.02.1950, then Gowramma will also acquire 1/3rd share in the property as the family had only 3 persons at the time of grant on 15.02.1950. 25. This Court has considered the evidence placed on record. Defendant Nos.1 to 5 though took a contention that Gowramma was married before 15.02.1950, there is no such evidence placed on record. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36489 RSA No. 1091 of 2013 26. Though this contention is urged before this Court that Gowramma was married and the property was granted on 15.02.1950, this Court finds that there is no such stand taken in the written statement. 27. After having gone through the evidence in the cross-examination of Gowramma, it is noticed that the defendants No.1 to 5 have not suggested that Gowramma married before 15.02.1950. 28. On the other hand in the cross-examination, it is suggested that when 3 acres of land out of 7 acres land granted originally was sold in 1986 and Rs.1,000/- was paid to Gowramma and Rs.1,000/- was paid to the plaintiff. This fact is disputed by Gowramma. In any case even if it is assumed that Rs.1,000/- was paid to Gowramma in 1986, that can only be construed as having shared part of the consideration amount in respect of the property sold and not in respect of the property retained, which is the suit property. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36489 RSA No. 1091 of 2013 29. In addition, the contention of defendants No.1 to 5 that they have paid Rs.1,000/- in the consideration amount in respect of 3 acres of land sold in 1986, would also suggest that defendants No.1 to 5 admit the fact that the property is the joint property of Obaiah, Palaiah and Gowramma. 30. This being the position, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court granting 1/3rd share in favour of Gowramma/defendant No.6. 31. It is also noticed that when the suit was filed in 2009, Gowramma's age was shown as 40 years. Her age is not disputed by the remaining defendants and even Gowramma has not disputed her age. In the examination- in-chief, recorded on 15.12.2011, Gowramma has shown her age as 70 years. If her age is taken as 70 years on 15.12.2011 when her evidence was led, then it would indicate that she was born in the year 1940. The grant is - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36489 RSA No. 1091 of 2013 made in the year 1950. Thus, the contention that she was married when the property was granted on 15.02.1950 also does not appear to be logical. 32. This being the position, this Court is of the view that the substantial question of law has to be answered against the appellants and in favour of the respondents. 33. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. SD/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE MCR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13 ...