Karnataka High Court
Shashidhar S/O Basavantayya Mathad vs Smt Ashwini Uma Mathad on 25 March, 2013
Author: K. Sreedhar Rao
Bench: K. Sreedhar Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SREEDHAR RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO
R.F.A. No. 3052/2010 A/w
R.F.A. CROB No. 103/2011
In R.F.A. No. 3052/2010:
BETWEEN:
1. Shasidhar
S/o Basavantayya Mathad,
Age: 58 years,
Occ: Bank Employee,
R/o Ganga Krupa Building,
Hosur, Hubli-580 021.
2. Smt. Manjula
W/o Shasidhar Mathad,
Age: 41 years,
Occ: Household work,
R/o Ganga Krupa Building,
Hosur, Hubli-580 021.
3. Kumari Aishwarya
D/o Shasidhar Mathad,
Age: 11 years, Occ: Student,
R/o Ganga Krupa Building,
Hosur, Hubli-580 021,
Represented by her father
Appellant No.1.
2
4. Kumari Vaishnavi
D/o Shasidhar Mathad,
Age: 9 years, Occ: Student,
R/o Ganga Krupa Building,
Hosur, Hubli-580 021,
Represented by her father
Appellant No.1. ... APPELLANTS
[By Sri. Mallikarjuna Swamy B. Hiremath &
Sri. S.S. Ujjannavar & G. Meerabai, Advs.)
AND:
1. Smt. Ashwini Uma Mathad
Now Ashwini Basavaraj Hiremath,
Age: 25 years,
Occ: Household work,
R/o C/o Maheshwari Hiremath,
Senior Civil Judge,
J2A 303, Judicial Block,
Koramangala,
Bangalore - 560 047.
2. Kumari Nivedita Uma Mathad
Age: 19 years,
Occ: Student,
R/o C/o Maheshwari Hiremath,
Senior Civil Judge,
J2A 303, Judicial Block,
Koramangala,
Bangalore - 560 047. RESPONDENTS.
[By Sri. Srinand A. Pachchapure, Adv.)
This Regular First Appeal is filed under Order XLI
Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, prays that this
Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside the Judgment and
2
3
Decree dated 10.02.2010 passed by the learned I
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hubli.
In R.F.A. CROB No. 103/2011:
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Ashwini Uma Mathad
Age: 25 years,
Occ: Household work,
R/o C/o Maheshwari Hiremath,
Senior Civil Judge,
J2A 303, Judicial Block,
Koramangala,
Bangalore - 560 047.
2. Kumari Nivedita Uma Mathad
Age: 21 years,
Occ: Student, Rep. By GPA Holder
Appellant No.1,
R/o C/o Maheshwari Hiremath,
Senior Civil Judge,
J2A 303, Judicial Block,
Koramangala,
Bangalore - 560 047. CROSS OBJECTORS.
[By Sri. Srinand A. Pachchapure, Adv.)
AND:
1. Shasidhar Basavantayya Mathad,
Age: 58 years,
Occ: Bank Employee,
R/o Ganga Krupa Building,
Hosur, Hubli-580 021.
2. Smt. Shantakka
W/o Basavantayya Mathad,
3
4
Since deceased by her
L.R. Defendant No.1.
3. Gayatri
D/o Basavantayya Mathad,
Since deceased by her
L.R. Defendant No.1.
4. Smt. Manjula
W/o Shasidhar Mathad,
Age: 42 years,
Occ: Household work,
R/o Ganga Krupa Building,
Hosur, Hubli.
5. Kumari Aishwarya
D/o Shasidhar Mathad,
Age: 22 years, Occ: Student,
R/o Ganga Krupa Building,
Hosur, Hubli,
6. Kumari Vaishnavi
D/o Shasidhar Mathad,
Age: 9 years, Occ: Student,
R/o Ganga Krupa Building,
Hosur, Hubli, since minor
Represented by Deft.No.1. RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. Mallikarjuna Swamy B. Hiremath, Adv.)
This Memorandum of Cross Appeal is filed under
Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, prays
that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside/modify
the Judgment and Decree dated 10.02.2010 passed by
the Court of I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn.), Hubli, in O.S.
4
5
No.73/2004 allotting equal share i.e. 1/3rd each in suit
properties and allow this cross appeal.
The Regular First Appeal and the Cross Appeal
coming on for Orders this day, K. SREEDHAR RAO J.,
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The appellants are defendants in the suit. The plaintiffs are the respondents. The respondents are the children of the 1st appellant born in the wedlock between 1st appellant and his divorced wife Smt. Uma Mathad. It is admitted fact that the 1st appellant has married the 2nd respondent after the divorce and in the wedlock he has two children and they are appellant Nos.3 and 4. The suit properties at item Nos. 1 and 4 are admitted to be the ancestral properties. Item Nos.2 and 3 are the properties belonging to the mother of the 1st appellant and after her demise the said properties are bequeathed to 1st appellant. Therefore, the said properties acquired the status of self-acquired properties.
5 6
2. The respondents filed a suit for partition. The parties are governed by Bombay School of Hindu Law. In view of the provisions of Hindu Succession Amendment Act of 2005, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to a share as a co-parceners in the ancestral properties. The wife who is the second appellant also would be entitled to a share in the partition. In that view, the appellant Nos.1 and 2 and respondent Nos.1 and 2 will have 1/4th share each in item Nos.1 and 4 of the suit properties.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellants submit that the appellants 2 to 4 would not claim any independent share in item Nos.1 and 4 of the suit properties, but they would take share in the 1/4th share allotted to their father.
4. In view of the said submissions, the appellant Nos.1 and 2 and respondent Nos.1 and 2 would be entitled to 1/4th share in item Nos.1 and 4 of the suit properties.
6 7
5. Accordingly, a preliminary decree to be drawn and the appeal and cross objections are disposed of in the terms indicated above.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
Sd/-
JUDGE Rbv/ 7 8 DBBJ & KNKJ:
25.03.2013 RFA.No.3052/2010 a/w RFA CROB No.103/2011 PC:
ORDER ON I.A.I/2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
By this application, learned counsel for the cross- objectors seeking correction of the judgment dated
06.12.2012, in which, at four places in first four paragraphs, while describing the suit properties, Item No.5 was wrongly typed as Item No.4 being the ancestral property. Learned counsel for the appellants has no objection for correcting the figure '4' at all the four places in respect of suit properties as ' 5'.
Office is accordingly directed to issue fresh copy of the order to the parties after carrying-out the corrections.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE KGR* 8