The Karnataka High Court has held that the re-determination of shares as per Vineeta Sharma case would not be applicable to the alienation of property made prior to 20.12.2004.

Counsel Manjunath A Karigannavar and Counsel MB Hiremath appeared for the petitioners, while Counsel SM Kalwad and Counsel Prashant Mathapathi appeared for the respondents.

The petitioners sought relief from the Court, requesting the quashing of the order dated 02.08.2023 on I.A.No.XX passed by the Court of the Civil Judge & JMFC and dismissing the IA No.XX.

The suit in OS No.368/1989 was filed by deceased plaintiff No.1, the wife of respondent No.1 and the mother of respondents No.2 to 4, seeking partition and separate possession before the Principal Munsiff Court. The suit was decreed on 10.3.1993, partially allowing the regular appeal in RA No.44/1997 (old RA No.22/1993). Another regular appeal filed by respondent No.15 was dismissed on 27.9.1997.

Respondent No.15 filed RSA No.30/1998, resulting in the modification of the decree on 11-06-2002, directing equity to the purchaser of a portion of the property belonging to the coparcener.

Respondents No. 1 to 5 filed FDP No.3/2004, seeking entitlement to Block No.393 property. The court held in their favor, granting defendant No.5 (father of the petitioners) the property in Block No.393 measuring 3 acres 33 guntas.

A writ petition challenging the order in WP No.62814/2010 reaffirmed the petitioners' entitlement to Block No.393 measuring 3 acres 33 guntas.

Respondents No.1 to 5 filed IA No.XI and IA No.XX, seeking modification of the decree in terms of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma. The court allowed IA No.XX, granting respondents No.11 to 13 an equal share in the property.

The petitioners contended that the property was rightfully allotted to them as per previous judgments, and the impugned orders would disturb their rights. Respondents No.11 to 13 argued that the allotment was based on earlier judgments and should stand.

The Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj came to the following conclusions:

- Subsequent to the decision of the Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma Case, recognizing a full share of the daughter in the joint family/coparcener property. Even in an Appellate Proceeding or a Final Decree Proceeding the shares and entitlement of the parties even if determined earlier would have to be redetermined in terms of the decision and principles laid down by the Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma Case.

- The redetermination required in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in the Vineeta Sharma Case would not apply to an alienation of the property made prior to 20.12.2004, since they are saved by the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended. Any dispossession or alienation made prior to 20.12.2004 cannot be called into question even after the judgement of the Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma Case.

In light of the same, the petitioner was partly allowed, and the Court observed that, "defendant No.5 can only claim a right of 2 acres 36 guntas in Block No.393 and not the entire land covered under Block No.393, the remaining 37 guntas would have to be distributed among the other sons/brothers as per the report to be submitted by the Commissioner in that regard."

Appearances:

Petitioner: Counsels Manjunath A Karigannavar, MB Hiremath

Respondents: Counsels SM Kalwad, Prashant Mathapathi

Cause Title: Kadappa vs Laxmibai

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Karnataka High CourtJustice Suraj GovindarajAlienation of Property

Verdictum News Desk