Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns three Regular Second Appeals (RSA) filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, arising from decrees in three original suits. The parties are the legal representatives of Smt. Gowramma (the second wife of late Malali Gowda) and the legal heirs of Shettygowda, who claimed to be the adopted son of Malali Gowda. The propositus Malali Gowda died on 12.06.1981, leaving behind two wives, Dyavamma (died on 02.09.1987) and Gowramma (died on 31.12.1992). The core dispute relates to inheritance of Malali Gowda's properties. Smt. Gowramma filed O.S. No. 448/1991 seeking a declaration that she is the sole owner of the suit properties and permanent injunction against Mahanthegowda, son of Shettygowda. She disputed the claim that her husband had adopted Shettygowda. The defendant asserted that Malali Gowda adopted Shettygowda on 06.03.1952, evidenced by a registered adoption deed dated 27.05.1952, and that Shettygowda inherited the properties. Meanwhile, O.S. No. 136/1992 was filed by the children and wife of Shettygowda seeking cancellation of a Will dated 28.11.1990 allegedly executed by Gowramma in favour of Chandregowda, and also for declaration of their rights. O.S. No. 117/1994 was also a connected suit. The trial courts dismissed Gowramma's suit and decreed the other suits, findings that were upheld by the first appellate court, leading to the filing of these second appeals. The High Court admitted the appeals and framed multiple substantial questions of law, including whether the courts below properly appreciated the evidence regarding the adoption, the validity of the Will, the rights of a co-owner to seek declaration, and the application of Order II Rule 2 CPC. The judgment was reserved on 03.09.2025 and pronounced on 09.10.2025, but the text provided does not contain the court's reasoning or final decision. Thus, the outcome of the appeals remains unknown from the available text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether courts below justified in ignoring pleadings regarding Will executed by Gowramma; Whether courts below justified in holding that Chandre Gowda ought to have pleaded specifically about right to sue; Whether courts below erred in not noticing Gowramma's right as wife and mother; Whether courts below right in holding adoption of Shettygowda proved; Whether courts below justified in granting declaration to plaintiffs when Shettygowda predeceased Malali Gowda; Whether courts below justified in ignoring Will; Whether courts below justified in granting declaration ignoring rights of daughter Giddamma; Whether courts below justified in holding adoption deed proved; Whether courts below justified in ignoring that a co-owner cannot seek declaration against another co-owner; Whether courts below justified in granting declaration to plaintiff when same relief sought in another suit, ignoring Order II Rule 2 CPC.
Case Details
2025 LawText (KAR) (10) 3
RSA No. 1773/2013 c/w RSA No. 1774/2013 c/w RSA No. 1775/2013
A Ravishankar (for appellants), A V Gangadharappa and K T Premalatha (for respondents)
Smt Mohanakshamma, Sri Chidananda, Sri Nandisha (LRs of Chandregowda, who was LR of Gowramma)
Sri V S Mahanthe Gowda and others (Smt Vedavathi, Devi, Smt Jayamma)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suits for declaration of title, permanent injunction, and cancellation of will involving joint family property
Remedy Sought
In O.S. No. 448/1991, Smt. Gowramma sought declaration of sole ownership and permanent injunction against Mahanthegowda; in O.S. No. 136/1992, the children and wife of Shettygowda sought cancellation of Will dated 28.11.1990 and declaration of rights.
Filing Reason
Dispute arose after death of Malali Gowda over inheritance, with conflicting claims of adoption of Shettygowda and a Will executed by Gowramma.
Previous Decisions
Trial court decrees dated 28.11.2007 were confirmed by first appellate court on 01.08.2013, dismissing the appeals.
Issues
Whether the courts below are justified in ignoring the pleading of Smt. Gowramma since deceased that she had executed a Will dated 28.11.1990 bequeathing the properties to Sri. Chandre Gowda which fact would dispense with the suspicious circumstance if any on the execution of the Will?
Whether the courts below are justified in holding that Chandre Gowda who came on record to prosecute the case establishing that the right to sue survives on him, ought to have pleaded specifically about the manner of his right?
Have not the courts below committed an error in law in not noticing that in view of un disputed fact that Shetti Gowda pre-deceased Malali Gowda, Smt. Gowramma would acquire right in the property as wife of Malali Gowda and as mother of the adopted son? Alternatively, the question of law would be, Whether the courts below are right in holding that the claim of adoption advanced on behalf of Setti Gowda that he was adopted on 06.03.1952 by a registered Deed of Adoption on 27.05.1952 is proved?
Whether the courts below were justified in granting decree of declaration to the plaintiffs when admittedly Shetti Gowda pre-deceased Malali Gowda and upon the death of the said co-parceners of a Joint Hindu Undivided family, the widow of Malali Gowda would also get a share being Class-I heir?
Whether the Courts below were justified in ignoring the pleadings of Smt. Gowramma that she had executed a Will duly registered and held that the Will is brought up in suspicious circumstances?
Whether the Courts below were justified in granting decree of declaration ignoring the rights of daughter Giddamma of Malali Gowda through his first wife Dyavamma?
Whether the Courts below were justified in holding that the Adoption Deed dated 06.03.1952 stands proved when admittedly the same is not proved in the manner know to law?
Whether the courts below were justified in ignoring the fact that a co-owner of a joint family property is not entitled to seek the relief of declaration of title of a joint family property as against another co-owner?
Whether the courts below were justified in granting the relief of declaration to the sole plaintiff when he himself had sought for the same relief along with his siblings in O.S.No.136/1992, ignoring the force of Order II Rule 2 of CPC?
Judgment Excerpts
Whether the courts below are justified in ignoring the pleading of Smt. Gowramma since deceased that she had executed a Will dated 28.11.1990 bequeathing the properties to Sri. Chandre Gowda which fact would dispense with the suspicious circumstance if any on the execution of the Will?
Whether the courts below are justified in holding that Chandre Gowda who came on record to prosecute the case establishing that the right to sue survives on him, ought to have pleaded specifically about the manner of his right?
Have not the courts below committed an error in law in not noticing that in view of un disputed fact that Shetti Gowda pre-deceased Malali Gowda, Smt. Gowramma would acquire right in the property as wife of Malali Gowda and as mother of the adopted son? Alternatively, the question of law would be, Whether the courts below are right in holding that the claim of adoption advanced on behalf of Setti Gowda that he was adopted on 06.03.1952 by a registered Deed of Adoption on 27.05.1952 is proved?
Procedural History
Original Suits O.S. No. 448/1991, O.S. No. 136/1992, O.S. No. 117/1994 were filed before the II Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn), Hassan, and decrees were passed on 28.11.2007. First Appeals R.A. No. 6/2008, R.A. No. 7/2008, R.A. No. 8/2008 were filed before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Hassan, and by common judgment dated 01.08.2013, the appeals were dismissed, confirming the trial court decrees. Thereafter, the appellants filed Regular Second Appeals under Section 100 CPC. RSA No. 1773/2013 and RSA No. 1775/2013 were admitted on 30.07.2014, and RSA No. 1774/2013 was admitted on 02.08.2014. The appeals were heard on 03.09.2025 and judgment was pronounced on 09.10.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100, Order II Rule 2
