SHIVAPPA TAMMANNAPPA KARABAN versus PARASAPPA HANAMMAPPA KURABAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 762 · Decided: 22-09-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHIV APPA TAMMANNAPPA KARABAN 
v. 
P ARASAPPA HANAMMAPPA KURABAN AND ORS. 
I 
SEPTEMBER 22, 1994 
....... 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Kamataka Village Offices Abolition Act,. 1961-Sections 4 and 5-
Holder of village office as Walikarki-Abolition of village office-Consequen-
ces-Regrant made in name of holder of office-Property continued to be joint 
c family property for benefit of Hindu joint family-Grant of ryotwari 
patta-f'roperty became partible subject to conditions u/s 5(3). 
The appellant was recorded as an holder of an village office as 
Walikarki. On abolition of the village office under the provisions of the 
D 
Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, on regrant, the properties were 
assigned to the village office held by the appellant. However on partition 
the appellant was granted l/5th share in the properties while the respon-
dents, the other members of the joint family have been granted 4/Sth 
towards their respective shares. Civil suit was filed challenging the alloca-
ti on of shares. The Courts below held that though regrant was made in the 
E name of the appellant as a Watandar the property continued to be joint 
family property for the benefit of the Hindu Joint Family. This appeal by 
special leave has been filed against the decree for partition granted by the 
courts below. 
It was contended by the appellant that the respondents have no right 
F 
to a share in the property after regrant. The properties were assigned to 
the village office held by the appellant and consequent to the abolition of 
the village office the right which the appellant had u/s 5 made the 
properties his exclusive properties and his family and other members of 
the family have no right in them. 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Under the provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices 
Abolition Act, though re~ant was made in the name of the holder of the 
village office as Watandar, the Watan lands continued to be the hereditary 
H properly of the family although according to the custom, the Watan was 
i 
762 
(;' 
S. T. KARABAN v. P.H. KURABAN 
763 
only in the name of the senior member of the family and the succession A 
according to the custom was in accordance with the rule of primogeniture. 
But on account of abolition of the office and grant of ryotwari patt, they 
became partible subject to the condition u/s 5(3). (769-B, C, G] 
1.2. The right given to appellant while making the regrant was only 
a pre-existing right namely, the property attached to the office and shall B 
continue to be enjoyed and belonged to the Hindu Joint family as joint 
family property. (769-F] 
Nagesh Bisto Desai etc. etc. v. Khandu Tirmal Desai etc. etc., (1982) 3 
SCR 341 and Kalgonda Babgonda Patil v. Balgonda Kalgonda and Ors., C 
[1989) Suppl. 1 SCC 246, relied on . 
. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 195 of 
1989. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.1.88 of the Karnataka High D 
Court in RS.A. No. 998 of 1977. 
C. Sitaramiah and Mr. P. Mahale for the Appellant. 
S.K. Kulkarni and Surya Kant fo~ the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
E 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High 
Court of Karnataka in RS.A. No. 998 of 1977 dated January 27, 1988 
affirming the judgments and decrees of "the District· Judge, Bijapur in 
Regular Appeal No. 11/73 and of Munsif, Bagalkot in O.S. No. 23/68 dated F 
April 3, 1973 under Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 196l(Act No. 
14/1961), for short the Act. The appellant who was 
unsuccessful 
throughout is recorded as an holder of an office as Walikarki but he is 
granted l/5th share in the plaint schedule properties while the respondents 
have been granted 4/5tli towards their respective shares. His grievance is G 
that he had to get the entire plaint schedule properties. Section 2(b) 
definer. 
"authorised holder" means a person in whose favour a land granted 
or continued in respect of, or annexed to, a village office by the 
State or a part thereof has been validly alienated permanently H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
764 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
whether by sale, gift, partition or otherwise, under the existing law 
relating to such village officers." 
Holder of a village office as defined in Cl. (g) means a person having an 
interest in a village office under an existing law relating to· such office 
provided that where any village office has been entered in ·a register or 
re

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.