The Supreme Court of India has dismissed an appeal filed by the defendants in a long-standing property dispute involving the family of late Dasabovi, affirming the Karnataka High Court’s order that granted partition rights to the plaintiffs.
Case Background
The dispute arose from a suit for partition (O.S. No. 102/2001) filed by the plaintiffs, who claimed to be the children of Dasabovi’s first wife, Bheemakka @ Sathyakka. They sought half share in ancestral lands and a house situated in Devigere and Kallahally villages, Hosadurga Taluk.
Read also:- Kerala High Court Denies Indian Citizenship Without Renunciation Certificate from Pakistan
The defendants, Chowdamma (alleged second wife) and her son, denied the plaintiffs’ rights, claiming that Chowdamma was the only legally wedded wife of Dasabovi and that the plaintiffs had no legal standing.
The Trial Court initially dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit, but the Karnataka High Court in 2010 reversed that decision, recognizing the plaintiffs’ rights and ordering partition.
- Defendants’ stand:
- Plaintiffs’ mother was never married to Dasabovi.
- Revenue records only listed defendants as heirs.
- Plaintiffs were not in joint possession of the properties.
- Defendant No.1 (Chowdamma) could not testify due to health issues.
Read also:- Supreme Court Issues Notice on UP Bar Council's Rs.14K Fee for Advocates' Enrolment
- Plaintiffs’ stand:
- Their mother was Dasabovi’s first wife, supported by witness P.W.2 Hanumanthappa, who confirmed the marriage and subsequent ousting after Chowdamma entered the household.
- Revenue records cannot override family and marriage facts.
- Defendant No.1 deliberately avoided testifying despite being present in court.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra examined oral and documentary evidence, focusing on the testimony of P.W.2 Hanumanthappa, who personally knew both families. His account confirmed that Bheemakka was married to Dasabovi and had two children (the plaintiffs).
“A strong presumption arises in favour of wedlock where partners have lived together for a long spell as husband and wife,” the Court reiterated, citing Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation (1978).
Read also:- Delhi High Court Overturns Registrar's Decision, Allows "PRO.FITNESS" Trademark Registration
The Court also criticized Defendant No.1 for not stepping into the witness box despite attending proceedings. Her failure to testify was seen as a deliberate attempt to avoid scrutiny, attracting adverse inference under the Evidence Act.
It further held that revenue entries do not confer ownership and cannot be relied upon to deny rightful heirs their share.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling, confirming the plaintiffs’ right to partition:
“The impugned judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity. The appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit.”
No order was passed regarding costs.
Case: Chowdamma (D) by LR & Anr. vs Venkatappa (D) by LRs & Anr.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 11330 of 2011
Date of Judgment: 25 August 2025
Appellants (Defendants):
- Chowdamma (alleged second wife of late Dasabovi)
- Her son
Respondents (Plaintiffs):
- Children of late Dasabovi through his first wife, Bheemakka @ Sathyakka
