Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Renavva @ Lakshmi vs Shantilkumarswamy R. Subramanya on 20 June, 2025
1
ITEM NO.29 COURT NO.12 SECTION IV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 28340/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08-01-2024
in RFA No. 100079/2017 passed by the High Court of Karnataka
Circuit Bench at Dharwad]
RENAVVA @ LAKSHMI & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SHANTILKUMARSWAMY R. SUBRAMANYA & ORS. Respondent(s)
IA No. 141838/2025 - ADDITION / DELETION / MODIFICATION PARTIES
IA No. 141836/2025 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
IA No. 141837/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 20-06-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE
[PARTIAL COURT WORKING DAYS BENCH]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shankar Divate, AOR
For Respondent(s) :
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. The instant special leave petition is directed against the
judgment dated 8th January, 2024 passed by the High Court of
Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad in RFA No. 100079/2017 whereby
the High Court accepted the appeal preferred by respondent No. 1
(defendant No. 9 in the trial Court) and rejected the suit filed by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
KANCHAN CHOUHAN
Date: 2025.06.20
the petitioners-plaintiffs.
18:05:01 IST
Reason:
3. Defendant No. 9 (respondent No. 1 herein) had purchased the
land in question under a registered sale deed dated 10th March,
2
2003. The plaintiffs (petitioners herein) claiming to be the legal
heirs of the propositus claimed a stake in the said land on the
strength of the amendment under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession
Act, 1956, introduced vide Amendment Act, 2005 to claim that the
sale was void because their rights in the land were adversely
affected by the said sale. After considering the entire factual and
legal scenario, the High Court held that the prohibition contained
in Section 6 of the amended Hindu Succession Act, 1956 did not have
any effect on the registered sale deed which was executed prior in
point of time to 20th December, 2004, i.e., before the introduction
of the amending provision. The High Court in support of these
conclusions placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the
case of Vineet Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1.
5. Having heard and considered the submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the petitioners and after going through the
impugned order, we do not find any error or infirmity in the
impugned judgment so as to interfere therein.
6. Hence, the special leave petition is dismissed as being devoid
of merit.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(KANCHAN CHOUHAN) (DIVYA BABBAR) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)