- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9988 RSA No. 34 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 34 OF 2025 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI. NAGARAJA S/O LATE MAHALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/AT BASOOR VILLAGE AT AND POST HIRENALLUR HOBLI KADUR TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT 577548 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KANTHARAJAPPA M G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O LATE MAHALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS HOUSE WIFE R/O BASOOR VILLAGE AND POST KADUR TALUIK 577548 2. SMT. MARULASIDDAMMA @ MALLAMMA W/O ONKARAPPA D/O LATE MAHALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS HOUSE WIFE R/O MANESINAKAYI HOSAHALLI VILLAGE KATIGANERE POST Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9988 RSA No. 34 of 2025 TARIKERE TALUK 577228 3. SMT. PRAMEELA W/O RAJAPPA D/O LATE MAHALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS HOSUE WIFE R/O NO. E 155/3, T DASARAHALLI VIDYANIKETHANA BENGALURU 560057 4. SMT. SOWBHAGYA W/O MAHESHWARAPPA D/O LATE MAHALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS HOUSE WIFE R/O HIRENALLUR VILLAGE AT AND POST HIRENALLUR HOBLI KADUR TALUK 577548 …RESPONDENTS ------ THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.11.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.38/2019 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KADUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.06.2019 PASSED IN OS NO.442/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT KADUR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9988 RSA No. 34 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2024 passed in R.A.No.38/2019 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kadur, modifying the judgment and preliminary decree dated 28.6.2019 passed in O.S.No.442/15 by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was defendant no.1, respondents No.1 and 2 were the plaintiffs, and respondent nos. 3 and 4 were defendants no.2 and 3. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, plaintiff no.1 is the wife of the late Mahalingappa, and plaintiff no.2 and defendants no.1 to 3 are their children. They are the members of the Hindu - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9988 RSA No. 34 of 2025 undivided joint family and the suit schedule properties are their ancestral and joint family properties, and there is no division in the family. It is contended that the suit schedule properties were acquired by the propositus late Mahalingappa through his ancestors and after his demise, revenue entries were effected in the name of defendant no.1 since he is the eldest member of the family. The plaintiffs demanded partition and separate possession. The defendants refused to effect a partition. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 3.1. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement admitting the relationship between the parties to the suit but, denies that the plaintiffs and the other defendants have a right in the suit schedule properties. It is contended that, he is the only male member of the joint family and after the demise of late Mahalingappa, he has taken the responsibility of the joint family, and performed - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9988 RSA No. 34 of 2025 the marriage of plaintiff no.2 and the other defendants. The income derived from the suit schedule properties was not sufficient to maintain the joint family. Defendant no.1 accumulated the money, and performed the marriages of his sisters, and after their marriage, defendant no.1 married. It is contended that defendant no.1 availed a loan of Rs.4,40,000/- from the Canara Bank to improve the properties and also obtained a loan of Rs.50,000/- from the SBM and also availed a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from one Shivalingappa by mortgaging the suit schedule properties. Defendant No.1 has also availed Rs.2,00,000 from one Thontesh by leasing the suit schedule properties to discharge the legal debts of the joint family. The plaintiffs by suppressing the said facts, have filed the suit. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs. 3.2. Defendants No.2 and 3 filed a written statement admitting the entire averments of the plaint, and prays to decree the suit. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9988 RSA No. 34 of 2025 3.3. The trial Court, based on the aforesaid pleadings, framed the relevant issues and additional issues. 3.4. The plaintiffs, to prove their case, plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW.1 and marked 8 documents as exhibits P.1 to P.8. On the other hand, defendant no.1 was examined as DW.1, examined one witness as DW.2, and marked 13 documents as exhibits D.1 to D.13. The trial Court, after recording evidence, hearing on both sides, and on assessment of oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit in part vide judgment dated 28.6.2019. It is declared that, the plaintiffs and defendants No.2 and 3 are entitled to 1/10th share in the suit schedule properties. Defendant No.1 is entitled to 3/5th share in the suit schedule properties. 3.5. Defendant no.1, aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree dated 28.6.2019, passed in O.S.No.442/2015 preferred an appeal in R.A.No.38/2019 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kadur. The - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9988 RSA No. 34 of 2025 Appellate Court, on re-assessment of oral and documentary evidence, allowed the appeal in part, and modified the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. It is declared that the plaintiffs and defendants no.1 to 3 are entitled to 1/5th share each in the suit schedule properties and they are also held liable for the joint family liabilities according to their respective shares. Defendant No.1, aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree passed in R.A.no.38/2019, filed this regular second appeal. 4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for defendant No.1 . 5. Learned counsel for defendant No.1 submits that, the father of defendant No.1 died on 4.11.1970. The plaintiffs are the sisters, hence they are not entitled to an equal share. Accordingly, prays to allow the appeal. 6. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for defendant No.1. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9988 RSA No. 34 of 2025 7. There is no dispute regarding the relationship between the parties to the suit, and the nature of suit the schedule properties. The plaintiffs and defendants are the members of the Hindu joint family and no partition is effected between the plaintiffs and defendants. The defense of defendant no.1 is that, defendant No.1 performed the marriage of plaintiff no.2 and other defendants by raising a loan. To establish that, defendant No.1 has raised a loan, except producing Ex.D1 to D.4, defendant No.1 has not produced any other material to show that, he had obtained a loan, and constructed a building. In the absence of any evidence, the Appellate Court was justified in modifying the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Plaintiff no.1 is the mother and plaintiff No.2, defendants No.2 and 3 are the daughters of the late Mahalingappa. As per Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, they are the co- parceners. The First appellate court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vineetha Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma reported in AIR 2020 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9988 RSA No. 34 of 2025 SC 3717 and held that the daughters are entitled to a share, in the same manner as of son. The Appellate Court was justified in passing the impugned judgment. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment or any substantial question of law that arises for consideration. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order : ORDER i) The Appeal is dismissed; ii) The Judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, is hereby confirmed. No order as to the costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A.1/2025 does not survive for consideration, and is accordingly, disposed of. SD/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE rs List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29