- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23902 RSA No. 964 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 964 OF 2012 (PAR) BETWEEN: MR . B V GANGADHARA S/O VENKATEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT BADAGARHALLI VILLAGE, DABBEGHATTA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK - 572 227. PRESENTLY R/AT NO.10/1, PATEL CHELUVAPPA STREET, J.C.NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 006. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KALYAN., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. B V ASHA D/O VENKATEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 2. VENKATEGOWDA S/O LATE HONNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT BADAGARAHALLI VILLAGE, DABBEGHATTA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK. 3. B V SUNANDA W/O JAVAREGOWDA Digitally signed by BELUR RANGADHAMA NANDINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23902 RSA No. 964 of 2012 D/O VENKATEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT GARDEN HOUSE BYADARAKODAGIHALLI TURUVEKERE TALUK- 572 227. 4. B.V.BHARATHI D/O VENKATEGOWDA W/O H.S.JAYAKUMAR, BEO., AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT SHAKTHINAGAR, TURUVEKERE TOWN - 572 227. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SADASHIVAIAH K G., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. BHARGAV G., ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 18.02.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO. 31/2010 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TURUVEKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.08.2008 PASSED IN OS.NO.18/2003 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, TURUVEKERE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23902 RSA No. 964 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is arising from the concurrent finding in a suit for partition and separate possession. 2. The suit for partition is filed by the daughter of the propositus -Venkate Gowda who was defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 is the son of Venkate Gowda and brother of the plaintiff. 3. When the suit was filed, the mother was not alive. Later two more sisters of the plaintiff are arrayed as defendants No.3 and 4. 4. The plaintiff claimed 1/3rd share in all the suit schedule properties comprising 6 properties. The defendants contested the suit. Defendant No.2 took a contention that item No.5 property is the joint property of defendant No.2 and the mother of the plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 4. 5. The Trial Court noticed that item No.2 property stood in the name of defendant No.2 and the mother. Accordingly, the suit is decreed granting 1/5th share in items - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23902 RSA No. 964 of 2012 No.1, 3, 4 and 6 in the suit schedule properties and 1/8th share in item No.5 property. 6. Suit in respect of item No.2 is dismissed on the premise that the property was already sold and the purchaser is not made a party in the suit. 7. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, defendant No.2 filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant- defendant No.2 would submit that by the time the suit was filed, mother was not alive and mother died intestate. The mother's share would devolve upon the daughters as well as the husband and the son. This aspect is not taken into consideration by the Trial Court. 9. He would further submit that in respect of item No.5 property, the Trial Court granted 1/8th share without taking into consideration the devolution of share of 1/2 share - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23902 RSA No. 964 of 2012 held by the mother. Thus, he would contend that the impugned judgment and decree have to be modified allotting the share inherited by the children after the demise of the mother. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/ respondent No.1 would contend that the share allotted by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court is in accordance with law and there is no need to modify the judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. 11. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 12. The following substantial question of law would arise for consideration: Whether the quantification of the share by the Trial Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court is in accordance with law? 13. There is no dispute that Venkate Gowda was the propositus and his wife predeceased Venkate Gowda, even - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23902 RSA No. 964 of 2012 before the suit was filed. Venkate Gowda died during the pendency of this appeal. Thus, the devolution of Venkate Gowda's share should also be taken into account. It is submitted that respondent No.2- Venkate Gowda is no more and his legal representatives are already on record. 14. The genealogy is not in dispute. Venkate Gowda and his wife are survived by three daughters and one son. After the demise of Venkate Gowda and his wife who died intestate, admittedly, the property of Venkate Gowda and his wife would devolve upon all the children. Thus, plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 4 will have 1/4th share in items No.1, 3, 4 and 6 properties. 15. There is no dispute that item No.2 property was sold prior to the suit and purchaser is not made a party. 16. It is also forthcoming from the record that the mother had 1/2 share in item No.5 property and the appellant-Gangadhar had 1/2 share in item No.5 property, 1/2 share of mother in item No.5 property would devolve upon all 4 children. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23902 RSA No. 964 of 2012 17. Thus, the plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 4 will have 1/8th share in item No.5 property. Remaining 1/2 share belongs to appellant. To the said extent, the judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are modified. 18. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 19. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The Second Appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment and decree dated 18.08.2008 in O.S.No.18/2003 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) Turuvekere are modified. (iii) The Judgment and decree dated 18.02.2012 in R.A.No.31/2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Turuvekere are modified. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23902 RSA No. 964 of 2012 (iv) Each of the plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 4 will have 1/4th share in item No.1, 3, 4 and 6 of schedule properties. (v) Each of the plaintiff and defendants No.3 and 4 will have 1/8th share in item No.5 property. (vi) Defendant No.2 will have 5/8th share in item No.5 property. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27