- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14459 RSA No. 101025 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 101025 OF 2019 (PAR) BETWEEN: SIDDAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA MISHRIKOTI, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. ACHCHAVVANA COLONY, UNKAL, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580031. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H.N. HANCHINAMANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MALLAPPA S/O. BASAVANNEPPA MISHRIKOTI, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED RAILWAY EMPLOYEE, R/O. ACHCHAVVANA COLONY, UNKAL, TQ. HUBBALI, DIST. DHARWAD-580031. 2. SMT. GIRIJA W/O. MALLAPPA MISTRIKOTI, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. ACHCHAVVANA COLONY, UNKAL, TQ. HUBBALI, DIST. DHARWAD-580031. 3. SMT. SHYLA W/O. SHREESHAILA HEBBALLI, YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Date: 2025.10.29 10:57:59 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14459 RSA No. 101025 of 2019 AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. BADAMI ONI, UNKAL, TQ. HUBBALI, DIST. DHARWAD-580031. 4. SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O. ISHWAR NADGIR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. ACHCHAVVANA COLONY, UNKAL, TQ. HUBBALI, DIST. DHARWAD-580031. 5. SMT. LAXMI W/O. KOTRESH HOSALLI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. NO. 14, K.T.J. NAGAR, DAVANAGERE-577003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. J.K. GURUBASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5; R1 TO R3-NOTICE SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.09.2016 IN O.S.NO.287/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.10.2019 IN RA.NO.238/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE 5TH ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBBALLI AND ALLOW THIS RSA IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14459 RSA No. 101025 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. A short point urged by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant before this Court is that there was an unregistered partition between the defendant No.1 and his two brothers and therefore, the properties held by defendant No.1 are the ancestral properties. The plaintiffs, being daughters of defendant No.1, have sought partition of the suit schedule properties on the ground that they are also entitled for equal share in the same. It is contented that the Trial Court decreed the suit awarding 1/5th share each to the plaintiffs and defendant No.1, 3 and 4. It is his contention that during the lifetime of defendant No.1, the plaintiffs could not have sought any share in the property. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that in view of the amendment brought to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the plaintiffs are entitled for seeking partition in the ancestral properties inherited by the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14459 RSA No. 101025 of 2019 defendant No.1 and therefore, they being coparceners in the family, the judgment of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court cannot be interfered with. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs are the daughters of the defendant No.1 and 2 and the defendant No.3 is their brother and defendant No.4 is another sister. The admitted facts show that the defendant No.1 had inherited the suit schedule properties in a partition among himself and his brothers. Under Hindu law, an oral partition is also permissible and therefore, the unregistered partition between the defendant No.1 and his brothers would not lay any fetters in claiming partition by the plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties. In that view of the matter, the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/5th share each in the suit schedule properties, which was inherited by the defendant No.1 in partition between him and his brothers. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have dealt with the matter and have awarded 1/5th share each to the plaintiff No.1 and 2. The defendant No.3, who is the son of the defendant No.1 and 2 cannot have any grievance in respect of the shares awarded by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. It is relevant to note that the defendant No.1 has not raised any objection in respect of the contention of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14459 RSA No. 101025 of 2019 plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties were acquired by him in a partition between him and his brothers. In that view of the matter, the appeal is bereft of any merits and as such the same is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 4. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. SD/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE YAN Ct:pa List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23