- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3233 RSA No. 100024 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100024 OF 2014 (PAR) BETWEEN: CHANNABASAPPA S/O BASAVANNAPPA DODDANNAVAR AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: RYOT, R/O. KOLAGI VILLAGE, TQ: MUNDGOD, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581349. …APPELLANT (BY SRI DINESH M.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. KALLAVVA W/O CHANNABASAPPA MADLUR AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O.KOLAGI VILLAGE, TQ: MUNDGOD, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581349. 2. SMT. NAGAVVA W/O. TELAPPA CHIKANSHI AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O.LAKKAVALLI VILLAGE, TQ: SORAB, DIST: SHIMOGGA, PIN-577429. 3. MANJUNATH S/O.SHIVAPPA SOBAR AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: RYOT, R/O. ANDAGI VILLAGE, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581401. 4. SMT. BANGARI W/O. SURESH SANKANAVALLI AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLDWORK R/O. ANDAGI VILLAGE, TQ: SIRSI DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S.KORISHETTER, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1, SRI. S.G.KADAKATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4) Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3233 RSA No. 100024 of 2014 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN RA NO.65/2008 DATED 26.09.2013 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, YELLAPUR BY MODIFYUING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.42/2008 DATED 03.11.2008 PASSED BY CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), MUNDGOD AND DISMISS THE SUIT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH) This appeal is preferred by the defendant No.1 assailing the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2013 in R.A.No.65/2008 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Yellapur (for short “the First Appellate Court”) allowing the appeal in part and modifying the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2008 in O.S.No.42/2008 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Mundgod (for short “the Trial Court”) decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property is belonged to the father of the plaintiff and defendant - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3233 RSA No. 100024 of 2014 No.1 and 2 viz., Basavanneppa. The suit schedule property is the joint family property and as such, after the demise of their father-Basavanneppa on 30.08.1960, the plaintiff is also entitled for share in the suit schedule property and accordingly, plaintiff has filed O.S.No.42/2008 before the Trial Court seeking the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule property. 3.1. Upon service of notice, the defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement. It is the contention of defendant No.1 that the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of late Basavanneppa, having acquired the same through gift deed and further, the plaintiff and her sisters were settled in their matrimonial homes and therefore, the defendant No.1 sought for dismissal of the suit even on the ground of limitation. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit. 3.2. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues for its consideration. In order to establish their case, the plaintiff has examined herself as PW1 and produced 9 documents, which were marked as Ex.P1 to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3233 RSA No. 100024 of 2014 Ex.P9. The defendants have examined two witnesses as DW1 and DW2 and produced 6 documents, which were marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D6. The Trial Court after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 03.11.2008 decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share in the suit schedule property. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant No.1 preferred R.A.No.65/2008 before the First Appellate Court and same was resisted by the respondents herein. The First Appellate Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 26.09.2013 partly allowed the appeal holding that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share in the suit schedule property. Feeling aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 has preferred this appeal. 4. I have heard Sri. Dinesh M Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. S.G.Kadadakatti, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4. 5. This Court vide its order dated 19.06.2019 formulated the following substantial question of law. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3233 RSA No. 100024 of 2014 “Whether the Courts below are justified in granting share to married sisters who are born prior to 1956?” 6. Sri. Dinesh M Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the finding recorded by both the Courts below requires to be set aside on the sole ground that the suit schedule property was donated to the father of the plaintiff-Basavanneppa as a gift and therefore, the said property has to be considered as a self-acquired property of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 2 and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for share in the suit schedule property in view of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 7. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. S. G. Kadadakatti, appearing for the respondent No.2 to 4 sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree by referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and others1. 1 AIR 2020 SC 3717 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3233 RSA No. 100024 of 2014 8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and in order to understand the relationship between the parties, the genealogy of the parties is extracted, which reads as under: Basavanneppa (Dead) Kallavva Channabasappa Nagavva Susheela Girija (Plaintiff) (Def.1) (Def-2) (Dead) (Dead) Manjunath Bangari (Deft-3) (Deft-4) 9. It is not in dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. The plaintiff, defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 are the children of Basavanneppa and defendant No.3 and 4 are the grandchildren of Basavanneppa, who died on 30.08.1960 leaving behind the parties to succeed to the estate. It is also not in dispute that the suit schedule property was gifted to the father of the plaintiff as per the gift deed. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the daughters have to be considered on par with the sons and therefore, applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3233 RSA No. 100024 of 2014 Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma (supra), the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 2 are entitled to 1/4th share each in the suit schedule property and defendant No.3 and 4 together are entitled for 1/4th share in the suit schedule property. In that view of the matter, both the Courts below have taken into consideration the declaration of law made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case referred to above, rightly decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share in the suit schedule property and same is required to be affirmed by this Court in this appeal. Accordingly, the substantial question of law framed favours the plaintiff. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. 10. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YAN CT:GSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24