- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6247-DB RFA No. 100021 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100153 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100021 OF 2019 (PAR/DEC) C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100153 OF 2019 IN RFA NO.100021 OF 2019: BETWEEN: 1. HANMANTAGOUDA S/O. BHARMAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 84 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: DEVANOOR, TQ: KUNDGOL. 2. SHIVANAGOUDA S/O. HANAMANTAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: DEVANOOR, TQ: KUNDGOL. 3. MANJUNATHGOUDA S/O. SHIVANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: DEVANOOR, TQ: KUNDGOL. 4. NINGANAGOUDA S/O. SHIVANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: DEVANOOR, TQ: KUNDGOL. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RENUKA W/O. MALLIKARJUN BHUMANNAVAR, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. TIRLAPUR, TQ: NAVALGUND. Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.04.19 11:13:00 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6247-DB RFA No. 100021 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100153 of 2019 2. SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. KURAGONDEPPA ANGADI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. TARLAGATHA, TQ: KUNDGOL. 3. KASHAWWA W/O. HANUMANTAGOUDA PATIL SINCE DEAD, APPELLANT NO.2 AND RESPONDENT NOS.1, 2 AND 4 ARE TREATED AS LRs. OF DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.2. 4. NAGANAGOUDA S/O. HANAMANTAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. DEVANOOR, TQ: KUNDGOL. 5. SMT. LAXMAVVA W/O. BHARAMAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: DEVANOOR, TQ: KUNDGOL. 6. SMT. JYOTI W/O. VEERANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: DEVANAKONDA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI. 7. SMT. DEEPA W/O. VISHWANATH KAMADOLLI, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: ADARGUNCHI, TQ: HUBBALLI. 8. BASAVARAJ S/O. CHANNAPPA GANIGER AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. UNKAL, HUBBALLI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.R.GUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. SADASHIV S.PATIL, ADOVATE FOR R8; NOTICE TO R4, R5, R6 AND R7 ARE SERVED; APPELLANT NO.2, R1, R2 AND R4 ARE LRs OF DECEASED R3) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.11.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.252/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, KUNDGOL, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR DECLARATION AND PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6247-DB RFA No. 100021 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100153 of 2019 IN RFA NO.100153 OF 2019: BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LAXMAVVA W/O. BHARAMAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: DEVANOOR, POST: KUNDGOL, DIST: DHARWAD-580001. 2. SMT. JYOTI W/O. VEERANGOUDA PATIL AGE 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: DEVANAKONDA, POST: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-580001. 3. SMT. DEEPA W/O. VISHWANATH KAMADOLLI AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: ADARAGUNCHI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580001. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NARAYAN V.YAJI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RENUKA W/O. MALLIKARJUN BHUMANNAVAR, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. TIRLAPUR, TQ: NAVALGUND, DIST: DHARWAD-580001. 2. SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. KURAGONDEPPA ANGADI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: TIRLAPUR, TQ: NAVALGUND, DIST: DHARWAD-580001. 3. KASHAWWA W/O. HANUMANTAGOUDA PATIL, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRs., APPELLANT NO.2 AND RESPONDENT NOS.1, 2, 4, 5 AND 6. 4. HANMANTAGOUDA S/O. BHARAMAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 84 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: DEVANOOR, TQ: KUNDGOL, DIST: DHARWAD-580001. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6247-DB RFA No. 100021 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100153 of 2019 5. SHIVANAGOUDA S/O. HANAMANTAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: DEVANOOR, TQ: KUNDGOL, DIST: DHARWAD-580001. 6. NAGANAGOUDA S/O. HANAMANTAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: DEVANOOR, TQ: KUNDGOL, DIST: DHARWAD-580001. 7. MANJUNATHGOUDA S/O. SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: DEVANOOR, TQ: KUNDGOL, DIST: DHARWAD-580001. 8. NINGANAGOUDA S/O. SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: DEVANOOR, TQ: KUNDGOL, DIST: DHARWAD-580001. 9. BASAVARAJ S/O. CHANNAPPA GANIGER, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: UNKAL, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.R.GUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B.HIREMATH, ADOVATE FOR R5, R7 & R8; SRI. SADASHIV S.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R9; NOTICE TO R6 SERVED; APPELLANT NO.2, R1, R2, R4, R5 AND R6 ARE LRs OF DECEASED R3) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.11.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.252/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, KUNDGOL, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR DECLARATION AND PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6247-DB RFA No. 100021 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100153 of 2019 THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) These two appeals are filed assailing the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.252/2015. Defendant Nos.1, 2, 7 and 8 have filed RFA No.100021/2019 questioning the preliminary decree granting share insofar as item Nos.1 to 5 are concerned. Similarly, defendant Nos.4 to 6 have also filed an appeal in RFA No.100153/2019 challenging the preliminary decree pertaining to Sy.No.67 totally measuring 4 acres 12 guntas. These appellants contend that their ancestor Baramagouda was allotted Sy.No.67 measuring 4 acres 12 guntas based on the partition dated 26.05.2006. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial court. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6247-DB RFA No. 100021 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100153 of 2019 3. Before we proceed to examine the rival contentions, we deem it appropriate to take cognizance of the family tree, which is as under: Ningangouda Bharamgouda Nagangouda Ishwaragouda Hanumantgouda Yallapagouda D-1 Kashawwa-Wife (P-4) Bharamagouda Mahadevi Renuka Shivanagouda Nagangouda Shankagouda Dead P-2 P-1 D-2 D-3 Dead Laxamava D-4 Jyoti Deepa D-5 D-6 4. Defendant No.1 and plaintiff No.3 are husband and wife and in the wedlock, they are blessed with four sons and two daughters. Mahadevi and Renuka who are the daughters of defendant No.1 have instituted a suit seeking the relief of partition and separate possession in O.S.No.252/2015. Plaintiffs contend that suit schedule properties are the joint family ancestral properties and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6247-DB RFA No. 100021 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100153 of 2019 therefore, they have got legitimate share in the suit schedule properties. Plaintiffs allege that defendant No.1 who is their father without any authority gifted the properties to defendant Nos.7 and 8 adversely affecting the plaintiffs legitimate right in the suit schedule properties. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the present suit seeking the relief of partition and separate possession. The plaintiffs have also questioned the gift deed and the sale deed executed by defendant Nos.1 and 3 in favour of defendant Nos.7 to 9. Declaration is also sought that these alienations and the gift deed executed by their father are not binding on the legitimate share of the plaintiffs in item Nos.2, 4 and 5 or schedule ‘A’ properties. 5. Per contra, defendant No.1 who is the father tendered appearance, filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. Defendant No.1 apart from specifically denying the averments made in the plaint, setting up partition alleging that Sy.No.60/3, 67 and 70/1 were allotted to him in a family partition. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6247-DB RFA No. 100021 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100153 of 2019 Defendant No.1 further asserted that he is living with his son i.e., defendant No.2 and out of love and affection, he has gifted item Nos.2 and 4 to defendant Nos.7 and 8 under registered gift deed dated 24.01.2014. Defendant No.1 alleged that only to harass, the present suit is filed by his wife and two daughters. 6. Defendant Nos.7 and 8 have filed the written statement independently and they have specifically pleaded that the suit schedule properties at item Nos.2 and 4 are self-acquired properties of their grandfather, who is defendant No.1, and therefore, he has absolute right to gift the properties to the said defendants. 7. Defendant No.9 has also filed the written statement asserting that defendant No.1 is the Kartha of the family and he effected partition on 26.05.2006 and item No.3 of suit schedule properties bearing Sy.No.67/3 is allotted to his share. Therefore, the present suit is barred by limitation. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6247-DB RFA No. 100021 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100153 of 2019 8. Based on the rival claims, the trial court has formulated issues. The plaintiffs and the defendants have let in oral and documentary evidence. The trial court having answered issue No.1 in the affirmative, issue No.2 partly in the affirmative and issue No.3 in the affirmative held that the plaintiffs have succeeded in substantiating that item Nos.1 to 5 are joint family ancestral properties and that they are entitled for share in the suit schedule properties. While answering point No.3 in the affirmative, the trial court held that the plaintiffs have succeeded in proving that the gift deed and the sale deed executed by defendant Nos.1 and 3 in favour of defendant Nos.7 to 9 are not binding on plaintiffs share. Accordingly, the suit is decreed. Insofar as item Nos.1 to 5 are concerned, plaintiffs are allotted 1/7th share each in item Nos.1 to 5 and 10 to 12 of the suit schedule properties. However, the suit is dismissed insofar as item Nos.6 to 9 and 13 and 14 are concerned. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6247-DB RFA No. 100021 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100153 of 2019 9. The plaintiffs have not filed any appeal questioning the denial of share in item Nos.6 to 9 and 13 and 14. These two appeals are filed only in respect of item Nos.1 to 5 are concerned. 10. Heard the learned counsel for defendant Nos.2, 7 and 8 and learned counsel for defendant Nos.4 to 6 and the learned counsel for plaintiff Nos.1 and 2. There is no representation on behalf of defendant No.1. 11. The following points would arise for our consideration. 1) Whether the finding of the trial court that the suit schedule properties are the joint family ancestral properties and therefore, plaintiffs being the daughters of defendant No.1 are entitled for 1/7th share in the suit schedule properties, is perverse and contrary to the pleadings in the plaint and the admissions elicited in the cross-examination of the plaintiffs who have admitted that their father - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6247-DB RFA No. 100021 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100153 of 2019 defendant No.1 has gone in adoption to his paternal uncle, namely Baramagouda? 2) Whether the finding of the trial court that there is no evidence to substantiate that item Nos.1 to 3 are tenanted properties and there is no evidence to substantiate that occupancy rights were granted to Yallappagouda or defendant No.1 is perverse and contrary to Ex.D20? Finding on point No.1. 12. Before this court delves into the matter to examine as to whether the plaintiffs who are daughters are entitled to claim share in the suit schedule properties, we have examined the pleadings more particularly, paragraph 5 of the plaint. Therefore, we deem it fit to extract paragraph 5 of the plaint, which reads as under: “5) Suit properties are the joint family ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 to 6 which were enjoyed and possesed by the propositus. In the family partition between Hanamantagouda i.e., - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6247-DB RFA No. 100021 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100153 of 2019 defendant No.1 and one Yellappagouda. The suit properties i.e., item No.1 to 12 are fallen to the share of the Hana mantagouda accordingly by virtue of partition the defendant No.1 name mutated in respect of the suit properties. It is submitted that, no partition taken place between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 to 6. They are the joint owners of the suit properties till today. The suit properties are in joint possession, enjoyment and wahiwat and cultivation of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 to 6.” 13. Another crucial and undisputed fact that merits emphasis in the present case is that Defendant No.1, Hanamantgouda, was given in adoption to his paternal uncle, Baramagouda. This fact is categorically admitted by the plaintiffs themselves and finds clear mention in the cause title of the plaint, where Hanamantgouda is described as the son of Baramagouda. Furthermore, the family tree submitted by both parties unmistakably illustrates that the biological father of Defendant No.1, Hanamantgouda, is Naganagouda. This significant detail is not only reflected in the pleadings but has also been affirmed during the course of evidence. Plaintiff No.1, who has deposed as P.W.1, has unequivocally admitted this - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6247-DB RFA No. 100021 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100153 of 2019 material fact during her examination. She clearly states that her father, Hanamantgouda, was given in adoption to Baramagouda. The relevant portion of her deposition, which leaves no room for ambiguity, is extracted below to support this assertion. “£ÁUÀ£ÀUËqÀ¤UÉ, AiÀÄ®è¥ÀàUËqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀUËqÀ JA§ E§âgÀÄ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ. ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀUËqÀ ¨sÀgÀªÀÄUËqÀjUÉ zÀvÀÛPÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃVzÁÝgÉ.” 14. A further material aspect that reinforces the plea of adoption is the conduct of the parties and documentary evidence that substantiates the same. Notably, the sale deed marked as Ex.D24, executed at an undisputed point in time, clearly refers to Defendant No.1, Hanamantgouda, as the son of Baramagouda. This recital within the sale deed indicates that the adoption was not merely nominal but was in fact acted upon and given legal recognition. It is pertinent to note that at the time when the said property was purchased in Hanamantgouda’s name, he was still a minor, which further affirms that his adoptive father, Baramagouda, was acting on his behalf as - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6247-DB RFA No. 100021 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100153 of 2019 the legal guardian. Additionally, paragraph 5 of the plaint, as already referred to earlier, contains a categorical admission by the plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties specifically, Item Nos. 1, 4, and 5 bearing Sy.Nos.67, 60/3, and 70/1 were allotted to Hanamantgouda during a partition that took place between him and his genitive brother, Yallappagouda. This partition is evidenced through the document marked as Ex.D15. A perusal of Ex.D15 reveals beyond any doubt that there was a family partition between Hanamantgouda and Yallappagouda, and in the said partition, the entirety of the tenanted land bearing Sy.No.67 which was originally granted under occupancy rights to Yallappagouda was allotted to Hanamantgouda. Consequently, the said Sy.No.67, which now stands subdivided into three survey numbers forming Item Nos. 1 to 3 of the suit schedule, must be considered the self-acquired property of Defendant No.1. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6247-DB RFA No. 100021 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100153 of 2019 15. In view of the above, if the partition dated 12.06.1990 evidenced by Ex.D15 is accepted and stands admitted by the plaintiffs, as is evident from both their pleadings and oral evidence, it strongly supports the plea advanced by Defendant No.1 regarding the existence of a prior partition in the year 1990. This brings us to the crucial issue that arises for determination: whether the plaintiffs, who admittedly had no birthright in the year 1990, can now claim a share in the properties that either originated from the branch of Naganagouda or were independently acquired by Hanamantgouda and his brother Yallappagouda. This issue needs to be considered in two distinct facets. Firstly, in view of the plaintiffs’ unequivocal admission that their father, Hanamantgouda, was adopted by his paternal uncle, Baramagouda, the plaintiffs cannot lay claim to any properties that were held or inherited through the branch of Naganagouda, the biological father of Hanamantgouda. Secondly, in light of the partition that took place on 12.06.1990, if the properties in question were allotted to Hanamantgouda as - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6247-DB RFA No. 100021 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100153 of 2019 part of the said partition with his brother, then those properties would legally assume the character of self- acquired properties in his hands. Therefore, the plaintiffs being daughters who were minors and without any pre- existing coparcenary rights at the time of the 1990 partition cannot assert any legal claim over those properties. The admission of this partition by the plaintiffs in paragraph 5 of the plaint, coupled with the contents of Ex.D15, effectively undermines their present claim and proves fatal to their case. 16. Upon a careful examination of the evidence on record, particularly the key documents such as Ex.D15, Ex.D20, and Ex.D24, it becomes apparent that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their entitlement to any legitimate share in the suit schedule properties. It is an admitted position that Item Nos. 1 to 3 of the schedule originally comprised tenanted lands. At the relevant time when occupancy rights were conferred under Ex.D20, the plaintiffs were still minors and, therefore, could not have - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6247-DB RFA No. 100021 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100153 of 2019 had any legal entitlement to such lands. It is also noteworthy that the occupancy rights under Ex.D20 were granted in the name of Yallappagouda, the younger brother of Hanamantgouda. Subsequently, during the partition that was effected in 1990, Yallappagouda voluntarily agreed to allot these very lands to his brother Hanamantgouda. This factual matrix confirms that the lands in question were not ancestral in the hands of Hanamantgouda but rather became his separate properties by virtue of the family arrangement and mutual consent between the brothers. 17. In light of the aforementioned facts and documentary evidence, it is evident that the Trial Court did not adequately evaluate the material on record. A superficial and erroneous appreciation of the pleadings and evidence has led to a flawed conclusion by the Trial Court. The findings recorded on Issue Nos. 1 and 2 are not only contrary to the weight of evidence but also suffer from a clear perversity. The Trial Court appears to have misread - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6247-DB RFA No. 100021 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100153 of 2019 critical documents such as Ex.D15, failed to properly interpret the effect of the adoption and partition, and thereby arrived at an unsustainable conclusion. Consequently, the findings of the Trial Court on these issues warrant interference by this Court. Hence, Point No.1 is answered in the affirmative. Finding On Point No.2. 18. While dealing with Point No.1, specific reference was made to Ex.D20, which is the mutation extract reflecting the entry of Yallappagouda’s name in respect of Item Nos. 1 to 3 of the suit schedule properties. Although the defendants have not produced the original order passed by the Land Tribunal, there is ample and convincing documentary evidence on record to establish that the said items were, in fact, tenanted lands and that occupancy rights were conferred upon Yallappagouda. The mutation entry at Ex.D20 clearly indicates that Yallappagouda’s name was mutated based on the proceedings in case No. KLR/SR/14/73, culminating in an - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6247-DB RFA No. 100021 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100153 of 2019 order dated 22.03.1980 passed by the Land Tribunal, Kundgol. Furthermore, Ex.D20 also discloses that Form No.10 was issued in favour of Yallappagouda, thereby substantiating the grant of occupancy rights. 19. It is significant to note that the plaintiffs have neither challenged nor rebutted this documentary evidence. There is a complete absence of counter-evidence from the plaintiffs to disprove or even question the nature of the lands in Item Nos. 1 to 3 as tenanted lands. The pleadings filed by the plaintiffs are notably silent on this material aspect, they have not even whispered about the character or classification of these lands. This silence on such a vital issue amounts to suppression of facts, particularly when Ex.D20 unequivocally demonstrates the tenancy origin and the subsequent grant of occupancy rights to their paternal uncle, Yallappagouda, who is the brother of Defendant No.1. 20. Despite this, the Trial Court has failed to consider Ex.D20 and has, therefore, rendered a finding in - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6247-DB RFA No. 100021 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100153 of 2019 paragraph 24 of its judgment that is clearly perverse and contrary to the evidence adduced by the defendants. It is impermissible to draw an adverse inference against Defendant No.1 merely because Form No.7 and the original Land Tribunal order were not produced. The law is well settled that mutation entries, when corroborated by other material, can sufficiently establish the status and title, especially when such entries recite details of the order and issuance of occupancy documents like Form No.10. 21. In the instant case, Ex.D20 is not a mere mutation entry but it reflects not only the order of the Land Tribunal but also the consequential issuance of Form No.10 in favour of Yallappagouda. The Trial Court, however, failed to appreciate the probative value of this document and has virtually ignored its relevance. The omission to examine Ex.D20 has led to a misreading of the evidence on record and, consequently, an erroneous finding. - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6247-DB RFA No. 100021 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100153 of 2019 Upon a comprehensive evaluation of the rebuttal evidence produced by the defendants and the plaintiffs’ failure to adduce any evidence to the contrary, it is apparent that the Trial Court’s conclusion is unsustainable in law. The findings in paragraph 24, having been rendered without consideration of Ex.D20, suffer from a serious legal infirmity and thus warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered in the affirmative. Conclusions and Reasons for Reversal of the Trial Court’s Findings: 22. Upon a comprehensive appraisal of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence on record, we find that the plaintiffs have failed to establish the nature and character of the suit schedule properties as joint family ancestral properties. The plaint averments are vague and lack material particulars regarding the origin of the properties or how they can be construed as joint family properties. There is a conspicuous absence of specific pleadings indicating how the properties devolved - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6247-DB RFA No. 100021 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100153 of 2019 from a common ancestor or remained undivided across generations. This foundational defect in the pleadings was neither addressed nor rectified during the trial, and unfortunately, the Trial Court failed to scrutinize this aspect, which goes to the root of the matter. 23. A crucial and undisputed fact in the present case is the adoption of defendant No.1, Hanamantgouda, by his paternal uncle, Baramagouda. This fact is admitted by the plaintiffs in their own plaint, wherein Hanamantgouda is described as the son of Baramagouda, and not as the son of his biological father, Naganagouda. The said admission is further reinforced by the testimony of PW1 (Plaintiff No.1), who, during cross-examination, candidly admits that her father, Hanamantgouda, was adopted by Baramagouda. This unambiguous admission has legal implications, once the fact of adoption is established, the plaintiffs, being the children of the adopted son, can trace their rights, if any, only through the adoptive lineage, i.e., through Baramagouda. They - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6247-DB RFA No. 100021 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100153 of 2019 cannot lay claim to properties that belonged to or devolved from the biological branch of Naganagouda. This crucial legal consequence of adoption has been completely overlooked by the Trial Court. As a result, the finding of the Trial Court that the suit schedule properties are joint family ancestral properties traceable to the branch of Naganagouda is not only factually erroneous but also legally unsustainable. The Trial Court failed to appreciate both the legal implications of adoption and the weight of rebuttal evidence let in by Defendant Nos.1, 2, 7, and 8, which collectively demolishes the plaintiffs’ case. 24. Another important facet of the case is the partition that took place on 12.06.1990 between Defendant No.1, Hanamantgouda, and his brother, Yallappagouda. This partition is admitted by the plaintiffs themselves in paragraph 5 of the plaint and is supported by the partition deed marked as Ex.D15. Despite this clear admission and the supporting documentary evidence, the Trial Court failed to advert to and give due consideration - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6247-DB RFA No. 100021 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100153 of 2019 to this partition. In terms of the proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (as amended), such a partition, having taken place prior to the commencement of the Amendment Act of 2005, saves the allotment and legal character of the properties. As on the date of the 1990 partition, the plaintiffs, being daughters, did not have any statutory or pre-existing coparcenary rights in the joint family property. Consequently, the properties that were allotted to Defendant No.1 under the said partition assume the character of self-acquired properties in his hands. Hence, the plaintiffs cannot assert any claim over these properties, and their suit for partition is clearly not maintainable. 25. The Trial Court’s findings with respect to the gift deeds executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant Nos.7 and 8 are also legally flawed. Once it is established that the properties in question were self- acquired properties of Defendant No.1 (post the 1990 partition), he was legally competent to deal with them in - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6247-DB RFA No. 100021 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100153 of 2019 any manner he deemed fit, including executing gift deeds. The plaintiffs, having failed to substantiate any independent or vested right in those properties, cannot question the validity or propriety of the said gift deeds. The Trial Court’s conclusion that the gifts were invalid is, therefore, not only unsupported by law but also contrary to the admitted facts and documentary evidence. 26. In view of the foregoing analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the findings rendered by the Trial Court on Issue Nos.1 and 2, as well as on the validity of the gift deeds, are perverse, based on misreading of the pleadings, ignorance of material admissions, and incorrect appreciation of the legal consequences flowing from adoption and prior partition. These findings being manifestly erroneous and legally untenable, warrant interference by this Court. 27. For the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following: - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6247-DB RFA No. 100021 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 100153 of 2019 ORDER i) Both the appeals are allowed. ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 29.11.2018 passed in O.S.No.252/2015 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundgol is hereby set aside. iii) The suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed. iv) Draw decree accordingly. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE MBS,CLK Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30