- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6839-DB RFA No. 100053 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH 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. 100053 OF 2019 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: NIRANJAN S/O. MALLIKARJUNGOUDA MULKIPATIL, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S., 1. SMT. UMA W/O. NIRANJAN MULKIPATIL, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: PLOT NO.8, SHIVANAND NILAY, RAVINDRA NAGAR, UNKAL, HUBBALLI-580020. 2. KUMARI. NEHA D/O. NIRANJAN MULKIPATIL AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: PLOT NO.8, SHIVANAND NILAY, RAVINDRA NAGAR, UNKAL, HUBBALLI-580030. 3. KUMARI. SHEETAL D/O. NIRANJAN MULKIPATIL AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: PLOT NO.8, SHIVANAND NILAY, RAVINDRA NAGAR, UNKAL, HUBBALLI-580030. (SINCE APPELLANT NO.1(B) AND (C) ARE MINORS REP. BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1(A)). 4. BASAVRAJ S/O. MALLIKARJUNGOUDA MULKIPATIL, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR, R/O: PLOT NO.8, SHIVANAND NILAY, RAVINDRA NAGAR, UNKAL, HUBBALLI-580030. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6839-DB RFA No. 100053 of 2019 2. SMT. PUSPA W/O. MALLIKARJUNGOUDA MULKIPATIL, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: PLOT NO.8, SHIVANAND NILAY, RAVINDRA NAGAR, UNKAL, HUBBALLI-580030. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. G.I.GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. JAYALAXMI D/O. MALLIKARJUNGOUDA MULKIPATIL, AFTER MARRIAGE SMT. JAYALAXMI W/O. NARAYANASA KHATAVATE, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: I CROSS, RANADAMMA COLONY, NEKAR NAGAR, OLD-HUBBALLI-580024. 2. RAYAVVA W/O. SHANKARGOUDA MULKIPATIL, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: NEW MALAWAD VILALGE, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG-582101. 3. NEELAMMA @ NEELAVVA W/O. CHANNAPPAGOUDA SANKANAGOUDAR, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: DONI, TQ: MUNDARAGI, DIST: GADAG-582101. 4. SIDDANAGOUDA S/O. SHANKARGOUDA MULKIPATIL, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: SRIRAM NAGAR, ATTIKOPPA, DHARWAD-580001. 5. SANGANAGOUDA S/O. SHANKARGOUDA MULKIPATIL, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER, R/O: H.NO.LIG-89, 7TH CROSS, NEAR ROTARY SCHOOL, OPP. NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580030. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6839-DB RFA No. 100053 of 2019 6. SHIVANAGOUDA S/O. SHANKARGOUDA MULKIPATIL, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NEW MALAWAD VILLAGE, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG-582101. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 6 IS SERVED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.11.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.278/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION AND DECLARATION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER 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) 1. The captioned appeal is by the legal heirs of deceased-defendant No.1, who are assailing the Preliminary Decree drawn by the trial Court in O.S.No.278/2014, wherein the plaintiff has granted 1/4th share in suit schedule A to E and G properties. Though, original defendant No.1-Niranjan Mulkipatil asserted that these properties are his self acquired properties. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6839-DB RFA No. 100053 of 2019 2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. 3. Before we proceed to examine the rival contentions, we deem it appropriate to take cognizance of the family tree, which is as under: Shivanandswami (died on 13.05.1996) Siddanagouda Niilamma (wife) Mallikarjunagouda(died) Shankaragouda (died) Pushpa (wife D-3) Rayavva (wife D-4) Niranjan Basavaraj Jayalaxmi (D-1) (D-2) (plaintiff) Neelamma Siddanagouda Sanganagouda Shivanagouda (D-5) (D-6) (D-7) (D-8) 4. The facts leading to the case are that; Plaintiff who is the sister of defendant No.1 and daughter of one Mallikarjungouda Mulkipatil filed a suit seeking for relief of partition against her brothers i.e., defendant No.1-Niranjan, defendant No.2-Basavaraj and mother defendant No.3-Pushpa. Plaintiff contended that the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6839-DB RFA No. 100053 of 2019 suit schedule properties are joint family ancestral properties and she constitutes an undivided joint Hindu family along with defendants. The plaintiff also contended that in regard to suit schedule H to K properties are concerned, they are ancestral properties comprising of the plaintiff ancestor namely Mallikarjungouda and his brother-Shankargouda and therefore plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3, who are tracing through Mallikarjungouda are entitled for half share in the remaining suit schedule H to K properties. Plaintiff further pleaded that since Mallikarjungouda suffered paralytic attack in the year 2008, defendant No.1 started managing the affairs of joint family and he availed loan by mortgaging suit property bearing Sy.No.197/B and purchased the properties Sy.No.71/2 out of plot No.69 and Sy.No.463 and 161 and others property. Therefore, the plaintiff specifically pleaded that the properties purchased by defendant No.1 were out of joint family corpus and hence prayed to decree the suit. 5. Defendant No.1 on receipt of summons, tendered appearance and filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments in the plaint. Defendant No.1 on the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6839-DB RFA No. 100053 of 2019 contrary asserted that suit schedule-A, D, E and F properties are his self acquired properties. Defendant No.1 contended that he has independent business and out of his independent earnings, he has purchased the above said properties and hence, sought for dismissal of the suit insofar as suit schedule-A, D, E and G properties. Plaintiff and defendant No.1 to substantiate their respective claims let in oral and documentary evidence. 6. The trial Court on examining the oral and documentary evidence let in by the plaintiff and defendant No.1, referring to Ex.D.12, which is the acknowledgement of Income Tax Returns, came to a conclusion that defendant No.1 has partially succeeded in substantiating that suit schedule-F property is his self acquired property. Therefore, plaintiff’s suit is partly decreed granting 1/4th share in suit schedule A to E and G properties by metes and bounds, and 1/4th share out of half share in suit Item Nos.H to K. The trial court however, accepted the claim over schedule G propert which he assert and claim that it is self-acquitition. Plaintiffs suit is dismissed insofar as schedule F properties are - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6839-DB RFA No. 100053 of 2019 concerned and the plaintiff has not challenged this part of decree. This appeal by the legal heirs of defendant No.1 aggrieved by the grant of share in suit schedule A, D, E, and G. 7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/legal representatives of defendant No.1. There is no contest by the respondent No.1/plaintiff. We have carefully examined the pleadings in the plaint and stand taken by defendant No.1 in the written statement. We have meticulously examined the oral and documentary evidence let in by both parties. More particularly, Ex.D.12 on which defendant No.1 has placed reliance to demonstrate that defendant No.1 had independent earnings and therefore suit schedule A, D, E and G are his self acquired properties. 8. The following points would arise for our consideration: (i) Whether the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court in granting share in suit schedule A, D, E and G properties suffers - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6839-DB RFA No. 100053 of 2019 from perversity and warrants interference at the hands of this Court? (ii) Whether the finding of the trial Court that the Gift Deed executed by the propositus- Mallikarjungouda in favour of defendant No.1 insofar as schedule G property is null and void and is palpable erroneous and warrants interference at the hands of this Court? (iii) What order or Decree? Finding on Points No.(i) and (ii) 9. Defendant No.1 has raised a serious dispute regarding the character and ownership of the suit schedule properties, specifically in relation to properties listed under Schedules A, D, E and G. In his written statement, Defendant No.1 has provided a detailed account, wherein he has set up a plea of self-acquisition. It is his specific contention that he is engaged in independent business activities and that, from the income generated exclusively - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6839-DB RFA No. 100053 of 2019 through his personal efforts and earnings, he has acquired the suit schedule properties marked as A, D, E, and G. In support of this contention, Defendant No.1 has relied upon certain documents, most notably an acknowledgment from the Income Tax Department, which has been marked as Exhibit D-12. 10. We have scrutinized the rebuttal evidence adduced by Defendant No.1, with particular reference to Exhibit D-12. A close examination reveals that in the Income Tax Returns for the assessment year 2009–2010, Defendant No.1 has declared ownership of the property situated in Survey No.463, which corresponds to the suit Schedule-F property. This disclosure lends some weight to his assertion that the Schedule-F property was acquired using his personal funds and is, therefore, his self-acquired property. 11. It is, however, a settled principle of Hindu law that when a male member of a Hindu joint family, particularly one who is managing the family affairs in the capacity of Karta claims that certain properties are his self- - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6839-DB RFA No. 100053 of 2019 acquired properties, the entire burden of proof lies squarely on him. He must convincingly establish that the acquisition of such properties was made without the aid of the joint family corpus or income derived from joint family assets. 12. In the present case, Defendant No.1 has only partially succeeded in discharging this burden. The declaration made in the Income Tax Return (Ex.D-12) for Schedule-F property remains unrebutted by the plaintiff and supports the claim of self-acquisition concerning that specific property. However, Defendant No.1 has failed to produce any such corroborative evidence whether in the form of income tax documents, bank statements, or other credible financial records pertaining to the acquisition of Schedule A, D, E and G properties. His selective production of documents, confined only to Schedule-F, undermines the reliability of his broader claim of self-acquisition in respect of the other properties. 13. Furthermore, there is a complete absence of documentary evidence particularly Income Tax Returns or - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6839-DB RFA No. 100053 of 2019 equivalent financial proof demonstrating that the properties listed under Schedules A, D, E and G were acquired through independent means. Consequently, we are not inclined to accept the self-serving assertions made by Defendant No.1 in his written statement. The initial burden, which was upon Defendant No.1, has not been satisfactorily discharged. In view of this, we find ourselves in agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. The appeal, to the extent that it seeks to challenge the Trial Court's findings regarding Schedule-A, D, E and G properties, must fail. 14. On the contrary, the plaintiff has successfully proved the existence of a joint family nucleus. She has also established that the joint family owned substantial agricultural lands, capable of generating considerable income. This, in our view, sufficiently discharges her initial burden of establishing the joint family’s financial capacity to acquire properties. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving that the properties listed in Schedule-A, D, E and G are joint family ancestral properties. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6839-DB RFA No. 100053 of 2019 15. Based on the above findings, and while rendering our decision on Point No.(i), we arrive at the conclusion that except for the Schedule-F property, all other suit schedule properties, namely Schedule-A, D, E and G, are joint family ancestral properties. Defendants during trial hasve admitted that schedule B and C properties are ancestral properties. Defendant No.1 has not taken the plea that the property listed under Schedule-G was the self-acquired property of Mallikarjungouda, the father of the parties. Moreover, no document has been placed on record to suggest or establish that the said property was in fact his self-acquired asset. However, Defendant No.1 seeks to assert absolute ownership over the Schedule-G property on the strength of a registered Gift Deed executed by the said Mallikarjungouda. 16. It is well established under Hindu law that a member of a Hindu joint family has no legal authority to gift ancestral property unilaterally, as such an act would adversely affect the rights of other co-parceners. Any gift deed executed in respect of joint family ancestral property is therefore rendered legally invalid and is void ab initio. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6839-DB RFA No. 100053 of 2019 17. This legal position has been clearly enunciated by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Ganapati Santaram Bhosale vs. Ramachandra Subbarao Kulkarni, reported in ILR 1985(2) Kar 1115, wherein it has been held that a gift deed executed in respect of joint family ancestral property is void from the outset (void ab initio). It was further held that, in such cases, it is not necessary for the other co-parceners or affected family members to institute a suit seeking declaratory relief for the cancellation of such a deed. A document which is void ab initio is devoid of legal effect from its inception and, as such, does not require to be formally set aside by any civil court. 18. In light of the above authoritative pronouncement, we are of the view that the Gift Deed relied upon by Defendant No.1 in respect of Schedule-G property has no legal sanctity. The finding of the learned Trial Court on Issue No.4, whereby the Gift Deed was held invalid, is consistent with the legal position laid down by the Division Bench in the aforementioned case. Accordingly, points No.(i) and (ii) are answered in the negative. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6839-DB RFA No. 100053 of 2019 19. For the foregoing reasons, we pass the following: ORDER Appeal is devoid of merits and same is dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE CKK CT:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13