- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5509-DB RFA No. 100436 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100436 OF 2019 (POS) BETWEEN: SMT. SHALINI W/O. KALLAPPA PATIL SINCE DECEASED R/BY HER LRs., 1(A). KALLAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA PATIL AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED, R/O. FLAT NO.B-6 BUILDING, GANESHANGAN NEAR ZEAL COLLEGE, NARHE PUNE CITY, MAHARASHTRA-411041. 1(B). SHRI. BRIJESH S/O. KALLAPPA PATIL AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. FLAT NO.B-6 BUILDING, GANESHANGAN NEAR ZEAL COLLEGE, NARHE PUNE CITY, MAHARASHTRA-411041. 1(C). SHRI. SACHINA S/O. KALLAPPA PATIL AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. FLAT NO.C-1004, MEJESTIC VENICE NEXT TO NALANDA SCHOOL DHAYRI PUNE, MAHARASHTRA-411041. 1(D). MISS. SARIKA D/O. KALLAPPA PATIL AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. FLAT NO.B-6 BUILDING, GANESHANGAN NEAR ZEAL COLLEGE, NARHE PUNE CITY, MAHARASHTRA-411041. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S.G.NANDOOR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A.C.CHAKALABBI, ADVOCATE FOR 1(A TO D); APPELLANT NO.1(D) IS GPA HOLDER OF APPELLANTS NO.1(A TO C)) AND: Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.04.23 14:43:41 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5509-DB RFA No. 100436 of 2019 1. SMT. MEENUBAI W/O. YALLAPPA GHADI AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOSUR GALLI, HALIYAL. 2. KESHAV S/O. YALLAPPA GHADI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOSUR GALLI, HALIYAL. 3. SMT. SUSHILA ASHOK DESAI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: KIRAVATTI, TQ: YELLAPUR. 4. SMT. SUDHA W/O. DAYANAND DOGULKA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: JAVALLI, TQ: HALIYAL. 5. SMT. SUMITA W/O. NANDISH KANKATRI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: SANGAMESHWAR, TQ: KALAGHATGI, DIST: DHARWAD. 6. SAVITRI D/O. YALLAPPA GHADI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: HOSUR GALLI, HALIYAL. 7. PRATAP S/O. YALLAPPA GHADI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOSUR GALLI, HALIYAL. 8. GANGADHAR S/O. PAYAPPA GHADI AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MANGALWAD VILLAGE, TQ: HALIYAL. 9. TUKARAM S/O. PAYAPPA GHADI AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MANGALWAD VILLAGE, TQ: HALIYAL. 10. RAVIKUMAR S/O. RAMKRISHNA GHADI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MANGALWAD VILLAGE, TQ: HALIYAL. 11. GOPAL S/O. RAMKRISHNA GHADI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MANGALWAD VILLAGE, TQ: HALIYAL. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5509-DB RFA No. 100436 of 2019 12. VEERABHADRA S/O. PAYAPPA GHADI AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MANGALWAD VILLAGE, TQ: HALIYAL, NOW RESIDING AT: ATHAVAN BEHIND SUKHASHANTI HOTEL MAHAVEER NAGAR, UDEMNHAG BELAGAVI. 13. LAXAMAN S/O. PAYAPPA GHADI AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MANGALWAD VILLAGE, TQ: HALIYAL. 14. SMT. LAXMI KRISHNAJI DHABALE AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: KASABA NAGAR, TQ: KHANAPUR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2, R7 TO R9, R12, R14; SRI. V.P.INAMDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R13; NOTICE TO R3 TO R6, R10 AND R11 ARE SERVED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF C.P.C., 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.03.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.38/2017 (OLD O.S. NO.37/2016), ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HALIYAL, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5509-DB RFA No. 100436 of 2019 (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) This appeal is by an unsuccessful plaintiff, who has challenged the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.38/2017, wherein the plaintiff's suit seeking the relief of partition is rejected. 2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. The family tree is as under: Kallappa (died in the year 1964) Payappa (died in the year 1991) Yallappa Gangadhar Tukaram Ramkrishna Veerabhadra Laxman Shalini Laxmi 4. The facts of the case are as under: One Payappa is the propositus. Plaintiff and the ancestor of defendants 1 (a-g) namely Yellappa and defendants 2 to 7 are the sons and daughters of said Payappa. The present plaintiff/Shalini, who is the daughter of said Payappa has instituted the suit for - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5509-DB RFA No. 100436 of 2019 partition demanding her legitimate share in the suit schedule properties. 5. Defendants on receipt of summons have contested the proceedings and have set up a plea of prior partition during the life time of Payappa. Defendants have contended that during the life time of father Payappa, there was a partition in the family between the male members of the family and accordingly, a registered partition deed came to be executed on 10.5.1985. On these grounds, the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit. 6. Plaintiff and defendants to substantiate their respective claims have let in oral and documentary evidence. 7. Trial Court having taken cognizance of the registered partition deed dated 10.5.1985 has come to the conclusion that plaintiff is guilty of acquiescence has she has kept quite for almost 32 years. Trial Court further applying the principles laid down by this Court in the case - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5509-DB RFA No. 100436 of 2019 of Pushpalatha N.V. .vs. Padma and others1 held that plaintiff is not entitled for any share. Though trial Court took cognizance of the allotment of property to father Payappa, the trial Court was of the view that on his death, his entire self acquired property will not devolve upon sons and daughters. On these set of grounds, trial Court has come to the conclusion that plaintiff has failed to substantiate that the suit schedule properties are the joint family ancestral properties. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and learned counsel for the defendants. We have meticulously examined the pleadings of the parties and oral and documentary evidence. 9. The following point would arise for consideration: "Whether the judgment of the trial Court in dismissing the suit suffers from severe perversity and is contrary to Ex.P13 which is the certified copy of the partition deed and also contrary to Ex.P1, which is the RTC 1 ILR 2010 KAR 1484 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5509-DB RFA No. 100436 of 2019 indicating that there was fresh partition and Payappa was allotted 3 acres of land in Survey No.128/A.1?" 10. Upon a thorough examination of the records submitted by both parties, it is evident that there is no dispute regarding the fact that during the lifetime of Payappa, he, along with his sons, had effected a partition under a registered partition deed. This registered partition deed, which is a legally binding document, clearly reflects that Payappa was allotted one acre of land in Survey No.128 as his share of the property. The existence and execution of this partition deed are undisputed by either party. Furthermore, it is an established fact that Payappa passed away intestate, meaning he did not leave behind a legally valid will. 11. Additionally, the records further indicate that there was a subsequent partition within the family, in which Payappa was allotted a total extent of three acres of land. This fact is substantiated by the mutation entry recorded under M.R.No.41/2005-2006, which - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5509-DB RFA No. 100436 of 2019 unequivocally reflects that the change in ownership was effected based on a family partition. The said mutation entry is certified and this document serves as conclusive evidence of the family’s agreement regarding the redistribution of property. Notably, during the course of the trial, the defendants did not challenge the legitimacy or authenticity of this document. In fact, there was no suggestion made by the defendants disputing the validity of the mutation entry or the family partition as reflected in the document marked as Exhibit P1. This absence of contestation further strengthens the plaintiff’s claim regarding the rightful inheritance of Payappa’s share in the property. 12. Given the undisputed facts outlined above, it is clear that Payappa was originally allotted one acre of land in the 1985 partition, and through a subsequent re- partition, he was allotted a total of three acres of land in Survey No.128/1A. In light of these facts, we find that the trial court erred in entirely dismissing the plaintiff’s suit. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5509-DB RFA No. 100436 of 2019 Even if the properties that were exclusively allotted to Payappa’s sons in the 1985 partition are excluded from consideration, the properties that were allotted to Payappa himself must be regarded as his absolute and exclusive property. Since Payappa passed away intestate, the succession of his properties must be governed by Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Under this provision, the properties of a Hindu male dying intestate devolve upon his Class-I heirs, which include his sons and daughters. Consequently, upon Payappa’s demise, his estate, including the three acres of land allotted to him in Survey No.128/1A, would devolve equally among his legal heirs, comprising both his sons and daughters. 13. The trial court’s findings, which dismissed the plaintiff’s claim in its entirety, are not only legally unsustainable but also perverse and palpably erroneous. The trial court failed to apply the well-settled principles of succession law, particularly the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, which expressly mandates the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5509-DB RFA No. 100436 of 2019 devolution of intestate property among Class-I heirs. The decision of the trial court is, therefore, contrary to established legal principles and cannot be upheld. Accordingly, the legal conclusion must be drawn in favor of the plaintiff insofar as the properties left behind by Payappa are concerned, ensuring that they are distributed in accordance with the rightful inheritance of all his legal heirs. Accordingly point No.1 is answered in affirmative. Conclusion and Reasons for Reversal 14. Based on the analysis of the facts and legal principles governing intestate succession, it is evident that the trial court’s decision dismissing the plaintiff’s claim was incorrect, both in law and in fact. The following key conclusions and reasons necessitate the reversal of the trial court's judgment: i) The registered partition deed and the subsequent mutation entry (M.R.No.41/2005-2006) clearly establish that Payappa was allotted three acres of - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5509-DB RFA No. 100436 of 2019 land in Survey No.128/1A through a valid family partition. ii) The mutation entry was duly certified and remained uncontested throughout the trial. The defendants failed to dispute its authenticity, further solidifying the plaintiff’s claim to inheritance. iii) Since Payappa passed away intestate, his properties must be devolved under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. iv) Under this provision, his legal heirs, both sons and daughters are entitled to equal shares in his property. v) The trial court overlooked the mandatory application of Section 8, resulting in a legally flawed decision. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5509-DB RFA No. 100436 of 2019 vi) The trial court erroneously excluded the plaintiff from inheriting Payappa’s share, despite her clear entitlement as a Class-I heir. vii) The properties exclusively allotted to Payappa in the family partitions of 1985 and the subsequent re-partition must be treated as his self-acquired properties. viii) As a consequence, these properties must be inherited equally by all his legal heirs, including the plaintiff. ix) The trial court’s findings contradict both factual records and well-established legal principles of succession. x) The outright dismissal of the plaintiff’s suit disregarded the unchallenged evidence that Payappa was allotted his own share of land, which was subject to intestate succession. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5509-DB RFA No. 100436 of 2019 15. In light of the above conclusions, the trial court’s judgment is reversed. The plaintiff is entitled to her rightful share in the properties left behind by Payappa as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. The appellate court, therefore, holds that the plaintiff's claim is legally valid and must be upheld. 16. For the reasons stated supra, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. Preliminary decree in O.S.No.38/2017 is partly modified. (ii) Plaintiff is entitled for 1/7th share in three acres of land in Survey No.128/1A. (iii) Pending I.As, if any, stand disposed of. (iv) Draw preliminary decree accordingly. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE ALB Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27