- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4265-DB RFA No. 100222 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 100172 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH 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.100222 OF 2023 PAR/POS) C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100172 OF 2019 IN RFA NO.100222/2023 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NINGAVVA, W/O. DODDANAGAOUDA MUGANNAVAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: NOOLVI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580001. 2. SMT. ANASUYA @ NEELA, W/O. PRAKASH SHIRKOL, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: GOULIGALLI, DAJIBANPETH, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580001. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. D.V. PATTAR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4265-DB RFA No. 100222 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 100172 of 2019 AND: 1. SHIVALINGAPPA S/O. VIRUPAXAPPA BENNI, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SURASHETTIKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-580002. 2. SMT. CHANNABASAVVA W/O. SHIVAPPA BENNI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SURASHETTIKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-580002. 3. MANJUNTH S/O. SHIVAPPA BENNI, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SURASHETTIKOPPA. TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-580002. 4. BASAVARAJ S/O. SHIVAPPA BENNI, AGE: 28 YEARS, OC:. AGRICULTURE, R/O: SURASHETTIKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-580002. 5. AKKAMAHADEVI D/O. SHIVAPPA BENNI, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SURASHETTIKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST. DHARWAD-580002. 6. MALLIKARJUN S/O. VIRUPAXAPPA BENNI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SURASHETTIKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-580002. 7. BASAVANNEPPA S/O. VIRUPAXAPPA BENNI, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4265-DB RFA No. 100222 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 100172 of 2019 R/O SURSHETTIKOPPA, TQ. KALAGHATAGI, DIST. DHARWAD-580002. 8. VIRUPAXAPPA S/O. REVENAPPA HUBBALLI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: RAYANAL, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580002. 9. SMT. PREMAVVA @ BHARMAVVA, W/O. MALLIKARJUNAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: RAMAKKANNAVAR ONI, BELAGALI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; NOTICE TO R6 TO R9 SERVED) THIS RFA FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC.1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.02.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.33/2017 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, KALAGHATAGI, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN RFA NO.100172/2019 BETWEEN: 1. SHIVALINGAPPA S/O. VIRUPAXAPPA BENNI AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SURESHETTIKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4265-DB RFA No. 100222 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 100172 of 2019 2. SMT. CHANNABASAVVA W/O. SHIVAPPA BENNI AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SURASHETTIKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. 3. MANJUNATH S/O. SHIVAPPA BENNI AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SURASHETTIKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. 4. BASAVARAJ S/O. SHIVAPPA BENNI AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SURASHETTIKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD 5. AKKAMAHADEVI D/O. SHIVAPPA BENNI AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SURASHETTIKOPPA, TQ:KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD …APPELLANTS (BY SRI.S.R.HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MALLIKARJUN S/O. VIRUPAXAPPA BENNI AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SURESHETTIKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. 2. BASAVANNEPPA S/O. VIRUPAXAPPA BENNI AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SURASHETTIKOPPA, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4265-DB RFA No. 100222 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 100172 of 2019 3. SMT. NINGAVVA W/O. DODDANAGOUDA MUGANNAVAR AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: NOOLVI, TQ:HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 4. SMT. ANASUYA @ NEELA W/O. PRAKASH SHIRKOL AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: GOULIGALLI, DAJIBANPETH, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 5. SMT. PREMAVVA @ BHARMAVVA W/O. MALLIKARJUNGOUDA PATIL AGE:39 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O:RAMAKKANAVAR ONI, BELAGALI, TQ:HUBBALLI, DIST:DHARWAD 6. VIRUPAXAPPA S/O. REVANAPPA HUBBALLI AGE:52 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O: RAYANAL, TQ:HUBBALLI, DIST:DHARWAD …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D.V. PATTAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, FOR C/R1 TO R4; SRI. SANTOSH D. NARAGUND, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6) THIS RFA FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC.1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.02.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.33/2017 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, KALAGHATAGI, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4265-DB RFA No. 100222 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 100172 of 2019 THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS 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) RFA No.100172/2019 is filed by defendants No.1 to 5 questioning the preliminary decree drawn in O.S.No.33/2017 granting share to the plaintiffs and connected appeal in RFA.No.100222/2023 is filed by plaintiffs No.3 and 4, who are primarily aggrieved by the notional share granted to them ignoring the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. These two appeals are taken together. 2. For the sake of convenience, rank of parties is referred as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. Before we delve into the facts of the case, we deem it to cull out the family tree. Same is extracted hereunder : - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4265-DB RFA No. 100222 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 100172 of 2019 Virupaxappa (propositus) (dead) Smt.Bandawwa (wife, dead) Basavva (wife, def.2) Manjunath Basavaraj Akkamadevi (son, deft.3) (son, deft.4) (daughter, deft.5) 4. One Virupaxappa Shivappa Benni is shown to be the propositus, who had wife by name Smt.Bandawwa. In their wedlock, the said propositus is blessed with 4 sons and 4 daughters. The present suit is filed by 2 sons and 2 sisters against other siblings seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. Plaintiffs have contended that they along with defendants No.1, 6 and one deceased-Shivappa constituted undivided joint Hindu family. Plaintiffs further contended that among them second son Shivappa is no more and the Shivappa’s branch is represented by his wife (widow-defendant No.2), children and daughter, who are Shivalingappa (son, Def.1) Shivappa @ Shivanand (son, dead) Mallikarjun (son, plft.1) Basavanneppa (son, plft.2) Ningavva (daughter plft.3) Anusuya (daughter, plft.4) Bharamavva (daughter, deft.6) Kamalav (daughter, dead) - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4265-DB RFA No. 100222 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 100172 of 2019 arrayed as defendants No.3 to 5. Plaintiffs have specifically pleaded that the fourth daughter of the propositus, Virupaxappa, namely Kamalavva, is deceased and died without any legal heirs. They assert that they, along with the defendants, constitute an undivided joint family and are in joint possession and cultivation of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs further contend that defendant No.1, being the eldest son, has been managing the joint family affairs but is misusing the joint family income and failing to account for the yield. Despite repeated demands for their rightful share, defendant No.1 allegedly refused to comply. A panchayat was convened on 10.08.2017 in the presence of village elders to resolve the dispute, but defendant No.1 declined to allot the plaintiffs their legitimate share and instead advised them to seek legal recourse. Consequently, the plaintiffs have filed this suit. 5. In response to summons, defendants No.1 to 5 appeared through counsel and 1st defendant filed written statement, which is adopted by defendants No.2 to 5. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4265-DB RFA No. 100222 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 100172 of 2019 Defendant No.6 has not chosen to contest this suit and placed ex-parte. Defendants No.1 to 5 however countered the plaintiffs claim, on the contrary, they have contended that the present suit is hit by the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Defendants No.1 to 5 have contended that the partition suit filed by defendant No.6 in O.S.No.64/2008 has ended in compromise and therefore plaintiffs without assailing the compromise recorded in earlier suit bearing O.S.No.64/2008, the present suit is not maintainable. Defendants have also alternatively set up a plea of prior partition alleging that there was already severance in the family pursuant to partition among parties in the year 2006 and the said partition is acted upon. Therefore, defendants have contended that there being severance in the family, the family members are in exclusive possession of their respective shares that were duly allotted to them in a family partition. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4265-DB RFA No. 100222 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 100172 of 2019 6. Defendants No.1 to 5 to substantiate their respective claims have let in oral and documentary evidence. The trial Court while answering issue No.1 in the ‘affirmative’, held that plaintiffs have succeeded in substantiating the suit schedule properties are joint family ancestral properties and plaintiffs and defendants constitute undivided joint Hindu family and that there is no partition. 7. While answering issue No.2 in the ‘negative’, the trial Court however held that defendants No.1 to 5 have failed to substantiate the plea of partition pleaded in the written statement pursuant to compromise recorded in O.S.No.64/2008. 8. Plaintiffs No.3 and 4 have challenged the preliminary decree on the ground that they being coparceners in the light of the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the trial Court erred in granting share to the notionally while they are entitled to equal share at par with sons. Defendant No.1 has filed - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4265-DB RFA No. 100222 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 100172 of 2019 RFA.No.100172/2019 questioning the preliminary decree on the ground that the plaintiffs No.3 and 4 have already relinquished their share based on the Relinquishment Deed, which is marked as Exs.D.48 and 49. The 1st defendant in the appeal has contended that post relinquishment by plaintiffs No.3 and 4, the male coparceners namely brothers have entered into fresh partition, which is evidenced at Ex.D.53, which is dated 16.05.2006. 9. Having heard the learned counsels, we have given our anxious consideration to the pleadings, written statement and the oral and documentary evidence let in by both the parties, following points would arise for our consideration: (i) Whether the finding of the trial Court that defendants No.1 to 5 have failed to substantiate the factum of partition dated 16.05.2006 which is evidenced at Ex.D.53, is palpably erroneous and perverse? - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4265-DB RFA No. 100222 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 100172 of 2019 (ii) Whether the trail Court erred in granting notional share to plaintiffs No.3 and 4 and while doing so the trial Court further erred in not taking cognizance of withdrawal of suit by defendant No.6 in O.S.No.64/2018, which is evidenced at Ex.D.18, which clearly demonstrates that defendant No.6 took a sum of Rs.50,000/- and relinquished her share and this was reported in the suit filed by her in O.S.No.64/2008? FINDINGS ON POINT NO.(i) :- 10. Before addressing the core issue, we believe that the settlement reached between defendant No.6 and defendants No.1 to 5 in O.S. No.64/2008 is crucial in determining whether the plaintiffs and defendants continued to constitute an undivided joint Hindu family. The records, particularly Ex.D.18, indicate that defendant No.6 had filed a suit for partition and separate possession against defendants No.1 to 5 and the present plaintiffs, seeking her rightful share in the suit schedule properties. During the pendency of O.S. No.64/2008, defendants No.1 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4265-DB RFA No. 100222 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 100172 of 2019 to 5 reached an amicable settlement with defendant No.6, pursuant to which they paid her a sum of Rs.50,000/-, leading to the withdrawal of the suit by defendant No.6. 11. The memo filed in the said suit is central to the issue concerning the partition plea raised by defendants No.1 to 5. In light of its significance, we find it appropriate to reproduce the contents of the memo filed in O.S. No.64/2008, which reads as follows: “ªÉÄêÉÆ EzÀgÀ°è ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ, ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀ ªÉÄêÉÆzÀ «ªÀgÀ PɼÀV£ÀAvÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 1) ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÉù£À°è ªÁ¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ »jAiÀÄgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ gÁfÃAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. 2) 1 jAzÀ 4£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ ªÁ¢UÉ »jAiÀÄgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ gÁfÃAiÀiÁVzÀÝgÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ 50,000-00 UÀ¼À gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä gÉÆÃSÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÁ¢ zÁªÁzÀ°èzÀÝ ºÀPÀÌ£ÀÄß ©lÄÖPÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛ¼É. 3) ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ, 1 jAzÀ 4 ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄjAzÀ gÉÆÃR gÀÆ. 50,000-00 UÀ¼À£ÀÄß »jAiÀÄgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÝjAzÀ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÉøÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¢ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɸÀĪÀ EZÉÑ EgÀĪÀ¢¯Áè. DzÀÝjAzÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀªÀgÀÄ ªÁ¢AiÀÄ zÁªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß F ªÉÄêÉÆzÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¤PÁ° ªÀiÁr, ªÀeÁ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ CAvÁ ¥ÁæxÀð£É. PÀ®WÀlV §gÀªÀĪÀé ªÀÄ.¥Ánî ¢£ÁAPÀ: 25.02.2010 ªÁ¢AiÀÄ ¸À»” 12. On examination of this document, which is a memo dated 25.02.2010, defendant No.6 accepts - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4265-DB RFA No. 100222 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 100172 of 2019 Rs.50,000/- from defendants No.1 to 5 and in view of Rs.50,000/- amount received, she gives up her claim in the suit schedule properties. Para No.2, which is culled out supra clearly clinches the controversy. If as on 2010, defendants acknowledging defendant No.6’s legitimate right in the properties has entered into some deliberations, which has resulted in an amicable settlement and if Rs.50,000/- is paid to defendant No.6 as on 2010, we are not inclined to accept this theory of partition of the year 2006 setup by defendants in the present suit. If as on 2010, there was no partition and defendants No.1 to 5 acknowledging defendant No.6’s legitimate right in the suit schedule property have entered into a compromise by giving Rs.50,000/- to defendant No.6, defendants No.1 to 5 are estopped from setting up a prior partition alleged to have been entered into between the brothers on 15.05.2006. This partition becomes irrelevant and loses its significance in the light of settlement arrived in O.S.No.64/2008. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4265-DB RFA No. 100222 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 100172 of 2019 13. We are also disinclined to take cognizance of the relinquishment deed dated 15.05.2006, purportedly executed by all the sisters, as reflected in Ex.D-48. A closer examination of Ex.D-48 reveals a crucial detail. Defendants claim that plaintiffs No.3 and 4, along with defendant No.6, have relinquished their respective shares in the suit schedule properties. However, this document cannot be given legal credence for two fundamental reasons. Firstly, it is an unregistered document, and under the law, relinquishment of immovable property must be executed through a registered instrument. Secondly, an affidavit cannot serve as a valid mode of relinquishment, making Ex.D-48 legally unsustainable. 14. Furthermore, the circumstances surrounding the execution of Ex.D-48 contradict the subsequent actions of the defendants. Defendant No.6, who is purported to have relinquished her share under Ex.D-48, was nonetheless granted a monetary settlement in O.S.No.64/2008. The records indicate that defendants - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4265-DB RFA No. 100222 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 100172 of 2019 No.1 to 5 acknowledged her legitimate share and, as part of a compromise, paid her Rs.50,000/-, leading to the withdrawal of the suit. This recognition of defendant No.6’s right, despite the existence of the so-called relinquishment deed, casts serious doubt on its validity and enforceability. If the defendants themselves have acknowledged the rights of defendant No.6 independent of Ex.D-48, they cannot selectively rely on the same document to claim that plaintiffs No.3 and 4 relinquished their shares. Such an inconsistent stance creates an element of discrimination, as the same standard must apply uniformly to all parties who were allegedly part of the relinquishment. 15. In light of these facts, this Court finds no merit in the defence set up by defendants No.1 to 5. The purported relinquishment deed, being unregistered and legally untenable, cannot be relied upon to deny the plaintiffs their rightful share in the suit schedule properties. The arguments advanced by defendants No.1 to 5 in this regard are, therefore, unsustainable. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4265-DB RFA No. 100222 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 100172 of 2019 16. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, point No.(i) is answered in the ‘negative’. It is held that defendants No.1 to 5 have failed to substantiate their plea that partition had already taken place. The findings recorded under issue No.2 are in accordance with the law and do not warrant any interference. FINDINGS ON POINT NO.(ii):- 17. The short point that needs consideration at the hands of this Court is as to whether the trial Court was justified in granting notional share to plaintiffs No.3 and 4. 18. This issue is fully addressed and given a quietus by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the light of law laid down in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma and Others1. 19. Therefore, the quantification done by trial Court and thereby granting notional share to plaintiffs No.3 and 4 being contrary to the amended Section 6 of the Hindu 1 (2020) 9 SCC 1. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4265-DB RFA No. 100222 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 100172 of 2019 Succession Act and judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court cited supra, we are inclined to re-determine the shares by excluding defendant No.6 as she had relinquished her share by accepting Rs.50,000/-, which led to withdrawal of suit filed by defendant No.6 in O.S.No.64/2008. It is also relevant to note that defendant No.6 has not contested the suit and she has placed exparte. 20. The records reveal that the Kamalavva died issueless and if defendant No.6 claim is settled in O.S.No.64/2008, then by taking note of four sons and two daughters, properties have to be divided into 6 parts. Plaintiffs No.3 and 4 being coparceners in view of amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act are entitled for equal share at par with brothers. Therefore, plaintiffs No.3 and 4 along with brothers are entitled for equal share. Accordingly, we are of the view that plaintiffs are entitled to 1/6th share in suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4265-DB RFA No. 100222 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 100172 of 2019 properties. Accordingly, point No.(ii) is answered in the ‘affirmative’. 21. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the defendants, the plaintiffs have failed to present any evidence to substantiate their claim over the movable properties. In the absence of such proof, it would be unjust to grant them a share in these items. Moreover, considering the nature of the movables, including live cattle and kitchen utensils, which are generally subject to personal use and perishable over time, their inclusion in the partition would be impractical. Therefore, in the interest of justice and equity, the plaintiffs are held not entitled to any share in the suit schedule ‘C’ property. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following: ORDER i) Both the appeals are allowed in part. ii) Plaintiffs No.3 and 4 are entitled for 1/6th share in suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4265-DB RFA No. 100222 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 100172 of 2019 iii) Draw decree accordingly. iv) No order as to cost. v) Defendant No.6 is not entitled for any share in the light of she having accepted Rs.50,000/- and having withdraw the suit filed in O.S.No.64/2008. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE CKK/AM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 16