- 1 - RFA NO.100441 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH 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.100441 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PARVATI W/O. KUBENDRAYYA YENAGIMATH AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NEAR SANGOLLI RAYANNA CIRCLE, BAILHONGAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-590012. 2. SHRI. MALLIKARJUN S/O. KUBENDRAYYA YENAGIMATH, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. NEAR SANGOLLI RAYANNA CIRCLE, BAILHONGAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-590012. 3. SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. MAHANTESH HIREMATH AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NEAR SANGOLLI RAYANNA CIRCLE, BAILHONGAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-590012. 4. SHRI. SHANTAYYA S/O. KUBEDRAYYA YENAGIMATH AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. NEAR SANGOLLI RAYANNA CIRCLE, BAILHONGAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-590012. 5. SHRI. SHRISHAILAYYA S/O. KUBENDRAYYA YENAGIMATH, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. NEAR SANGOLLI RAYANNA CIRCLE, BAILHONGAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-590012. 6. SHRI. RAMLINGAYYA S/O. KUBENDRAYYA YENGIMATH, - 2 - RFA NO.100441 of 2019 SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS LR’s. RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SUDHINDRA V.KOPPAR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. KUMAR. VARUN S/O. RAMALINGAYYA YENAGIMATH AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: BAILHONGAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-590012. 2. KUMAR. VASANT S/O. RAMALINGAYYA YENAGIMATH AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: BAILHONGAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-590012. (PLAINTIFF NO.1 AND 2 BEING MINORS REPRESENTED BY R3 THEIR NEXT FRIEND SMT. LALITA W/O. RAMALINGAYYA YENAGIMATH). 3. SMT. LALITA W/O. RAMALINGAYYA YENAGIMATH AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: BAILHONGAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. APPELLANT NO.1 TO 3 NOW RESIDING AT DASTIKOPPA, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-590012. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.R.LATUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1 AND R2 ARE MINORS REP. BY R3) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.06.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.72/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAILHONGAL, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 28.04.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT 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 - 3 - RFA NO.100441 of 2019 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) The captioned appeal is filed by the defendants assailing the preliminary decree dated 04.06.2019 drawn in O.S.No.72/2015 by the Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal granting 1/6th share to the plaintiffs together. The said preliminary decree is challenged before this court. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial court. 3. The facts leading to the case are that; Before we examine the issue on hand, we deem it appropriate to cull out the family tree, which is as under: Kubendrayya S/o. Rachayya Yengimath (Died on 01.01.2007) Parvati (D-1) Mallikarjun Mahadevi Shantayya Shrishail Ramalingayya (D-2) (D-3) (D-4) (D-5) (D-6) Lalita(P-3) Varun Vasant (P-1) (P-2) - 4 - RFA NO.100441 of 2019 4. The plaintiffs are the widow and two sons of one Ramalingayya. In the present case, they assert that Ramalingayya is the biological son of Kubendrayya and defendant No.1. The suit for partition was filed during the lifetime of Ramalingayya, alleging that he (arrayed as defendant No.6) is the youngest son of propositus Kubendrayya. It is further averred that defendant No.6 had become addicted to vices over the preceding six months and, due to intoxication, was incapable of acting as guardian for plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2, who are minors and are under the custody of plaintiff No.3, their mother. Despite repeated requests by defendant Nos.1, 2, 4, and 5, defendant No.6 allegedly refused to give up his alcohol addiction. Plaintiff No.3 approached the defendants seeking financial support to meet the basic needs of the plaintiffs, which was declined. She also requested that defendant No.6's name be mutated in the revenue records to obtain a maintenance order from the court; this too was refused. Consequently, plaintiff No.3 demanded a legitimate share in the property on behalf of herself and - 5 - RFA NO.100441 of 2019 the minor plaintiffs, which was rejected. This led to the filing of the present suit for partition in O.S. No.72/2015. 5. Upon receipt of summons, defendant Nos.1 to 5 entered appearance. Defendant No.1 filed a separate written statement, while defendant Nos.2 to 5 submitted a common written statement. In their pleadings, the defendants specifically denied that defendant No.6 is the biological son of Kubendrayya and defendant No.1. They contended that defendant No.6 is not related to their family and, as such, the plaintiffs do not form part of the undivided Hindu joint family with the defendants. It is asserted that the propositus Kubendrayya was in possession of the suit schedule properties, and upon his death, defendant Nos.1 to 5 succeeded to the same. Although the defendants admitted that defendant No.6 is the father of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, they denied any familial relationship with the plaintiffs. 6. Based on the rival contentions, the trial court formulated in all six issues and the plaintiffs and the defendants were called upon to lead evidence in support of - 6 - RFA NO.100441 of 2019 their respective claim. Plaintiff No.3 examined herself as P.W.1 and one independent witness was examined as P.W.2 and produced in all 20 documents which are marked as Exs.P1 to P20. By way of rebuttal evidence, defendant No.3 was examined as D.W.1 and three independent witnesses were examined as D.Ws.2 to 4 and marked 5 documents as Exs.D1 to D5. The trial court while placing reliance on Exs.P4 and P5 which are transfer certificates issued by the primary school and higher secondary school coupled with the survivorship certificate as per Ex.P14, which was issued after the death of defendant No.6/Ramalingayya, the court proceeded to hold that the plaintiffs have succeeded in substantiating that defendant No.6/Ramalingayya is the biological son of Kubendrayya and defendant No.1. The said judgment is under challenge. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the defendants and the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. 8. Learned counsel for the defendants vehemently contended, relying on the rebuttal evidence, particularly - 7 - RFA NO.100441 of 2019 Ex.D5, a medical record which, according to the defendants, is pivotal in establishing that defendant No.1 underwent a tubectomy operation on 28.02.1979. This is further supported by Ex.D3, the surviving family members certificate issued following the death of Kubendrayya, in which Ramalingayya's name is conspicuously absent. Additionally, reliance is placed on Ex.D4, a copy of the obituary published in the Vijaya Karnataka Kannada daily newspaper in 2007, issued immediately after Kubendrayya’s death. Referring to these documents, counsel submitted that Ramalingayya, who was found abandoned at a temple and subsequently fostered by Kubendrayya, cannot be considered his biological son. Therefore, although plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2 are admittedly the children of defendant No.6/Ramalingayya, they bear no biological or legal relation to the defendants' family. Consequently, the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any share in the ancestral properties. 9. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs, placing reliance on the Transfer Certificate marked as Exs.P4 and - 8 - RFA NO.100441 of 2019 P5 and the the Survivor Certificate issued subsequent to the death of Ramalingayya, wherein Defendant No.1 is recorded as the mother of Ramalingayya, strenuously contends that the plaintiffs have successfully discharged their burden of proving that Ramalingayya is, in fact, the biological son of Kubendrayya. He submits that the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs is not only consistent but also corroborated by the official records, which remain unshaken in the face of cross-examination. It is urged that the defendants have failed to produce any credible or cogent material to rebut or discredit the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs. The absence of effective counter evidence or denial from the defendants, it is submitted, further fortifies the plaintiffs’ case. In the light of the unimpeached and convincing nature of the plaintiffs' evidence, particularly the official documents which have presumptive value under law, learned counsel prays that the suit of the plaintiffs be decreed and the defence set up by the defendants be dismissed as devoid of merit. - 9 - RFA NO.100441 of 2019 10. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. We have carefully perused the pleadings and submissions advanced by both sides. Additionally, we have meticulously evaluated the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties in support of their respective contentions. Upon such examination, the following point arises for our determination: 1) Whether the finding of the Trial Court that defendant No.6-Ramalingayya is the biological son of Kubendrayya and defendant No.1 is perverse, palpably erroneous, and contrary to the rebuttal evidence on record, particularly Exs.D3 to D5, along with the assertive oral testimony of defendant No.1, who has categorically disputed both the maternity and the paternity of defendant No.6? 2) What order? Finding on the Point no.1 and 2: 11. In the present case, the plaintiffs have taken a clear stand that Ramalingayya (defendant No.6) is the - 10 - RFA NO.100441 of 2019 biological son of Kubendrayya. In support of this assertion, they have relied upon certain documentary records. Chief among these are the school transfer certificates of Ramalingayya marked as Exs.P4 and P5, which record Kubendrayya as the father of the said Ramalingayya. Furthermore, the plaintiffs have produced the death certificate of Ramalingayya, marked as Ex.P13, which lists the names of his parents as Kubendrayya and Parvati (defendant No.1). They have also relied upon a survivorship certificate (Ex.P14), wherein the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 have been shown as the legal heirs of the deceased Ramalingayya. According to the plaintiffs, these documents cumulatively establish the biological relationship between Ramalingayya on one hand and Kubendrayya and Parvati on the other. 12. On the other hand, the defendants have strenuously denied the claim of biological parentage. Their case is that Ramalingayya was not born to Kubendrayya and Parvati but was a child abandoned at a temple who was thereafter raised by them in a foster capacity. To - 11 - RFA NO.100441 of 2019 rebut the plaintiffs' claim, the defendants have placed reliance on multiple documents. Notably, Ex.D3 is a certified copy of a survivorship certificate issued soon after the death of Kubendrayya in 2007. Significantly, Ramalingayya's name is conspicuously missing from the list of legal heirs in that certificate, thereby suggesting that he was never recognized as a legal heir of Kubendrayya. 13. The defendants have further relied on Ex.D5, which is a critical piece of medical evidence. It establishes that defendant No.1-Parvati underwent a tubectomy procedure on 28.02.1979. This fact is not disputed by the plaintiffs. What makes this document particularly significant is that the plaintiffs themselves assert that Ramalingayya was born on 06.01.1980, i.e., nearly a year after the tubectomy. The timing of this medical procedure, therefore, directly contradicts the plaintiffs' assertion of biological maternity and casts serious doubt on the claim that Parvati gave birth to Ramalingayya. - 12 - RFA NO.100441 of 2019 14. In our considered view, Ex.D5 the medical record showing that defendant No.1 underwent a sterilization procedure in February 1979 emerges as a highly determinative piece of evidence. Given that the procedure precludes the possibility of conception thereafter, and that Ramalingayya is stated to have been born in January 1980, the biological link claimed by the plaintiffs becomes medically untenable. The contradiction is stark and undermines the authenticity of the plaintiffs’ narrative. While the school records (Exs.P4 and P5) may mention Kubendrayya as the father, it is well settled that such entries, particularly in school documents, are not conclusive proof of paternity. When weighed against the incontrovertible medical record, their evidentiary value diminishes significantly. 15. Additionally, defendant No.1, Parvati who is admittedly the mother of defendants Nos.2 to 5 entered the witness box and categorically denied that Ramalingayya was her biological son. Such a denial of maternity, a relationship rarely disclaimed by a woman, - 13 - RFA NO.100441 of 2019 lends substantial weight to her testimony. Her version that Ramalingayya was a child abandoned at a temple and merely fostered by her and her husband deserves serious consideration, especially in the absence of strong rebuttal evidence from the plaintiffs. 16. Further casting doubt on the plaintiffs' claim is the conspicuous conduct of Ramalingayya himself, who was arrayed as defendant No.6 in the suit proceedings. Despite the centrality of his status to the dispute, he did not file any written statement to assert his alleged biological relationship with Kubendrayya or Parvati. This inaction is both telling and material. Moreover, the obituary published in the widely circulated Vijaya Karnataka Kannada daily, marked as Ex.D4 and dated to 2007, also makes no mention of Ramalingayya as a family member, thus supporting the defendants’ contention that he was not recognized as a biological son within the family. 17. The oral evidence of defendant No.1, Parvati, stands firmly supported by the documentary rebuttal - 14 - RFA NO.100441 of 2019 evidence on record Ex.D3 (survivorship certificate), Ex.D4 (obituary notice), and Ex.D5 (medical record). In contrast, the plaintiffs' evidence appears feeble, particularly given that the property records produced by them (Exs.P1 to P3) do not reflect the name of Ramalingayya in the revenue entries pertaining to the immovable properties of Kubendrayya. This omission further reinforces the defendants’ version that Ramalingayya was merely a fostered child and not the biological son of Kubendrayya and Parvati. 18. In light of the overwhelming rebuttal evidence, both oral and documentary, we are of the firm view that the finding of the Trial Court is flawed, perverse, and not supported by cogent evidence. Accordingly, we answer the point for determination in the affirmative. CONCLUSIONS 19. The plaintiffs' claim that Ramalingayya is the biological son of Kubendrayya and Parvati is not satisfactorily established. Although they have relied on - 15 - RFA NO.100441 of 2019 school transfer certificates (Exs.P4 and P5), a death certificate (Ex.P13), and a survivorship certificate (Ex.P14), these documents are either secondary in nature or based on self-declared information. They lack the conclusive evidentiary value necessary to establish paternity or maternity, especially in the face of strong contradictory evidence. 20. The medical record marked as Ex.D5 constitutes conclusive and uncontroverted evidence against the plaintiffs' case. The fact that Parvati underwent a tubectomy procedure in February 1979 makes it biologically impossible for her to have given birth to Ramalingayya in January 1980, thereby medically negating the claim of biological maternity. 21. The defendants’ version that Ramalingayya was a foster child gains credence from multiple sources. These include the omission of Ramalingayya's name from the survivorship certificate of Kubendrayya (Ex.D3), the obituary notice (Ex.D4), and the oral testimony of Parvati - 16 - RFA NO.100441 of 2019 (Defendant No.1), who unequivocally denied maternity an assertion rarely made by a woman unless truthful. 22. The inaction and silence of Ramalingayya, who was impleaded as Defendant No.6, is both telling and material. His failure to assert his own biological link in the proceedings significantly undermines the plaintiffs’ version. 23. The absence of Ramalingayya’s name in the revenue records (Exs.P1 to P3) concerning the properties of Kubendrayya further weakens the plaintiffs’ case. This omission suggests that he was never recognized as a legal heir or family member in official property transactions. 24. Taken cumulatively, the evidence adduced by the defendants is overwhelming and casts serious doubt on the authenticity and credibility of the plaintiffs' narrative. The Trial Court's finding in favor of the plaintiffs appears to be contrary to the weight of evidence and is liable to be set aside. - 17 - RFA NO.100441 of 2019 25. For the forgoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed. ii) The preliminary decree dated 04.06.2019 passed in O.S.No.72/2015 by the Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal is hereby set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed. iii) In view of disposal of the appeal, all pending I.A’s, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same are disposed off. iv) Draw decree accordingly, Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE MBS Ct:vh