- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6998-DB RFA No. 100391 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH 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.100391 OF 2019 (DEC/PAR) BETWEEN: SHRI. SRISHAIL MURIGAYYA MUCHANDI HIREMATH, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB, R/O: GOKAK, GOKAK TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591307. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. C.S.SHETTAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. BASAVARAJ MURIGAYYA MUCHANDI HIREMATH, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB, R/O: SOMWAR PETH, GOKAK, GOKAK TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591307. 2. SHRI. VEERAYYA BASALINGAYYA @ SRIKANT MUCHANDI HIREMATH, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: JOB, R/O: MUDALAGI POLICE STATION, GOKAK, GOKAK TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591307. 3. SHRI. SHIVANAND BASALINGAYYA @ SRIKANT MUCHANDI HIREMATH, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB, R/O: GOKAK, GOKAK TALUKA, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591307. Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6998-DB RFA No. 100391 of 2019 4. SMT. SHANTAWWA SRIKANT MUCHANDI HIREMATH, AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: GOKAK, GOKAK TALUKA, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591307. 5. SMT. AKKAMAHADEVI VISHWANATHAYYA B.H. AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: GOKAK, GOKAK TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591307. 6. SMT. MEENAXI BASAVARAH KALLIMATH AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: MUNNOLI, SAUNDATTI TALUKA, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591307. 7. SMT. VIJAYALAXMI GAURISHANKAR SWAMI AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: HALAGA, BELAGAVI TALUKA, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591307. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.G.NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4; NOTICE TO R1, R5, R6 AND R7 ARE SERVED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.06.2019 PASSED IN O.S. NO.65/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GOKAK, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FOR DECLARATION, PARTITION AND SEPARTE POSSESSION. 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 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6998-DB RFA No. 100391 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) The captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree rendered by the Court below in O.S.No.65/2014 wherein plaintiff's suit seeking relief of partition in the suit schedule property by seeking a formal declaration that the disputed Wills and gift deeds in favour of defendants are not binding on their legitimate share is dismissed by the Court. The said judgment is impugned in the captioned appeal. 2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. The family tree is as under: (Veerayya) (Murigeyya) (Smt.Basawannewwa) 1st wife (Smt.Sonawwa) 2nd wife Basavaraj-D.1 Srishail-P (Basalingayya @ Srikant) Veerayya-D.2 Shivanand-D.3 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6998-DB RFA No. 100391 of 2019 4. The facts leading to the case are as under: The plaintiff contends that his mother, Basavanewwa, is the legally wedded wife of one Muragayya. He asserts that two children were born from this lawful wedlock, himself (the plaintiff) and defendant No.1, Basavaraj. The plaintiff further claims that the properties described in the suit schedule are joint family ancestral properties. He asserts that the original propositus, Veerayya, was adopted by one Basalingayya under an adoption deed dated 03.01.1922. The plaintiff pleads that CTS Nos.1954, 1956, and 1957 were properties held by the adoptive family of Veerayya. It is further averred that Veerayya had a son named Muragayya, who had two wives namely Basavanewwa (first wife) and Smt. Sonawwa (second wife). The plaintiff claims that he and defendant No.1 are the legitimate children born through the first wife, Basavanewwa, whereas Basalingayya, the father of defendants Nos.2 and 3, was - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6998-DB RFA No. 100391 of 2019 born from an illicit relationship between Muragayya and Sonawwa. It is further pleaded that Basavanewwa was driven out of the matrimonial home due to the influence of Sonawwa. The plaintiff also states that Veerayya was engaged in the dalal (brokerage) business, which he continued post- adoption, and subsequently, Muragayya also engaged in the same family occupation. The plaintiff has specifically pleaded that the properties listed under Schedule ‘B’ are coparcenary properties of the family. He alleges that his father, Muragayya, gifted Item No.1 to defendant No.2, while his grandfather Veerayya gifted Item No.5 to defendant No.1. Further, Item No.4 was allegedly bequeathed by Muragayya to defendant No.3, and Item No.9 was similarly bequeathed to defendant No.2. The plaintiff contends that since the suit schedule properties are coparcenary in nature, neither Veerayya nor Muragayya held absolute title to them. Therefore, the gift deed executed by Veerayya (Ex.P-20) and the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6998-DB RFA No. 100391 of 2019 testamentary disposition made by Muragayya in favour of defendants Nos.2 and 3 (Ex.P-12) are not binding upon his legitimate share. On this basis, the plaintiff seeks the relief of partition and separate possession. In response to the summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement, wherein they stoutly denied the plaintiff’s claim of being a legitimate son of Muragayya through Basavanewwa. On the contrary, the defendants asserted that Sonawwa alias Sona Bai was the only legally wedded wife of Muragayya, and that his relationship with Basavanewwa was illicit. They contended that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 were born out of this void relationship and hence had no legal claim to the suit schedule properties. Both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. Upon evaluation of the evidence, the Trial Court answered Issue No.3 in the affirmative, holding that defendants Nos.2 and 3 had established that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 were the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6998-DB RFA No. 100391 of 2019 illegitimate children of Muragayya. Issue No.4 was also answered in the affirmative, with the Trial Court concluding that defendants Nos.2 and 3 had proved joint ownership of Item No.4, while defendant No.2 was the absolute owner of Items Nos.1, 3, and 8, and defendant No.3 held absolute title to Items Nos.2 and 6. Regarding Issue No.5, the Trial Court held that the present suit for partial partition was not maintainable. As to Issue No.6, the Court held in the negative, finding that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the sale deeds, gift deeds, and Wills concerning Schedule ‘B’ properties were binding on him. Consequently, the Court concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to any share in the suit schedule properties. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has extensively argued reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memo. Referring to the records, he would point out that there is clinching evidence to substantiate that plaintiff is the legitimate son born through legally wedded wife - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6998-DB RFA No. 100391 of 2019 Basavanewwa. Referring to the Will on which defendants are placing reliance marked at Ex.P-13, wherein Muragayya has made a testamentary arrangement in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 relating to property bearing item Nos.B-9 and B-4. He would contend that there is a clear recital in the testamentary arrangement made by Muragayya indicating that he had first wife by name Basavanewwa and had two children. To further corroborate this crucial factor, plaintiff has also placed reliance on the sale deed obtained by Muragayya insofar as item Nos.B-7 and B-11 in the name of defendant No.1/Basavaraj vide Ex.P-19. Referring to this document, he would point out that Basavaraj's status as a son is clearly substantiated under this document. He would further place reliance on Ex.D-13 on which defendants themselves have placed reliance. Referring to Ex.D-13, he would point out that his brother Basavaraj gifted the property bearing item No.B-7 under Ex.D-13. In the said gift deed, he has clearly referred plaintiff as his brother. Referring to these significant details coupled with birth - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6998-DB RFA No. 100391 of 2019 certificate of defendant No.1/Basavaraj evidenced at Ex.P-27, he would point out that the finding recorded by the trial Court while answering issue No.3 clearly suffers from perversity. 6. He would further vehemently argue and contend that though defendants have not proved the Will vide Ex.P-13 in the manner known to law, the plaintiff is non- suited even in respect of those properties which are covered under the Will evidenced at Ex.P-13. Referring to these significant details, he would contend that the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court suffers from perversity and therefore, warrants interference at the hands of this Court. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the defendants has vehemently argued that the plaint is vague and lacking in material particulars, thereby failing to comply with the mandatory requirements under Order VI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. She submits that it is not disputed that propositus Veerayya was - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6998-DB RFA No. 100391 of 2019 adopted by Basalingayya, and that the said adoption took place when Veerayya already had a biological son, namely Muragayya. In view of this admitted position, the plaintiff and the defendants do not constitute members of a joint and undivided Hindu family, and there exists no coparcenary or ancestral estate that would confer a birthright on the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule properties. 8. Learned counsel further argues that although the fact of adoption is not seriously disputed by the plaintiff, the entire premise of the suit that the properties are coparcenary and the plaintiff has a birthright therein is legally untenable. She contends that both Veerayya and Muragayya were absolute owners of their respective properties, and hence, the sale deeds, gift deeds, and testamentary dispositions executed by them are valid and binding, and cannot be questioned by the plaintiff on the erroneous assumption of coparcenary rights. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6998-DB RFA No. 100391 of 2019 9. She further submits that while the plaintiff, by way of an amendment inserting paragraph 3(a), has attempted to circumvent the defence raised by the defendants, the amended plaint still fails to disclose necessary particulars regarding the origin of the properties held by Veerayya and Muragayya, the nature of their acquisition, and whether such properties were acquired out of any joint family nucleus. It is emphasized that in the absence of specific and detailed pleadings demonstrating the existence of such a nucleus and its utilization for the acquisition of the suit properties, the bald and vague assertions made in the plaint are insufficient to sustain a claim for partition. Accordingly, the present suit is liable to be dismissed for want of proper pleadings and legal foundation. 10. Heard learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and learned counsel appearing for the defendants. The following points would arise for consideration: - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6998-DB RFA No. 100391 of 2019 1) Whether the trial court's finding that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are illegitimate children of Muragayya is perverse and unsupported by evidence, thereby warranting appellate interference? 2) Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's suit despite the failure of the defendants to prove the Will (Ex.P-13) in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3, and in the absence of compliance with statutory requirements under the Indian Succession Act? 3) Whether the trial court’s finding on Issue No.6 that the properties acquired by Muragayya in the names of defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.2 and 3 during their minority are to be treated as joint family properties, and thus the testamentary dispositions and gift deeds executed by him are binding on the plaintiff is perverse and warrants interference? Finding on Point No.1: 11. It is pertinent to note that although the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3 have disputed their respective relationship with Muragayya, the documentary and oral evidence placed on record, particularly by the plaintiff, and the documents relied upon even by the defendants - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6998-DB RFA No. 100391 of 2019 themselves, go a long way in resolving the controversy surrounding the legitimacy and familial ties between the parties and the propositus, Muragayya. 12. A key document in this regard is Ex.P-19, which is a Property card mutating defendants' name post registered sale deed obtained by Muragayya at an undisputed point in time. This document makes reference to Basavaraj, post-sale, describing him as the son of Muragayya, thereby lending significant support to the plaintiff’s contention that Basavaraj is the biological son of Muragayya. Ex.P-19, which is the property card, reinforces this relational claim and establishes the link between Muragayya and Basavaraj. 13. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 have sought to assert title to property item Nos.B-9 and B-4 based on a Will dated 13.12.1996, which has been marked as Ex.P-13. Strikingly, the recitals within this Will, which emanate from none other than the testator, Muragayya himself, unequivocally acknowledge Basavanewwa as his first wife - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6998-DB RFA No. 100391 of 2019 and expressly state that he had two children through her. This statement is a vital admission from the testator and carries immense evidentiary weight in proving the familial relationship. 14. Additionally, Ex.D-13, a gift deed executed by Basavaraj in favour of the plaintiff, further fortifies the plaintiff’s case by connecting all the dots concerning the paternity of both Basavaraj and the plaintiff, as well as the marital relationship between Muragayya and Basavanewwa. This document acts as a corroborative piece of evidence clearly indicating that Basavanewwa was indeed the first wife of Muragayya and that Basavaraj and the plaintiff were born through her. 15. This position is further strengthened by Ex.P-27, which is a birth certificate of defendant No.1, who was born on 01.06.1950. In this document, the names of the parents are recorded as Muragayya and Basavanewwa. This not only affirms the identity of Basavanewwa as the mother of defendant No.1 but also supports the continuity - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6998-DB RFA No. 100391 of 2019 and recognition of the marital relationship between Muragayya and Basavanewwa in official records. 16. In the light of this chain of cogent and corroborative evidence, it becomes apparent that the trial court either misread or failed to appreciate these crucial documentary materials while deciding issue No.3. The failure to consider the significance of Ex.P-13, Ex.P-19, Ex.D-13, and Ex.P-27 has led to a manifest error, resulting in a perverse finding that cannot be sustained in law. 17. Furthermore, it is relevant to consider Ex.P-28, which shows that Basalingaiah, a son born through Sonawwa (alleged second wife), was born in the year 1938. This predates the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and therefore, an inference can reasonably be drawn that both marriages, one with Basavanewwa and the other with Sonawwa were solemnized before codification. In such a factual and legal context, both Basavanewwa and Sonawwa would attain the status of legally wedded wives under the - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6998-DB RFA No. 100391 of 2019 personal law prevailing at the time. Consequently, the children born through both these marital relationships, including the plaintiff, are entitled to be treated as legitimate children of Muragayya. 18. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the trial court’s finding on issue No.3 is clearly perverse, being based on a misappreciation and/or omission of critical evidence. Such a finding warrants interference by this appellate court. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the affirmative. Finding on Point No.2: 19. Though the plaintiff has instituted a comprehensive suit primarily seeking the relief of partition, he has also incidentally sought a declaratory relief that the gift deed and the testamentary disposition specifically, the Will dated 13.12.1996 marked as Ex.P-13 are not binding upon his independent and rightful share. It is significant to note that the defendants, particularly defendant Nos.2 and - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6998-DB RFA No. 100391 of 2019 3, have asserted that they have acquired absolute title over certain items of the suit schedule properties by virtue of the said Will. In making such a claim, the defendants, who are the named beneficiaries and legatees under the Will, were legally obligated to establish the validity and due execution of the Will in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. 20. In this regard, Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, read with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, mandates that for a Will to be proved, it must be attested by at least two witnesses, and at least one of the attesting witnesses must be examined in court to testify to its execution. This is a statutory requirement and not a mere formality. However, in the present case, although the defendants have relied on a certified copy of the Will dated 13.12.1996, they have failed to examine even a single attesting witness to prove its execution. In the absence of such statutory compliance, the Will cannot be said to have been proved in the manner known to law. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6998-DB RFA No. 100391 of 2019 21. Consequently, the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s claim in respect of Schedule B item Nos.4 and 9 of the suit schedule properties, which are the subject matter of the said Will. As per the defendants' claim, item No.B9 was bequeathed to defendant No.2 and item No.B4 to defendant No.3 under the said testamentary document. However, the failure to comply with the statutory requirements for proving the Will renders the claim of absolute title by the defendants untenable. Therefore, the learned trial Judge’s finding on Issue No.6, which was recorded against the plaintiff, is not sustainable in law insofar as it pertains to the properties covered under the unproved Will at Ex.P-13. 22. This Court has, in a consistent line of decisions has held that a legatee under a Will must first discharge the burden of proving the Will’s due execution by examining at least one attesting witness. In the absence of such proof, the Will cannot be accepted as valid evidence to defeat the rights of other claimants. Since no attesting - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6998-DB RFA No. 100391 of 2019 witness has been examined in the present case, this Court finds that the trial court’s conclusion suffers from a patent error and results in perversity. 23. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the trial court in respect of the Will marked as Ex.P-13 is liable to be set aside. This Court, therefore, answers Point No.2 in the affirmative, holding that the Will has not been proved in accordance with law and that the trial court’s finding to the contrary warrants interference. Finding on Point No.3: 24. Upon a closer and critical examination of the pleadings and the evidence adduced by both parties, it becomes evident that significant and material facts have been withheld or inadequately pleaded by both the plaintiff and the defendants. One of the most crucial facts, which lies at the heart of the dispute, concerns the adoption of Veerayya, the propositus by one Basalingaiah Hiremath. It is not in dispute that Muragayya, the plaintiff’s father, was - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6998-DB RFA No. 100391 of 2019 already born in the genetic family before Veerayya’s adoption. This singular fact has wide-ranging legal consequences that the plaintiff has failed to properly address in his pleadings. 25. In a suit of this nature, where the plaintiff is asserting a claim over ancestral or coparcenary properties, and simultaneously claiming through both Veerayya and Muragayya, it was incumbent upon him to plead with precision two distinct lines of succession and ownership. However, the plaint is conspicuously silent on explaining how, despite the legal severance created by Veerayya’s adoption, the plaintiff continues to assert rights over properties that allegedly belonged to Veerayya. 26. Under settled principles of Hindu law, once Veerayya was given in adoption to Basalingaiah, he ceased to be a member of his natural family and became a son of the adoptive father for all legal and proprietary purposes. All his subsequent rights, obligations, and property devolutions would arise solely from the adoptive family. At - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6998-DB RFA No. 100391 of 2019 the same time, Muragayya, having remained in the natural family, could not legally form a joint Hindu family or a coparcenary with Veerayya post-adoption. Consequently, the presumption of joint family status between Veerayya and Muragayya is legally unsustainable, unless specifically pleaded and affirmatively proved with cogent evidence which is lacking in this case. 27. Furthermore, the plaint is devoid of any clear pleadings or evidence to establish that there existed a joint family nucleus that would have enabled pooling of resources between Veerayya and Muragayya. Absent such proof, the properties acquired or held by either must be treated as self-acquired or independently held properties. 28. It is also relevant to note from the evidence on record that Veerayya, during his lifetime, executed a gift deed in favour of defendant No.1, thereby transferring Schedule B item Nos.5 and 10, which is corroborated by the property card marked at Ex.P-20. Likewise, Muragayya, acting in his individual capacity, purchased item Nos.B-7 - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6998-DB RFA No. 100391 of 2019 and B-11 in the name of his minor son, defendant No.1. He also executed a gift deed transferring item No.B-1 to defendant No.2, as evidenced by Ex.P-10, and further purchased property bearing item No.B-3 in the name of defendant No.2 (Ex.P-3) and item No.B-2 in the name of defendant No.3 while he was a minor. Similarly, item No.B- 6 was purchased by Muragayya in the name of defendant No.3, as evidenced by Ex.P-12. 29. When these facts are considered collectively, it becomes clear that there is a consistent pattern of individual acquisitions and dispositions made by both Veerayya and Muragayya in their independent capacities. In the absence of any reliable material to establish that the properties were held jointly or originated from a common nucleus, this Court is compelled to conclude that Veerayya and Muragayya did not constitute an undivided Hindu joint family. 30. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion that he has a birthright in all these properties, on the assumption that - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6998-DB RFA No. 100391 of 2019 they form part of a coparcenary estate, is legally flawed and factually unsubstantiated. The clear implication of Veerayya’s adoption is that his property devolved solely under the laws applicable to the adoptive family, and not through any coparcenary lineage traceable to Muragayya. The finding recorded by the trial court on Issue No.6, therefore, is legally sound and does not warrant interference. Hence, point No.3 is answered in the negative. 31. Moreover, upon a further close analysis of the evidence let in by the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3, a striking fact emerges: although Veerayya and Muragayya acquired and owned several properties, all these properties were either transferred by way of gift deeds or purchased in the names of their respective minor children. For reasons best known to him, Muragayya did not make any gift or property arrangement in favour of his son Srishail, the plaintiff. However, there is one exception: as seen from Ex.D-13, defendant No.1, who is the plaintiff’s full - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6998-DB RFA No. 100391 of 2019 brother, gifted item No.B-7 to the plaintiff. This property originally flowed from the propositus Veerayya and was received by defendant No.1 before he made the gift to the plaintiff. 32. While a majority of the valuable properties were transferred in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3, the plaintiff appears to have been left without any substantial share. Though this might be inequitable on the face of it, the legal rights must flow from valid title and proper execution of instruments. In light of the defendants' failure to establish due execution of the Will dated 13.12.1996 (Ex.P-13) by examining an attesting witness, as mandated under Sections 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and 63 of the Indian Succession Act, this Court finds it appropriate to reverse the trial court’s findings on the Will. 33. Balancing the equities and in pursuit of substantial justice, while upholding the trial court’s findings on Issue No.6 regarding the status of properties as self- acquired or individually held, this Court sets aside the trial - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6998-DB RFA No. 100391 of 2019 court’s finding concerning the proof of the Will. The defendants, having failed in statutory compliance to prove the Will, cannot rely upon it to exclude the plaintiff. Therefore, the finding on the Will is reversed in favour of the plaintiff, thereby allowing him a limited claim to the extent permissible under law. 34. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is partly allowed; (ii) The judgment and decree dated 11.06.2019 passed in O.S.No.65/2014 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gokak, is modified to the extent indicated below; (iii) The suit is decreed in respect of Schedule B item Nos.4 and 9, which are properties covered under the Will dated 13.12.1996, marked as Ex.P-13, as the said Will has not been proved in accordance with law; - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6998-DB RFA No. 100391 of 2019 (iv) Consequently, in respect of Schedule B item Nos.4 and 9, the plaintiff, defendant No.1 (Basavaraj), and Basalingaiah (the son of Veerayya born through his second wife Sonawwa and father of defendant Nos.2 and 3) shall each be entitled to 1/3rd share; (v) The preliminary decree passed by the trial court is modified accordingly, to reflect the aforesaid division of Schedule B item Nos.9 and 4; (vi) In all other respects, the judgment and decree of the trial court is confirmed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE CA Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27