- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6654-DB RFA No. 100128 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST 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. 100128 OF 2023 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: SOMAYYA W/O. BASAYYA CHIPPALKATTIMATH, AGE: 82 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KUDALAGI VILLAGE, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-581204. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S. S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SHASHIKALA D/O. SOMAYYA CHIPPALKATTIMATH, (AFTER MARRIAGE CALLED AS SASHIKALA P. TUPPAD), AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. UNKAL, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580031. 2. SMT. SUDHA D/O. SOMAYYA CHIPPALKATTIMATH, (AFTER MARRIAGE SMT. SUDHA W/O. MRUTUNJAYA HUDED), AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. R.M. LOHIYA NAGAR, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580030. 3. SMT. DRAKSHAYANI D/O. SOMAYYA CHIPPALKATTIMATH, (AFTER MARRIAGE SMT. DRAKSHAYANI W/O. RAVIKUMAR ULLAGADDI), AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. NEAR NEW BUS STAND, DIST: DHARWAD-580008. Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.04.25 14:29:23 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6654-DB RFA No. 100128 of 2023 4. SMT. SHANTA W/O. SOMAYYA CHIPPALKATTIMATH, AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. C/O. DRAKSHAYANI W/O. RAVIKUMAR ULLAGADDI, NEAR NEW BUS STAND, DIST: DHARWAD-580008. 5. SRI. IRAYYA S/O. SOMAYYA CHIPPALKATTIMATH, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KUDALAGI VILLAGE, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD-581204. 6. SMT. SUMANGALA D/O. SOMAYYA CHIPPALKATTIMATH, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. HOSAHIREMATH ONI, KAMALAPUR, DHARWAD-580008. 7. SMT. LALITA D/O. SOMAYYA CHIPPALKATTIMATH, (AFTER MARRIAGE SMT. LALITA W/O. BASALINGAYYA RACHAYYANAVAR), AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. HOSAHIREMATH ONI, KAMALAPUR, DIST: DHARWAD-580008. 8. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S/O. BASAYYA RACHAYYANAVAR, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, R/O. HOSAHIREMATH ONI, KAMALAPUR, DIST: DHARWAD-580008. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA G. NAIDU AND SMT. LAXMI K.LAMANI, ADVOCATES FOR R1 TO R4, R6 AND R7; NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.5 IS SERVED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.02.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.58/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, KALAGHATAGI, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE 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:6654-DB RFA No. 100128 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) This captioned appeal is by the defendant No.1- Somayya, who has challenged the allotment of share to the plaintiffs/daughters granted in O.S.No.58/2021. 2. For the sake of convenience, 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: Shivabasayya S/o. Basayya Chippalkattimath (Propositus, died) Somayya S/o. Basayya Chippalkattimath (Son, Def-1) Smt. Shanta W/o. Somayya Chippalkattimath (wife of Def-2) Shashikala Sudha Drakshayani Sumangala Lalita Irayya Saroja (Pltf-1) (Pltf-2) (Pltf-3) (Def-4) (Def-5) (Def-3) (Dead) Shivkumar (Def-6) 4. Plaintiffs No.1 to 3, who are daughters have filed the suit against their father-Somayya and sisters and mother-Shanta, who is arrayed as defendant No.2. Plaintiffs - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6654-DB RFA No. 100128 of 2023 have contended that suit schedule properties are joint family ancestral properties and they were accordingly allotted to plaintiffs’ father i.e., defendant No.1 in a suit filed in LC.No.188/1951. 5. Defendant No.1 after receipt of summons tendered appearance and filed written statement and specifically contended that the suit schedule properties were allotted to him in a compromise recorded in LC.No.188/1951 and therefore defendant No.1 asserted that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties and plaintiffs being his daughters cannot enforce partition in the properties, which he holds as the absolute owner. 6. The plaintiffs and defendants to substantiate their respective claims led in oral and documentary evidence. The trial Court while answering to issue No.3 in the ‘negative’ having examined the oral and documentary evidence, more particularly Ex.P.10, mutation bearing No.332, which is of the year 1946, found that the suit schedule properties are coparcener properties. Referring to these documents, the trial Court was of the view that merely because defendant - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6654-DB RFA No. 100128 of 2023 No.1 was allotted the suit schedule properties by way of compromise recorded in the suit, he cannot assert exclusive title over the suit schedule properties, accordingly the suit was decreed. 7. Heard learned counsel for appellant/defendant No.1. There is no representation on behalf of plaintiffs. We have carefully examined the pleadings of the plaint and written statement. We have given our anxious consideration to the oral and documentary evidence. We have also given our anxious consideration to the documents referred to by the trial Court at paragraph Nos.12 to 14. 8. The following points would arise for our consideration: (i) Whether the finding of the trial Court on issue No.3 that the defendant No.1 has failed to prove that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties, is perverse and therefore warrants interference at the hands of this Court? (ii) What order? - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6654-DB RFA No. 100128 of 2023 Finding on point No.(i) 9. The documentary evidence on record clearly establishes that the suit schedule properties are joint family ancestral properties, a fact which is not disputed. Exhibit P.10 specifically evidences a partition between Basayya and Shivarudrayya that took place in the year 1946. This document is crucial in affirming the ancestral nature of the properties. 10. A careful perusal of Exhibits P.1 to P.7 reveals that the suit schedule properties stood in the name of Basayya, the father of defendant No.1. Exhibit P.8, which is a certified copy of a mutation entry indicates that the names reflected therein were mutated by way of inheritance. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiffs’ ancestor, Shivabasayya, passed away in the year 1993, and subsequent to his demise, the name of Basayya was recorded in respect of the family lands. Furthermore, Exhibit P.9 is a certified copy of Mutation Entry No.194, which documents a partition between Basayya and Shivarudrayya. This is further corroborated by Exhibit P.10, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6654-DB RFA No. 100128 of 2023 which again records the partition that occurred in the year 1946, reinforcing the fact that the properties are of ancestral origin. 11. A closer examination of the documentary evidence leaves no room for doubt that defendant No.1 has come into possession of the suit schedule properties by way of survivorship as a coparcener in the joint Hindu family. These properties, having devolved upon him by virtue of his status as a coparcener, continue to retain their character as joint family ancestral properties. The mere fact that these properties were allotted to defendant No.1 through a compromise decree in a suit registered as LC No.188/1951 does not, by itself, confer upon him absolute ownership. In order to exclude the plaintiffs, who are the granddaughters and coparceners by birth pursuant to the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, defendant No.1 was under a legal obligation to adduce rebuttal evidence to show that he acquired these properties independently under Section 8 of the said Act. To succeed in such a defence, it was necessary for defendant No.1 to establish that the properties in question were not ancestral but were in fact - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6654-DB RFA No. 100128 of 2023 self-acquired by his ancestors, and that he inherited them in his individual capacity. 12. However, there are no pleadings to that effect, nor has any evidence been led to support such a contention. The evidence on record, on the contrary, consistently points to the joint family and ancestral nature of the properties. Consequently, in light of the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, which confers equal rights on daughters as coparceners, the plaintiffs, being daughters in the family, have acquired a right by birth in the suit schedule properties and are legally entitled to an equal share alongside defendant No.1. 13. The trial Court, in addressing Issue No.3, has rightly relied on the evidence presented by the plaintiffs and has appropriately concluded that, in the absence of any cogent, reliable, and rebuttal evidence from defendant No.1 to prove his exclusive title, the properties remain ancestral and jointly owned. Moreover, the trial Court has also correctly dealt with an alternative plea raised by defendant No.1 during the course of the trial—that since the plaintiffs and defendants No.3 to No.5 received certain items such as gold, silver, and - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6654-DB RFA No. 100128 of 2023 cash during their marriages, they are not entitled to a share in the suit properties. This defence too has been justly rejected by the trial Court for want of any substantiating evidence. Defendant No.1, having failed to prove either his absolute ownership or to establish the exclusion of the plaintiffs on alternative grounds, cannot defeat their lawful claim. Hence, the finding of the trial Court on Issue No.3 is supported by law and evidence and does not warrant interference. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the negative. Finding on point No.(ii) 14. In the light of discussions made above, we are of the view that the appeal is devoid of merits. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE CKK Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23