- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8726 RSA No. 100981 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL RSA NO.100981 OF 2019 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: SMT. PARVATI W/O. PARASAPPA HARUGERI, SINCE DECEASED REP BY. LR. SMT.RUKMA W/O. GOPAL KHOT, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: H.H. WORK AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHINCHALI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 217. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K. L. PATIL & SRI. MAQBOOL PATIL, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O. KASHRAM KHOT, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: H.H. WORK AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHINCHALI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 217. SHRI. DHAREPPA S/O KASHIRAM KHOT DECEASED BY LRS, 2. KUMAR KARAN S/O. DHAREPPA KHOT, AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: CHINCHALI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 217. 3. KUMAR KARTHIK S/O. DHAREPPA KHOT, AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: CHINCHALI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. KUMARI KEERTHI D/O. DHAREPPA KHOT, AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: CHINCHALI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 217. (SINCE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 4 ARE MINORS Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8726 RSA No. 100981 of 2019 THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.5) 5. SMT. IRAKKA W/O. DHAREPPA KHOT, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHINCHALI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 217. 6. SMT. CHANDRAKKA W/O. KALLAPPA KHOT, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHINCHALI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 217. 7. SMT. KASTURI W/O. SHRIKANT HARUGERI, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHINCHALI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 217. 8. MISS. GEETHA D/O. KALLAPPA KHOT, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHINCHALI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 217. 9. SHRI. RAGHAVENDRA KALLAPPA KHOT, AGE: 29 YEARS, CC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHINCHALI, Q: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 217. 10. SHRI. *MANJUNATH S/O.KALLAPPAP KHOT, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHINCHALI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 217. 11. SMT. PHONDABAI W/O. MUDAKAPPA HARUGERI, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHINCHALI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 217. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R6 TO R10; R1 TO R5 AND R11 ARE SERVED; R2 TO R4 ARE MINORS REP/BY R5) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.07.2019 PASSED BY VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI AT CHIKKODI IN R.A.NO.294/2016. AND DECREE *Corrected Vide Court order dated 12.09.2025 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8726 RSA No. 100981 of 2019 THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF BY UPHOLDING/CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.10.2016 PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAIBAG IN O.S.NO.87/2013 ALL COST OF THIS APPEAL AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) 1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22nd July 2019, passed in R.A. No.294/2016 by the VII-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Chikodi (for short “the First Appellate Court”). By the said judgment, the First Appellate Court, while allowing the appeal filed by the defendants, set aside the judgment and decree dated 7th October 2016, passed in O.S. No.87/2013, by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Raibag (for short “the trial Court”), and consequently dismissed the suit. 2. The above suit in O.S. No.87/2013 is filed by the plaintiff seeking partition and separate possession in respect of the following properties: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8726 RSA No. 100981 of 2019 Sl. No. R.S. No. Measurement As.- Gs. Assessment Rs. Ps. Location Extent As.-Gs.-A-P 1. 139/10 02-14 07-19 Chinchali Full 2. 139/12 02-09 06-80 Chinchali Full 3. 146 PK 18-19 00-18 33-00 Chinchali 00-10-02-66 00-10-02-66 00-10-02-67 00-10-02-67 00-10-02-67 00-10-02-67 4. 147/1 PK 06-38 00-04 09-66 Chinchali Full 5. 147/2 PK 06-37 00-03 09-66 Chinchali Full 6. 148 07-24 16-42 Chinchali Full 7. 149A/1A/1 PK 04-03 00-25 06-21 Chinchali 02-00-00-00 8. 149A/1B/2 01-10 01-88 Chinchali Full 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that one Appaji was the propositus. He and his wife Mayavva, passed away leaving behind them their two sons, namely Kashiram and Kallappa, and two daughters, namely, Phondabai (defendant No.9) and Parvathi (plaintiff). Kashiram predeceased Appaji, leaving him behind his legal heirs, namely defendant Nos.1 and 2. Defendant No.3 is the wife of defendant No.2. Kallappa, the second son of the propositus, also passed away, leaving behind his legal heirs, namely defendant No.4 to 8. Since there has been no partition and separate possession of the suit schedule - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8726 RSA No. 100981 of 2019 properties by metes and bounds, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking partition and separate possession. 4. The suit was resisted by defendant Nos.4 to 8, contending that, Appaji Kallappa *Khot was their grandfather who had purchased various properties including properties in RS Nos.147 and 148 out of his own self earning. His two sons namely Kashiram and Kallappa had purchased land in RS Nos.139/12 and 139/10 of Chinchali village out of their own self earnings in terms of deed of sale dated 15.03.1973. That there was a prior partition of the suit properties between said Appaji Kallapa Khot and his sons as they were the only coparceners entitled for share and that the plaintiff and defendant No.9 had also relinquished their rights by executing an affidavit on 16.03.1991. They have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares and the plaintiffs have no share, right, title and interest in the suit schedule properties. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit. *Corrected Vide Court order dated 12.09.2025 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8726 RSA No. 100981 of 2019 5. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the suit properties are ancestral and HUF properties? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the lands in R.S.Nos.149/A/1B/s and 149/A purchased out of the joint family funds in the name of 2nd defendant? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the WILL dated 17.06.2011 said to be executed by Mayavva Khot is concocted one? 4. Whether the defendants prove that, the lands in R.S.No.147, 148, 139/12 and 139/10 had purchased by the grand-father of defendant Nos.5 to 8 and sons of Appaji as pleaded in para Nos.15 and 16 of written statement? 5. Whether these defendants prove that, there was a partition in the year 1983 between Appaji and his 2 sons as pleaded in para No.17 of written statement? 6. Whether the these defendants prove that, the other legal heirs of Appaji Khot relinquished their right and original plaintiff and others had consented for the same in favour of Dhareppa and Kallappa as pleaded in para No.18 of written statement? 7. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder necessary parties? 8. Whether the court fee paid is sufficient? 9. Whether the court has got jurisdiction to try the suit? 10. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the share? If so, what extent? 11. What order or decree?” - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8726 RSA No. 100981 of 2019 6. In order to substantiate the case, the daughter of the plaintiff was examined as PW1, and another witness was examined as PW2. The plaintiff also produced 28 documents, which were marked as Exs.P1 to P28. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No.7 examined himself as DW1 and examined three other witnesses as DW2 to DW4. The defendants produced 45 documents, marked as Exs.D1 to D45 7. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court answered issue Nos.1, 2 and 8 to 10 in the affirmative, and issue Nos.3 to 7 in the negative. Consequently, decreed the suit granting 1/4th share in the suit properties to the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 9. 8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants No.4 to 8 preferred an appeal in R.A. No.294/2016 before the First Appellate Court. 9. The First Appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8726 RSA No. 100981 of 2019 “1. Whether the Trial Court has committed error in appreciating the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence of both the parties in a proper and perspective manner and hence, the judgment and Decree dated 07.10.2016 passed by the Learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag in O.S.No.87/2013 is liable to be set aside by way of interference by this Court? 2. What order or Decree?” 10. The First Appellate Court accepting the contention of defendants No.4 to 8 with regard to prior partition and the plaintiff and defendant No.9 relinquishing their share, right, title and interest in the suit properties, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is by the plaintiff. 11. This Court by order dated 07.08.2024 admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law: “i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in this case, the First Appellate Court is justified in holding that there was previous partition in the family of the plaintiff and defendant based on the revenue entries? ii) Whether, First Appellate Court is justified in holding that there is relinquishment of right over the suit scheduled property by the plaintiff there was being extence of relinquishment? - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8726 RSA No. 100981 of 2019 iii) Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in dismissing the suit barred by limitation?” 12. Learned counsel, Sri.K.L.Patil appearing for the appellant/plaintiff taking this Court through the records more particularly the averments made in Paragraphs No.15, 16, 17 and 18 of the written statement vehemently contended that the defendants No.4 to 8 have taken a mutual contradictory and destructive stand. In that, while it is contended that the land bearing Sy.Nos.147 and 148 were the self-acquired properties of propositus Appaji and except the said properties, rest of the properties are the self-acquired properties of his sons Kallappa and Kashiram. However, at paragraph No.17 they have claimed that all the properties including the said self-acquired properties were the subject matter of partition. He submits that this admission by defendants No.4 to 8 indicate that though they claimed certain properties to be the self-acquired properties of propositus as well as said Kallappa and Kashiram, they had put the same into joint family hotpotch and treating the same to be the joint family properties. He - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8726 RSA No. 100981 of 2019 submits that DW.1 in his deposition recorded at page No.9 had deposed that there was a registered partition, however he has not produced the said document. That in the light of the averments made in paragraphs No.14 and 17 of the written statement and the deposition of DW.1 with regard to the existence of deed of partition, the theory of earlier partition setup by the said defendants ought not to have been accepted by the First Appellate Court in the absence of any evidence in that regard. 13. His other submission is with regard to the relinquishment made by the plaintiff and defendant No.9 as per Ex.D.23. He submits that the said relinquishment deed has allegedly come into existence subsequent to the demise of the original propositus Appaji i.e. on 11.03.1991. The said document not having been registered in the manner known to law was inadmissible and the First Appellate Court committed illegality in relying upon the same. 14. Thus, submits that the First Appeal Court erred both on facts and law in accepting the theory of prior - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8726 RSA No. 100981 of 2019 partition and the relinquishment of rights by the plaintiff and defendant No.9. 15. He further submits that the First Appellate Court also erred in dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation merely because the plaintiff has approached the Court by filing the suit in the year 2013 when the father had passed away in the year 1991. He submits that unless and until plea of ousting is made out, the law of limitation cannot be applied which is not the facts of the case. Hence, he submits the substantial questions of law be answered accordingly and appeal be allowed. 16. Per contra, Sri.Sangram S Kulkarani learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants No.4 to 8 taking this Court through Ex.P.16 which is mutation entry vide ME No.7273 submits that the property in Sy.Nos.148, 146/2A, 139/17 and 135/2 were allotted to the share of Appaji the propositus, while property bearing Sy.No.147/1 and 139/10 was allotted to the share of Kallappa, his first - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8726 RSA No. 100981 of 2019 son and property bearing Sy.No.147/2 and 139/12 were allotted to the share of grandson Dhareppa. 17. He submits that the said document is a public record evidencing the partition having been acted upon. He submits that the oral partition is permissible, valid and legal and same cannot be faulted with. He relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rathnamma vs. K.Rajappa reported in HCR 2011 Kant. 801 in support of the said submission. 18. As regards relinquishment, he submits that the plaintiff and defendant No.9 had executed declaration in terms of Ex.D.23 along with their mother Mayavva giving up their claim, right, share, title and interest in respect of properties namely land in Sy.No.148 measuring 7 acres 24 guntas, Sy.No.146/2A measuring 1 acre 21 guntas and another two properties which are not subject matter of the suit namely Sy.No.139/17 measuring 7 guntas and Sy.No.139/6 measuring 5 guntas. He submits thus in the light of the aforesaid oral partition duly evidenced by the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8726 RSA No. 100981 of 2019 revenue entries and the subsequent relinquishment made as per Ex.D.23 which is also duly recorded in the mutation entries, the plaintiff has no share, right, title or interest in any of the suit schedule properties. As such, he submits that the First Appellate Court was justified in dismissing the suit. Hence, he submits the substantial questions of law framed to be answered accordingly. 19. Heard and perused the records. 20. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Except land in Sy.No.147 and 148 to be the self- acquired properties of sons of Appaji, rest of the suit properties being the joint family properties is also not in dispute. However, a plea of prior partition is made by the defendants and have relied upon document at Ex.P.16 in support of this contention. 21. The vehement contention of the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff is that the oral partition is impermissible and the partition can only take place in terms of a registered deed of partition. Anything less than that cannot - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8726 RSA No. 100981 of 2019 be accepted. He refers to Sub-section (5) of Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act to contend that even according to the amended Act the partition can only take place and be evidenced only through a registered deed or by court decree and both not having been done the claim of oral partition as per Ex.P.16 cannot be accepted. 22. The aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff cannot be countenanced for the reason that the family partition/arrangements by way of oral agreements between the members of the joint family has been recognized. Provided however said arrangements and agreements must be evidenced by some public records regarding the same having been acted upon. This aspect of the matter has been taken note of by the Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma reported in AIR 2020 SC 3717, even while dealing with the requirement of a registered deed and a court partition, as contemplated under the amended provisions of Section 6. Para No.137 of the said judgment reads as under: - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8726 RSA No. 100981 of 2019 “137.5. In view of the rigour of provisions of the Explanation To Section 6(5) of the 1956 Act, a plea of oral partition cannot be accepted as the statutory recognized mode of partition effected by a deed of partition duly registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 or effected by a decree of a Court. However, in exceptional cases where plea of oral partition is supported by public documents and partition is finally evinced in the same manner as if it had been affected (sic effected) by a decree of a court, it may be accepted. A plea or partition based on oral evidence alone cannot be accepted and to be rejected outrightly.” 23. Similarly, this court in the case of Rathnamma supra, at para No.11 dealing with the question of proof of oral partition has held as under: “11. It is by now well settled that it is open to the members of the co-parcenery to arrange amicably separate possession and enjoyment of the family properties without effecting partition or disruption of the joint family, but at the same time whether the co- owners in exclusive possession of different portions of joint family property held the same in the partition or under an agreement as to the possession, depend upon the intention of the parties which has to be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. Where direct evidence of intention is available, there is no difficulty in determining the question. In cases where such direct evidence of intention is wanting, the fact that the members have been living separately and enjoying the properties, separately may be taken into consideration in arriving at the conclusions but that is not conclusive. A provisional arrangement which for some reason continued for a long time without objections doesn't take away its provisional character and make it permanent. There must be some other evidence indicating that the parties have not been living separately under a permanent arrangement or partition. It is also by now well settled that to prove the factum of partition between the brothers, the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8726 RSA No. 100981 of 2019 entries in the record of rights maintained in the official course of business is a relevant piece of evidence. It is not necessary that the partition should be affected by registered partition deed. It could be even oral also.” 24. Ex.P.16 is mutation register extract relied upon by the defendants in support of their contention of prior partition, which reads as under: “vÁjÃRÄ 05.09.1983 7273 ªÁnß:- ¨ÁdÄPÉÌ §gÉzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gÀUÀ¼À vÁ£ÀÄ, ªÀÄUÀ, ªÉƪÀÄäUÀ ¥ÀævÀåPÀë PÀ§eÁ ªÀ»ªÁl ¥ÀæPÁgÀ C¥À¸ÁvÀ ¥Á®Ä ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀ «ªÀgÀ PɼÀV£ÀAwzÉ:- j.¸À.£ÀA. PÉëÃvÀæ DPÁgÀ PÀ. zÁgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ 148 7-24 16-42 EªÀÅ C¥Áàf PÀ®è¥Áà 146/2A 1-21 2-25 SÉÆÃvÀ EªÀgÀ ¥Á°UÉ 139/17 0-01 0-02 135/2 0-10 0-29 147/1 6-34 9-66 PÀ®è¥Áà C¥Áàf SÉÆÃvÀ 139/10 2-14 7-19 EªÀgÀ ¥Á°UÉ 147/2 6-34 9-66 zsÀgÉ¥Áà PÁ²gÁªÀÄ SÉÆÃvÀ 139/12 2-09 6-90 ®QëèÁ¬Ä PÁ²gÁ SÉÆÃvÀ F ¥ÀæPÁgÀ zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä eÁ¬ÄAl ªÀ¢ð PÉÆlÖ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ zÁR®Ä” 25. Perusal of Ex.P.16 would indicate that the Appaji and his two sons, namely, Kallappa and Dhareppa had indeed entered into an oral partition partitioning the properties in terms of which, lands bearing Sy.No.148 measuring 7 acres 24 guntas, Sy.No.146/2A measuring 1 - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8726 RSA No. 100981 of 2019 acre 21 guntas, Sy.No.139/17, measuring 0.01 guntas and Sy.No.135/2 measuring 0.10 guntas are fallen to the share of Appaji Kallappa Khot; the lands bearing Sy.No.147/1 measuring 6 acres 34 guntas and Sy.No.139/10 measuring 2 acres 14 guntas are fallen to the share of Kallappa Appaji Khot, and the lands in Sy.No.147/2 measuring 6 acres 34 guntas and Sy.No.139/12 measuring 2 acres 09 guntas fallen to the share of Dhareppa Kashiram Khot. In furtherance thereof got the same entered into in the revenue records as far back as on 05.09.1993 vide ME No.7273 as noted above. 26. Ex.P.16 is mutation register entry which carries statutory presumption unless rebutted as contemplated under Section 133 of the Land Revenue Act, which reads as under: “133. Presumption regarding entries in the records. - An entry in the Record of Rights and a certified entry in the Register of Mutations or in the patta book shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefore.” - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8726 RSA No. 100981 of 2019 27. There is no rebuttal to this factum of prior partition. In the light of the aforesaid factual and legal aspect of the matter, this Court does not see any reason to differ with the view taken by the First Appellate Court as regards the oral partition is concerned. The first substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 28. As regards the issue of relinquishment by the plaintiff and defendant No.9 is concerned, defendants No.4 to 8 have relied upon Ex.D.23 which is allegedly executed by the plaintiff, defendant No.9 along with their mother Mayavva. The said document is in respect of land in Sy.No.148 measuring 7 acres 24 guntas, Sy.No.146/2A measuring 1 acre 21 guntas, Sy.No.139/17 measuring 7 guntas, Sy.No.139/6 measuring 5 guntas. Admittedly, the said document has come into existence subsequent to demise of the propositus Appaji. But for the said document, in the normal course, the plaintiff and defendant No.9 would have inherited/succeeded to definite share of their father's property equal to that of his sons/their brothers. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8726 RSA No. 100981 of 2019 29. It is settled law that relinquishment of any share, right, title and interest in the immovable property value of which is more than Rs.100/- shall be made only by way of a registered instrument, otherwise the plea of oral relinquishment cannot be accepted. 30. In that view the matter, the plea of relinquishment set up by the defendants in respect of the aforesaid properties cannot be accepted. 31. The First Appellate Court therefore in the considered view of this Court erred in upholding and accepting the plea of relinquishment in respect of the aforesaid items of the suit properties. The substantial question of law No.2 is answered accordingly. 32. Since as rightly contended to learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff that upon the demise of the propositus Appaji in the year 1991, the daughters became entitled for share in his properties and in the absence of any plea and proof of ousting them from their claim, the question of limitation cannot be set up against them. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8726 RSA No. 100981 of 2019 Admittedly, there has been no partition with regard to the properties which were allotted to the share of Appaji in the oral partition as per Ex.P.16 and the same have remained undivided. As such, plaintiff and defendant No.9 are entitled for a definite share in the said properties and the same is not barred by limitation. Further, it is also necessary to note that the plaintiff has not sought for share in the said properties apparently because their mother Mayavva was alive until the year 2011 and it is only thereafter they have sought for partition which is not uncommon. As such, the plea of limitation setup is also untenable. Substantial question of law No.3 is answered accordingly. 33. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i. The appeal is partly allowed. ii. The judgment and decree dated 22nd July 2019, passed in R.A. No.294/2016 by the VII-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Chikodi to the extent declining share to the plaintiff and defendant No.9 in land properties - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8726 RSA No. 100981 of 2019 bearing Sy.No.148 measuring 7 acres 24 guntas which is shown at Item No.6 of the suit properties is set aside. iii. It is held that the plaintiff and defendant No.9 are entitled for 1/4th share each, defendants No.1 to 3 together are entitled for 1/4th share and defendants No.4 to 8 together are entitled for 1/4th share in the said land in Sy.No.148 measuring 7 acre 24 guntas (shown at Item No.6 of the suit schedule properties). iv. Since the relinquishment deed also refers to the other three Items of properties namely: (i) land in Sy.No.146/2A measuring 1 acre 21 guntas, (ii) land in Sy.No.139/17 measuring 7 guntas and (iii) land in Sy.No.139/6 measuring 5 guntas which are not included in the schedule to the plaint, in the circumstances, plaintiff and defendant No.9 are entitled for 1/4th share each, defendants No.1 to 3 together are entitled for 1/4th share and defendants No.4 to 8 together are entitled for 1/4th share in the said properties. v. Plaintiff is at liberty to include the said properties in the final decree proceedings and same shall be taken into consideration while drawing up the decree. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8726 RSA No. 100981 of 2019 vi. As regards the suit of the plaintiff in respect of other items of suit properties, the same is dismissed. vii. No order as to costs. viii. Draw decree accordingly. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE VNP & SH / CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3