- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36812-DB RFA No. 1901 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1901 OF 2012 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI GOPAL S/O LATE CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO. 1013,P.B.S. ROAD BOLAPPA GARDEN, YELAHANKA TOWN, BANGALORE- 560 064. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. G.S. VENKAT SUBBA RAO.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI SRINIVASA MURTHY S/O LATE CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO. 1013, P.B.S. ROAD, BOLAPPA GARDEN, YELAHANKA TOWN, BANGALORE - 560 064. 2. SRI NAGARAJ SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 2A. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE Y.C. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36812-DB RFA No. 1901 of 2012 3. 2B. SMT.MANJULA D/O LATE Y.C. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 2C. SRI.NAVEEN S/O LATE Y.C. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 2D. SMT.GEETHA D/O LATE Y.C. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 2A TO 2D ALL R/A NO.93, K.H.B. COLONY, 2ND MAIN, GANDHINAGAR, YELAHANKA TOWN BANGALORE- 560 064. SRI. CHINNATHAYAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 3A. SMT. VIJAYA WIFE OF LATE CHINNATHAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 3B. MASTER CHINNESH S/O LATE CHINNATHAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS. 3C. MASTER RAJESH S/O LATE CHINNATHAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS SINCE 3B AND 3C ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT.VIJAYA W/O LATE CHINNATHAYAPPA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36812-DB RFA No. 1901 of 2012 3A TO 3C ARE R/AT NO.1013, P.B.S. ROAD BOLAPPA GARDEN, YELAHANKA TOWN BANGALORE- 560 064. 4. SMT SHANTHA W/O LATE RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 5. MASTER PUNEETH, S/O LATE RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS SINCE MINOR REP. BY HIS MOTHER & NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. SHANTHA 4 AND 5 R/A NO.R/A NO. 1013, P.B.S ROAD, BOLAPPA GARDEN, YELAHANKA TOWN, BANGALORE- 560 064. 6. SRI. VENKATESH S/O LATE CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O HAALU SUBANNA BUILDING 2ND MAIN, 22ND CROSS, GANDHI NAGAR, YELAHANKA BANGALORE- 560 064. 7. SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O SRI RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O KONAGHATTA, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DIST. 8. SMT JAYAMMA W/O SRI ANJANAPPA, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36812-DB RFA No. 1901 of 2012 AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O KONAGHATTA, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DIST. …RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DATED 27.11.2024, APPEAL AGAINST R1, STANDS ABATED, R2(A), R2(B), R2(C) AND R2(D) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED, BY SRI.C.N.KAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3(A), R7 AMD R8, R3 (B AND C) ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R3(A), R4 IS SERVED AND UNREPRSENTED, R5 MINOR REPRESENTED BY R4, BY SRI.MANOHAR B.K., ADVOATE FOR R6) THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:02.04.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.4644/2007 ON THE FILE OF XVII-ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) This appeal is filed by the defendant No.5 against the judgment and decree dated 02.04.2012 in O.S.No.4644/2007 on the file of XVIII Additional City Civil Judge at (CCH.No.10), Bengaluru. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36812-DB RFA No. 1901 of 2012 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the suit properties are joint family properties succeeded by the father of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1, 2 and 5 to 8. The suit property is in joint possession and enjoyment of plaintiff and defendants. Defendant No.3 and 4 are wife and son of deceased brother of plaintiff by name Ramachandra. Plaintiff demanded for partition and separate possession of his share. The defendants refused to effect the partition, therefore, plaintiff was constrained to file the suit. 4. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 6 filed a common written statement admitting the facts of the case and they also prayed to allot their respective shares. They denied that plaintiff demanded for partition and they refused to effect partition. 5. Defendant No.5 filed separate written statement. He also denied the plaint averments but admitted all the facts pleaded by the plaintiff and he also claimed share in the suit property. Accordingly to him defendant Nos.7 and 8 were not entitled for share. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36812-DB RFA No. 1901 of 2012 Defendant Nos.7 and 8 remained exparte before the trial Court. 6. The trial Court framed necessary issues. 7. The plaintiff to prove his case examined himself as PW-1 and marked Exs.P1 to P36. The defendants have not led any oral or documentary evidence. The trial Court after hearing both the parties and assessing the evidence on record held that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and plaintiff is entitled to 1/8th share, Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 5 to 8 each are entitled for 1/8th share, Defendant Nos.3 and 4 are together entitled for 1/8th share and accordingly passed preliminary decree. 8. Defendant No.5 challenged the said judgment and decree on the grounds mentioned in the appeal memo. The main contention of the defendant No.5 is that defendant Nos.7 and 8 are female heirs and they are not entitled to any share in the suit schedule properties. The trial Court erroneously awarded share to defendant Nos.7 and 8. Therefore, prayed to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36812-DB RFA No. 1901 of 2012 set aside the said calculation of the share and allot 1/6th share to each son of Chinnappa. 9. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for appellant and respondent No.6. 10. In fact, there is no dispute regarding the genealogy of the family and the suit properties are joint family properties. The plaintiff averred in the plaint about this fact and it was admitted by the defendants in the respective written statements. Therefore, there is no need of much discussion regarding the evidence. 11. Ex.P2 is the genealogy tree of the family, it is an undisputed fact. Exs.P3 - P36 are RTC's of the suit schedule property. They are standing in the name of plaintiff and defendants, i.e, all the sons of Chinnappa. It is also not in dispute that one of the sons of Chinnappa by name Ramachandra is dead and his legal heirs are defendant Nos.4 and 5 and they are entitled to succeed to the share held by Ramachandra. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36812-DB RFA No. 1901 of 2012 12. Defendant No.5 in the written statement contended that the property has to be divided among the male members of the family and that 1/6th share has to be allotted to the share of each person. The said contention is not tenable. The suit was filed after the amendment to Section 6(a) of the Hindu Succession Act. Accordingly to said amendment, the female heirs would also be entitled to a share equivalent to that of the male heirs of the deceased Chinnappa. 13. In the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma and others1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has interpreted the scope of Section 6(a) of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, holding that the provision has retrospective effect and that a female heir is entitled for share in the ancestral joint family properties, as that of a son. 14. The learned trial Judge has rightly divided the property into eight shares and allotted a 1/8th share to each member of the family. The trial Judge has not committed any error in arriving at the said conclusion. On re-appreciating the 1 AIR 2020 SC 3717 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36812-DB RFA No. 1901 of 2012 evidence and materials placed on record, we do not find any reason to interfere in the said finding. This appeal is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31