- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50287 RSA No. 34 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.34 OF 2023 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. D.R. NAGARATHNA, W/O K.E. HIRIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O VIDYANAGARA, 1ST CROSS, BEHIND VENKATESHWARA TEMPLE, KADUR TOWN, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. A. MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. GANGAMMA, D/O LATE RANGE GOWDA, W/O M.R. SOMASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O C/O D.C. CHANDRE GOWDA, LAXMI NILAYA, OPPOSITE AMPC, JYOTHINAGARA POST, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101. 2. SMT. D.R.YASHODHA, W/O G. ANANDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O HARUVANAHALLI VILLAGE, Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50287 RSA No. 34 of 2023 KADURALHALLI POST, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577101. 3. SMT. D.R. BHAGYA, W/O B.E. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O LAXMI TEMPLE ROAD, DANTRAMAKKI, JYOTHINAGARA POST, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101. …RESPONDENTS (R1 TO R3 - SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.08.2022 PASSED IN R.A.NO.108/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, (DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE), FAMILY COURT, CHIKKAMAGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.04.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.64/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. This Court had issued notice against respondent Nos.1 to 3 and though they have been served, they are unrepresented. 2. This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50287 RSA No. 34 of 2023 3. The Trial Court, having considered the case of the plaintiff and the defence of the defendants, framed the issues and answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative in coming to the conclusion that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. The Trial Court also comes to the conclusion that Smt.Giriyamma had no absolute right to execute gift deed dated 20.08.2007 and 20.11.2008 in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3 in respect of suit schedule properties and hence, they are illegal and not binding on the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 took the contention that Smt.Giriyamma had executed a gift deed dated 20.08.2007 in her favour and defendant No.2 in respect of item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties and gift deed dated 20.11.2008 in favour of defendant No.3 in respect of item No.3 of the suit schedule properties. The contention of defendant No.1 that the suit is barred by limitation is answered in the negative. The Trial Court answered issue Nos.6 and 7 in the affirmative that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as sought for in the plaint and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to the relief as sought for in the written statement. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50287 RSA No. 34 of 2023 4. The same is challenged by defendant No.1 before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court having re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court in coming to the conclusion that the Trial Court has not committed any error. However, modified the judgment of the Trial Court that the plaintiff is entitled for 6/25th share in the suit schedule properties and defendant Nos.1 and 2 together are entitled for 13/25th share in item Nos.1 and 2 of the schedule property and 12/25th share together in item No.3 of the schedule property and defendant No.3 is entitled for 6/25th share in item Nos.1 and 2 of the schedule and 7/25th share in item No.3 of the schedule by metes and bounds. 5. The same is challenged before this Court by defendant No.1. 6. The main contention of the appellant before this Court is that the Trial Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the gift deed is not valid without considering the fact that the challenge to the registered gift deeds of the year 2007 and 2008 was made in the year 2017 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50287 RSA No. 34 of 2023 and the same is barred by limitation. It is also contended that when the suit schedule properties had fallen to the share of the father of the appellant and respondent Nos.1 and 2 at a partition and when it is the case of respondent No.1 that she is entitled to succession under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, whether the First Appellate Court is right in law applying the provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. 7. Having considered the grounds, which have been urged in the appeal memo and the substantial questions of law indicated by the appellant and also considering the material on record, it is not in dispute that the property has fallen to the share of the father of the appellant and respondent Nos.1 to 3 at a partition. It has to be noted that there was no any testamentary document by the father during his lifetime and the mother had executed the gift deeds on two occasions in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and defendant No.3 and hence, I do not find any error on the part of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in coming to the conclusion with regard to the execution of the gift deed is concerned in respect of the entire property. When the mother succeeds to 1/5th share in the property of her husband, the gift deed could be - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50287 RSA No. 34 of 2023 considered only in respect of her share is concerned in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 in respect of item Nos.1 and 2 and in respect of item No.3 in favour of defendant No.3 and in respect of other findings of the Trial Court, I do not find any error on the part of the Trial Court. But the First Appellate Court committed an error in appropriating the share on different heads and invoking of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act is not correct and ought to have invoked Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act and hence, except this modification, nothing requires to be considered in this second appeal. While partitioning the property in FDP, the Trial Court has to take note of the share of the mother, which is already gifted in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3, could be allotted to them in respect of her share of 1/5th and others are entitled for 1/5th share each. 8. With these observations, the second appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23