- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38189 RSA No. 1172 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1172 OF 2020 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SANJEEVAMMA W/O LATE SATHYANRAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT SHANTHINAGARA NEAR JANAPANDASWAMY HOSPITAL PAVAGADA TOWN TUMKUR DIST 572101 2. SUDAMMA @ SUDHAMANI.K.S D/O LATE SATHYANARAYANAPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT B.K. HALLI VILLAGE NAGALAMDIKE HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DIST- 572101 3. VASANTHAMMA D/O LATE SATHYANARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT UDDANDANAPALYA VILLAGE NIDGAL HOBI, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DIST 572101 4. SHANTHAKUMARI @ SHANTHI D/O LATE SATHYANARAYAANPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT HUSENPURA VILLAGE NAGALAMADIKE HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DIST 572101 Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38189 RSA No. 1172 of 2020 5. K.S. RAJESH S/O SATHYANARAYAAN AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS 6. K.S. RAMARAJU S/O SATHYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS APPELLANT NO. 5 AND 6 R/AT NEAR SRS RICE MILL TUMAKURU ROAD, PAVAGADA TOWN, TUMKUR DIST 572101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. HARISH H V.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PUSHPALATHA D/O GOPALAKRISHHNA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS KANIVENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DIST 572101 2. GOPALAKRISHNA S/O OBAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO. 14, SHREEHARAI LAYOUT MUNESHWARANAGAR, ULLALA MAIN RAOD, BENGALURU 56 3. SUMA G S D/O GOPALAKRISHNA W/O VIJAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT 80, NEAR GOLDEN GATE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38189 RSA No. 1172 of 2020 APARTMENT, DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU 560076 4. BAGYASHREE G S S/O GOPALAKRISHNA W/O KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT SOUNDARYA LAYOUT THIPPENAHALLI VILLAGE BENGALURU-54. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUBASH CHANDRA H.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. MANJUNATH M, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. C.PATTABI RAMAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.12.2019 PASSED IN RA No.2/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PAVAGADA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.11.2018 PASSED IN OS No.320/2013 ON THE FILE THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PAVAGADA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri.H.V.Harish, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.C.Pattabi Raman, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4. 2. Defendant Nos.4(a), 4(b), 4(c) and 4(d) being the legal representatives of defendant No.4 and defendant No.5 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38189 RSA No. 1172 of 2020 and defendant No.5 and 6 are the appellants challenging the validity of the judgment passed by the first appellate court reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.320 of 2013 by allowing the appeal of the plaintiffs and granting the 1/4th share in the suit properties to the plaintiffs and also holding that compromise decree passed in O.S.No.274 of 2009 would not be binding on the 1/4th share of the plaintiffs. 3. Facts in brief, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: The genealogy of the family of the parties reads as under: N§AiÀÄå ºÉAqÀw £ÀAdªÀÄä 1£Éà FgÉÆçtÚ PÀ.M 2£Éà DAf£À¥Àà 3£Éà UÉÆÃ¥Á®PÀȵÀÚ 4£Éà ¸ÀvÀå£ÁgÁAiÀÄt 5£Éà ªÀÄ°èPÁdÄð£À ºÉAqÀw ¸ÀIJîªÀÄä ºÉAqÀw ¹zÀÞUÀAUÀªÀÄä ºÉAqÀw ¸ÀgÀ¸ÀévÀªÀÄä ºÉAqÀw ¸ÀAfêÀªÀÄä ºÉAqÀw £ÁvÀªÀÄä 1£Éà 1111 £Éà 1 £Éà 1 £Éà 1 £Éà ¸ÀgÀ¸Àéw ªÀÄAdļÀ ¥ÀĵÀà ¸ÀÄzsÁ ZÉÊvÁæ 2£Éà 2222 £Éà 2 £Éà Q±ÉÆÃgÀ GªÀiÁzÉë N§ªÀÄä 2 £Éà 3£Éà 3 £Éà ¸ÀĪÀÄ ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ N§AiÀÄå 3 £Éà ªÀ¸ÀAvÀ 2 £Éà 4 £Éà ±ÉéÃvÁ N§ªÀÄä 3 £Éà ¨sÀªÀå 4 £Éà ±ÁAvÀPÀĪÀiÁj 5 £Éà gÁªÀÄgÁeï - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38189 RSA No. 1172 of 2020 5. As per the genealogical tree, common propositus is Sri.Obaiah, who had 6 children. Plaintiff is claiming her right in respect of the suit property, being the daughter of Gopalakrishna (one of sons of Obaiah) through second wife. Defendant No.4, viz., Satyanarayana is the 5th child of Obaiah and Nanjamma; defendant Nos.5 and 6 are his children. Obaiah left behind few properties and there was a suit seeking for a share in O.S.No.336 of 1990. In the said suit, among the children of Obaiah, there was a settlement and the plaintiff father viz., Gopalakrishna got item No.2 in the compromise petition. 6. For ready reference, details of the said property are culled out hereunder: "ªÀÄĤì¥ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £Áå¬ÄPÀ zÀAqÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀªÀgÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ ¥ÁªÀUÀqÀ C¸À®Ä zÁªÁ £ÀA.336:90 ªÁjÃ:: CAf£À¥Àà ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï N§AiÀÄå, PÀtªÉãÀºÀ½î, ¥ÁªÀUÁ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ, :: «gÀÄzÀÞ:: ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ 1) PÉ.M. UÉÆÃ¥Á®PÀÈμÀÚ ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï N§AiÀÄå, 2) PÉ.N.ªÀÄ°èPÁdÄð£ï §£ï ¯ÉÃmï N§AiÀÄå, G§AiÀÄgÀÄ PÀtªÀ£ÀºÀ½î, PÀ¸À¨Á ºÉÆç½, ¥ÁªÀUÀqÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38189 RSA No. 1172 of 2020 ¨Á.¹.¥ÉÆ-PÉÆÃr£À DzÀðgï 23 gÀƯï 3gÀrAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¢ 8-11-90 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀ gÁfÃ¥ÀvÀæ : _______________ Hj£À »jAiÀÄgÀ C©ü¯ÁµÉ ºÁUÀÆ »wªÁZÀ£ÀzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ £ÉgÀªÀÅ ¸À«Äw »wªÀd£ÀzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ªÁ¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÁzÀ £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä £ÀªÀÄä°ègÀĪÀ zÁªÁ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÀAaPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸Áé¢üãÁ£ÀĨsÀªÀzÀ°ègÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj gÁfÃAiÀÄAvÉ. 1)ªÁ¢: CAf£À¥Àà¤UÉ §A¢gÀĪÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀ : zÁªÁ ¸ÀéwÛ£À LlA £ÀA. 2 gÀ°è CAzÀgÉ PÀtªÉãÀºÀ½î ¸À.£ÀA. 103:1 C¢£ÀAlÄ JPÀgÉ DgÀÄ UÀÄAmÉ d«Ää£À°è CAzÀgÉ Rȶ d«Ää£À°è GvÀÛgÀ-zÀQët §zÀÄ ºÁQPÉÆAqÀÄ ¥ÀƪÁðzÀðzÀ 9 JPÀgÉ 3 UÀÄAmÉ (MA§vÀÄÛ JPÀgÉ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀÄ F d«ÄäUÉ ZÀPÀÄÌ §A¢:- ¥ÀƪÀðPÉÌ EzÉà £ÀA§j£À°è MAzÀ£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÉ PÉ.M.UÉÆÃ¥Á®PÀȵÀÚ¥Àà£À ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ §A¢gÀĪÀ 9 JPÀgÉ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀÄ. GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ: ²æà gÁªÀÄ¥Àà£À d«ÄãÀÄ, zÀQëtPÉÌ: PÉƮĪÉÄ a£ÀߣÀgÀ¸À¥Àà£À d«ÄãÀÄ MAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÁªÁ £ÀA. MAzÀgÀ°è CAzÀgÉ ¸À.£ÀA. 110:14gÀ°è GzÀgÉ ¤ÃgÁªÀj ªÀÄÆgÀÄ JPÀgÉ £Á®Ä̪ÀgÉ UÀÄAmÉ d«Ää£À°è 1:3£Éà ¨sÁUÀzÀ d«ÄãÀÄ CAzÀgÉ MAzÀÄ JPÀgÉ MAzÀÄ ªÀgÉà UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀÄ. (1.01:1/2 )F d«ÄãÀÄUÉ ZÀPÀÄ̧A¢ ¥ÀƪÀðPÉÌ JPÀgÀqÀ£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ ªÀÄ°èPÁdÄð£À£À ¨sÁUÀzÀ 1 JPÀgÉ 1 ªÀgÉ UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀÄ ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄ¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÁgÁAiÀÄt¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À d«ÄãÀÄ GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ FgÉÆçtÚ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À®è¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀÄUÀ½UÉ §A¢gÀĪÀ ¨sÁUÀzÀ d«ÄãÀÄ zÀQëtPÉÌ ªÀÄ°èPÁdÄð£À¥Àà£À ¢£Éß d«ÄãÀÄ F ªÀÄzsÉå EgÀĪÀ ¤ÃgÁªÀj MAzÀÄ JPÀgÉ MAzÀĪÀgÉ UÀAmÉ d«ÄãÀÄ F d«Ää£À°ègÀĪÀ ªÀiÁ«£À ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ vÉAV£À ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ ªÁ¢ CAf£À¥Àà£ÀªÀjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄ°èPÁdÄð£À¥Àà (JgÀqÀ£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢) vÀ¯Á CzsÀð vÉUÉzÀgÀ PÉÆAqÀÄ C£ÀĨsÀ«¹PÉƼÀîvÀPÀÌzÀÄ G½PÉ ªÀÄgÀªÀ½ CAzÀgÉ ºÀÄt¸É ºÀ®¸ÀÄ ¨ÉêÀÅ CªÀgÀªÀgÀ ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ §A¢gÀĪÀ ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CªÀgÀªÀgÉà C£ÀĨsÀ«¹PÉƼÀîvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ LlA £ÀA. ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £Á®Ì£Éà ªÀÄ£É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄƪÀjUÀÆ dAnAiÀiÁV CAzÀzÉ ªÁ¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ½UÉ dAnAiÀiÁV ©lÄÖzÀÄÝ ªÀÄƪÀjUÀÆ ¸ÀªÀÄ£ÁzÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. 2) MAzÀ£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ PÉ.M-UÉÆÃ¥Á®PÀȵÀÚgÀªÀjUÉ §A¢gÀĪÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀ :- - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38189 RSA No. 1172 of 2020 PÀtªÉãÀºÀ½î ¸À.£ÀA. 301:1 d«ÄãÀÄ 18 JPÀgÉ 6 UÀÄAmÉAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¢ CAf£À¥Àà¤UÉ 9 JPÀgÉ 3 UÀÄA¨É eÁvÀ ¥À²ÑªÀiÁzsÀðzÀ MA§vÀÄÛ, JPÀgÉ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ UÀÄAmÉ (JPÀgÉ 3 UÀÄAmÉ) d«ÄãÀÄ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ UÉÆ¥Á®PÀȵÀÚgÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃjgÀÄvÉÛ. F d«ÄäUÉ ZÀPÀÄ̧A¢: ¥ÀƪÀðPÉÌ DAd£À¥Àà ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ §A¢gÀĪÀ 9 JPÀgÉ 3 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀÄ, ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ vÁªÀgÉãÁAiÀÄÌ, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ, ¢Ã¥Áè£ÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄUÀ¼À d«ÄãÀÄ GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ ²æà gÁªÀÄ¥Àà£À d«ÄãÀÄ zÀQëtPÉÌ PÉÆîĪÉÄ ZÉ£ÀߣÀgÀ£À¥Àà£À d«ÄãÀÄ, MAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EzÉà PÀtªÉãÀºÀ½î, ¸À.£ÀA. 110: 1 JgÀ°è ¤ÃgÁªÀj (vÀj) ªÀÄÆgÀÄ JPÀgÉ 4 1/2 UÀÄAmÉ d«Ää£À°è MAzÀ£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ UÉÆ¥Á®PÀȵÀÚ¥ÀàgÀªÀjUÉ MAzÀÄ JPÀgÉ MAzÀĪÀgÉ UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀÄ, ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ ªÀÄ°èPÁdÄð£À¥Àà¤UÉ §A¢gÀĪÀ MAzÀÄ JPÀgÉ MAzÀÄ ªÀgÉ UÀÄAmÉ vÀj d«ÄãÀÄ GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ FgÉÆçtÚ£À d«ÄãÀÄ zÀQëtPÉÌ ªÀÄ°èPÁdÄð£À¥Àà£À Rȶ d«ÄãÀÄ, F ªÀÄzsÉå¬ÄgÀĪÀ d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EzÀgÀ°ègÀĪÀ ªÀÄgÁ ªÀÄgÀªÀ½ MAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ LlA £ÀA. ªÀÄÆgÀÄ d£ÀUÀ½UÀÆ CAzÀgÉ ªÁ¢ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ½UÉ GzÀÄ«UÉ ©lÄÖ ªÀiÁªÀjUÀÆ ¸ÀªÀÄ£ÁzÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ EgÀÄvÀÛ. JgÀqÀ£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ PÉ.N. ªÀÄ°èPÁdÄð£À¥Àà¤UÉ §A¢gÀĪÀ 3 C¹ÛæUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀ:- PÀtªÉãÀºÀ½î ¸À.£ÀA. -110:1 J £À°ègÀĪÀ Rȶ d«ÄãÀÄ CAzÀgÉ ºÀ£ÉÆßAzÀÄ JPÀgÉ E¥ÀàvÀÄÛ £Á®ÄÌ UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄäUÉ ZÀPÀÄÌ §A¢:- ¥ÀƪÀðPÉÌ ªÉAPÀl¸Áé«Ä d«ÄãÀÄ ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ PÉ.N. UÉÆÃ¥Á®PÀÈμÀÚgÀªÀgÀ ¨sÁUÀzÀ D vÀj d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄ¥Àà£À RĶ d«ÄãÀÄ, GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ FgÉÆçtÚ£À d«ÄãÀÄ zÀQëtPÉÌ ZËqÀ¥Àà£À d«ÄãÀÄ §AzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EzÉà PÀtªÉãÀºÀ½î ¸À. £ÀA .110: 1J£À°è MAzÀÄ JPÀgÉ MAzÀĪÀgÉ UÀAmÉ vÀj d«ÄãÀÄ MAzÀĪÀgÉ UÀÄAmÉ vÀj d«ÄãÀÄ ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ DAf£À¥Àà£À ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ §A¢gÀĪÀ MAzÀÄ JPÀgÉ MAzÀĪÀgÉ UÀÄAmÉ vÀj d«ÄãÀÄ GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ: FgÉÆçtÚ£ÀªÀgÀ d«ÄãÀ zÀQëtPÉÌ £À£Àß CAzÀgÉ JgÀqÀ£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ ªÀÄ°èPÁdÄð£À¥Àà£À Rȶ d«ÄãÀÄ F ªÀÄzsÉå¬ÄgÀĪÀ MAzÀÄ JPÀgÉ MAzÀĪÀgÉ UÀÄAmÉ ¤ÃgÁªÀj ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄgÀªÀ½ JgÀqÀ£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ ªÀÄ°èPÁdÄð£À¥Àà¤UÉ ¸ÉÃjgÀÄvÉÛ. DzÉà jÃw LlA.£ÀA.ªÀÄÆgÀÄ CAzÀgÉ ªÀÄ£É SÁ£ÉõÀĪÀiÁj £ÀA. 122 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ LlA.£ÀA. £Á®ÄÌ ¤®±À£À SÁ£ÉõÀÄ ªÀiÁj £ÀA. 460 gÀ°è ªÀÄÆjUÀÆ ¸ÀªÀÄ£ÁzÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ EgÀÄvÉÛ LlA.£ÀA.1J CAzÀgÉ ¸À.£ÀA.110:1© gÀ ¤ÃgÁªÀj d«Ää£À°ègÀĪÀ ¨Á« ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ®UÀwÛ¹gÀĪÀ L.¦.¸ÉlÄÖ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨Á« ¤Ãj£À°è ªÀÄÆjUÀÆ ºÀPÀÄÌ EgÀÄvÉÛ. CzÉà jÃw ¨Á« ¤Ãj¤AzÀ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ½UÉ PÁ®ÄªÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÁj ºÀPÀÄÌ EgÀÄvÉÛ. ªÉÄîÌAqÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÁ¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ F ¢ªÀ¸ÀªÉà ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ºÀAaPÉAiÀÄAvÉ ¸Áé¢üãÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ C£ÀĨsÀ«¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj µÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ½UÉ C£ÀÄUÀÄtªÁV zÁªÀªÀ£ÀÄß rQæUÉƽ¸À¨ÉÃPÁV «£ÀAw. ¸À»/- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38189 RSA No. 1172 of 2020 ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ¸À»/- ªÀÄ°èPÁdÄð£À ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀgÀ ªÀQîgÀÄ. ¸À»/- PÉ.M., CAf£À¥Àà ¸À»/- ªÁ¢¥ÀgÀ ªÀQîgÀÄ JA £ÁUÉÃAzÀæ¥Àà ªÀQîgÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄÄAzÉ M¦à zÀÈrÃPÀj¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. 7. The parties enjoyed those properties as per the compromise decree in O.S.No.336 of 1990 peacefully and there was no dispute with regard to the enjoyment of the property as per Ex.P6. 8. However, when there was a dispute with regard to sale of property etc., yet another suit came to be filed in O.S.No.274 of 2009, which is roughly 2 decades of the earlier suit of O.S.No.336 of 1990. 9. Again in the said suit, shares of the other sharers was purchased by way of a compromise and decree came to be passed before the Lok adalath in O.S.No.274 of 2009 and there was a relinquishment by taking a sum of Rs.25,000/- by the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38189 RSA No. 1172 of 2020 father of the plaintiff in favour of Satyanarayana and his children. 10. Thus, in respect of the suit property, father of the plaintiff had already given up the necessary shares in favour of another brother viz., Satyanarayana and his children in view of compromise in O.S.No.274 of 2009. 11. Suit came to be filed by the plaintiff claiming that she is the daughter of Gopalakrishna through second wife and therefore, she has got independent right to seek for partition. 12. Suit on came to be decreed in part denying the share in item Nos.1 and 2 for which the father had already alienated / relinquished in favour of defendant Nos.4, 5 and 6. 13. Being aggrieved by the denial of the share in respect of item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit properties, plaintiff approached the first appellate court in R.A.No.2 of 2019. 14. The learned Judge in the first appellate court without considering the principles of law enunciated in KENCHEGOWDA VS. K.B.KRISHNAPPA AND OTHERS - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38189 RSA No. 1172 of 2020 reported in ILR 2008 KAR 3453, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit of the plaintiff in entirety. 15. Being aggrieved by the same, it is the defendant Nos.4, 5 and 6 who have approached this court in this appeal. 16. Since defendant No.4 died in the interregnum, his legal representatives are pursuing the matter along with defendant Nos.5 and 6. 17. The appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the findings of the courts below that the plaintiff is the legitimate daughter of defendant No.1 - Gopalakrishna is perverse, palpably erroneous and contrary tot eh categorical admission elicited in the cross-examination of the plaintiff, wherein she has admitted that Gopalakrishna is legally married to one Vijayalakshmi, who is the 1st wife of defendant No.1 and she is very much alive? (ii) Whether courts below erred in entertaining suit when admittedly plaintiff's father - defendant No.1 is alive and therefore, a children born out of a void marriage cannot maintain a suit - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38189 RSA No. 1172 of 2020 during the life time of their father in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of BHARATHA MATHA AND ANOTHER VS. R.VIJAYA RENGANATHAN AND OTHERS reported in 2010 (11) SCC 483 and in the case of SRI.KENCHEGOWDA VS. K.B.KRISHNAPPA AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2008 KAR 3453? 18. Of the two substantial questions of law, if the second substantial question of law is taken up for consideration and discussed, automatically first substantial question of law would get answered. Therefore, this Court heard the arguments of Sri.H.V.Harish and Sri.C.Pattabi Raman on the second substantial question of law. 19. Admittedly, the plaintiff is daughter born to Gopalakrishna through second wife. In other words, she is an illegitimate daughter of Gopalakrishna. In respect of the suit items of the property, title of Gopalakrishna is the compromise petition in O.S.No.336 of 1990. Thereafter, Gopalakrishna enjoyed the property as of his own share in respect of all the suit items of the property pursuant to the compromise decree in O.S.No.336 of 1990 and there is no dispute with regard to the same. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38189 RSA No. 1172 of 2020 20. However, in the year 2009, a suit came to be filed in O.S.No.274 of 2009 wherein, Gopalakrishna relinquished his share in respect of item Nos. 1 and 2 of the suit property by taking cash ovelty in a sum of Rs.25,000/- each. 21. Admittedly, Gopalakrishna during his lifetime did not challenge either the compromise decree in O.S.No.336 of 1990 or the settlement arrived before the Lok adalath in O.S.No.276 of 2009. 22. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, not noticing the status of the plaintiff that she is a illegitimate child of Gopalakrishna as she was born to the second wife of Gopalakrishna, decreed the suit of the plaintiff, as if she is a coparcener and is entitled to have the share in respect of item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit properties also. 23. When Gopalakrishna himself did not challenge the compromise decree either in O.S.No.336 of 1990 or in O.S.No.276 of 2009, plaintiff being the daughter does not enjoy any better right to question the alienation made by - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38189 RSA No. 1172 of 2020 Gopalakrishna having regard to the fact that plaintiff is the illegitimate daughter of Gopalakrishna. 24. Therefore, principles of law enunciated in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of BHARATHA MATHA AND ANOTHER VS. R.VIJAYA RENGANATHAN AND OTHERS reported in 2010 (11) SCC 483 would get attracted in the case on hand. 25. Further, what is the status of illegitimate child in laying a claim in respect of the ancestral property and the property that has fallen to the share of a father at a partition is no longer res integra in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the judgment of this court in the case of SRI.KENCHEGOWDA VS. K.B.KRISHNAPPA AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2008 KAR 3453 26. A feeble attempt is no doubt made by Sri.C.Pattabi Raman, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 but in view of the judgment of REVANASIDDAPPA AND ANOTHER VS. MALLIKARJUN AND OTHERS reported (2023) 10 SCC 1, the plaintiff can claim right in respect of suit properties. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38189 RSA No. 1172 of 2020 27. However since the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of REVANASIDDAPPA has clearly ruled that in respect of ancestral property, an illegitimate child cannot claim as of a right as a coparcener. Thus, the judgment of the first appellate court reversing the judgment of the trial court and granting the decree in respect of item nos.1 and 2 also granting 1/4th share to the plaintiff as if she is the coparcener and has got a right in all the properties has thus resulted in miscarriage of justice. 28. In view of the foregoing discussion, substantial question of law No.2 framed by coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 25.08.2022 needs to be answered in favour of the appellant and accordingly answered. 29. Consequently, the order of the judgment of the first appellate court needs to be set aside by answering the substantial question of law in favour of the appellant as to that extent judgment of the first appellate court in granting the share in respect of item nos.1 and 2 of the suit properties also has to be termed as perverse in view of the principles of law - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38189 RSA No. 1172 of 2020 enunciated in BHARATHA MATHA, KENCHEGOWDA and REVANASIDDAPPA supra . 20. In view of the foregoing discussion, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment of the first appellate court granting 1/4th share in respect of the suit item nos.1 and 2 is hereby set aside; consequently, the judgment of the trial court is confirmed. (iii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 98