IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1197 OF 2014 C/W RSA CROB. NO.7 OF 2015 IN RSA NO.1197/2014: BETWEEN: 1. SMT VASANTHA LAKSHMI S, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, W/O LATE M.R.PRABHAKARA SIMHA, 2. SMT. USHA M.R. AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, W/O SRI. S.M.MURTHY, RESIDING AT NO.1412, 5TH MAIN, T BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR II STAGE, BANGALORE-560 010. 3. SMT. M.R.SRILATHA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, W/O SRI A.V.SUBRAMANAYAM, RESIDING AT PARIJATHA, GOKULAM, MYSORE. 4. SMT. INDIRA M.R, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, W/O LATE K.S.S.PRASAD, RESIDING AT NO.69, (OLD NO.154/44), SHARADA KALYAN PARVATHINAGAR, LAGGERE MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-58. 5. LATE ANANTHA KRISHNA M.R. AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O LATE M.N.RAMACHANDRA JOIS, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS (ORDER DATED 28.08.2023) 2 5(a) SMT SREEDEVI M R, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, W/O LATE M.R.ANANTHA KRISHNA, 5(b) SRI VIKRAM SIMHA M A, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O LATE M.R.ANANTHA KRISHNA, 5(c) SRI VAISHAK SIMHA M A, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O LATE M.R.ANANTHA KRISHNA, ALL 5(a) to (c) ARE RESIDING AT NO.26, 'BILIGIRI' I 'A' MAIN, MICO LAYOUT, BTM II STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 076. 6. LATE M.R. AMARA SIMHA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O LATE M.N.RAMACHANDRA JOIS, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS (ORDER DATED 08.03.2021) 6(a) SMT M S GIRIJA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O LATE M.R AMARA SIMHA 6(b) SRI M A DIVYA SIMHA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, D/O LATE M.R AMARA SIMHA BOTH 6(a) AND 6(b) RESIDING AT EWS NO.78, 'RAVICHANDRA', J.P.NAGAR, MYSORE - 570 014. 7. SMT. M.R. VASUDHA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, W/O SRI NAGARAJA AMBLE, RESIDING AT NO.181, II MAIN, II A CROSS, RAJIVGANDHI NAGAR, LAGGERE, BANGALORE-560 058. 8. SMT. SUJATHA M.R, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 3 W/O SRI. ARUN V, RESIDING AT SRI. GURUKRUPA, NO.31, 5TH CROSS, BFW LAYOUT, PEENYA III STAGE, LAGGERE, BANGALORE-560 058. 9. SRI. M.P. KAILASABHANU SIMHA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O LATE PRABHAKARA SIMHA, RESIDING AT NO.119, WEST GATE DRIVE, EDISON, NJ O8820 (NEW JERSY) USA, TEMPORARILY C/O II APPELANT APPELLANTS NO.1 & 9 C/O THE 2ND APPELLANT HEREIN. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI B C SEETHARAMA RAO, ADV. ) AND: 1. SRI M R NARENDRA SIMHA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O LATE M.N. RAMACHANDRA JOIS, RESIDING AT 166, 12TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR, MYSORE-570014. 2. SMT. M.P. NIKHILA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, D/O LATE PRABHAKARA SIMHA, #2430, BIRCHPOVE ROAD, HERNDON VERGINA-20171, USA. ALSO AT NO.1412, 5TH MAIN, 'T' BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, II STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 010. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M R NARENDRA SIMHA, R1 PARTY-IN-PERSON, SRI ANUP SEETHA RAMA RAO, ADV. FOR R2) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 7.7.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.79/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 7.4.2011 PASSED IN OS.NO.260/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSORE. IN RSA CROB NO.7/2015: 4 BETWEEN: SRI M R NARENDRA SIMHA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, S/O LATE PROF. M N RAMACHANDRA JOIS, R/O 166, 12TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR, MYSORE 570014. ... CROSS OBJECTOR (BY SRI M R NARENDRA SIMHA, CROSS OBJECTOR, PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND: 1. SMT VASANTHA LAKSHMI S, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, W/O LATE M.R.PRABHAKARA SIMHA, C/O SMT USHA M R, W/O LATE SRI S M MURTHY, RESIDING AT NO.1412, 5TH MAIN "D" BLOCK, II STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010. 2. SMT. USHA M.R, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, W/O LATE SRI. S.M.MURTHY, RESIDING AT NO.1412, 5TH MAIN, “D” BLOCK, II STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010. 3. SMT. M.R.SRILATHA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, W/O SRI A.V.SUBRAMANAYAM, RESIDING AT PARIJATHA, GOKULAM, MYSORE. 4. SMT. INDIRA M.R, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, W/O LATE K.S.S.PRASAD, RESIDING AT NO.69, (OLD NO.154/44), SHARADA KALYAN PARVATHINAGAR, LAGGERE MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-58. 5. SRI. ANANTHA KRISHNA M.R. AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 5 S/O LATE M.N.RAMACHANDRA JOIS, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS (ORDER DATED 28.08.2023) 5(a) SMT SREEDEVI M R, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, W/O LATE M.R.ANANTHA KRISHNA, 5(b) SRI VIKRAM SIMHA M A, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O LATE M.R.ANANTHA KRISHNA, 5(c) SRI VAISHAK SIMHA M A, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O LATE M.R.ANANTHA KRISHNA, ALL 5(a) to (c) ARE RESIDING AT NO.26, 'BILIGIRI' I 'A' MAIN, MICO LAYOUT, BTM II STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 076. 6. LATE SRI M.R. AMARA SIMHA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O LATE M.N.RAMACHANDRA JOIS, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS (ORDER DATED 08.03.2021) 6(a) SMT M S GIRIJA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, W/O LATE M.R AMARA SIMHA 6(b) SRI M A DIVYA SIMHA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, D/O LATE M.R AMARA SIMHA BOTH 6(a) AND 6(b) RESIDING AT NO.102, 1ST FLOOR, G R RESIDENCY, J.P NAGAR, 7TH PHASE, BANGALORE – 560 078. 7. SMT. M.R. VASUDHA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, W/O SRI NAGARAJA AMBLE, RESIDING AT NO.181, II MAIN, II A CROSS, RAJIVGANDHI NAGAR, 6 LAGGERE, BANGALORE-560 058. 8. SMT. SUJATHA M.R, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, W/O SRI. ARUN V, RESIDING AT SRI. GURUKRUPA, NO.31, 5TH CROSS, BFW LAYOUT, PEENYA III STAGE, LAGGERE, BANGALORE-560 058. 9. SRI. M.P. KAILASABHANU SIMHA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O LATE PRABHAKARA SIMHA M R , RESIDING AT NO.119, WEST GATE DRIVE, EDISON, NJ O8820 (NEW JERSY) USA. 10. SMT M P NIKHILA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, D/O LATE PRABHAKARA SIMHA, R/AT 2430, BIRCHPOVE ROAD, HERNDON, VARGINIA 20171, USA. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ANUP SEETHA RAMA RAO, ADV. FOR R1 TO R9, SRI K S LAKSHMINARASAPPA, ADV. FOR R10) THIS RSA.CROB IN RSA 1197/14 IS FILED U/O XLI RULE 22 OF CPC., R/W RULE 1 OF ORDER XLI OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.07.2014 PASSED IN R.A NO.79/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 7.4.2011 PASSED IN O.S NO.260/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE SMALL CAUSES AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSORE. THIS RSA AND RSA CROB. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 28TH JULY, 2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CAV JUDGMENT This Regular Second Appeal is arising from a suit for partition which is decreed. The plaintiffs' first appeal (except 7 plaintiffs No. 3 and 4, all the plaintiffs filed first appeal) seeking modification of share is dismissed. 2. The defendant's cross objection challenging the decree for partition is also dismissed. Hence, the plaintiffs are before this Court in RSA NO.1197/2014 and defendant has filed RSA Cross Objection No.7/2015. 3. The admitted Genealogy is as under: GENEALOGICAL TREE KRISHNA JOIS RANGANAYAKAMMA (WIFE) DIED ON 19-5-2013 GOPAL JOIS NARAYANA NARASIMA NARAHARI JOIS NARASIMHA JOIS KRISHNA MURTHY RAMACHANDRA JOIS MUTHAMMA BASASUNDARAMA PRABHAKAR SIMHA (DIED ON 24-4-90) M R USHA M R SHREELATHA M.R.INDIRA M.R.ANANTHA KRISHNA M.R.AMARA SIMHA M R VASUDHA SUJATHA M R NARENDRA SIMHA VASANTHA LAKSHMI (WIFE) M P KAILASABHANU SIMHA (SON) M.P NIKHILA (DAUGHTER) 8 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, and the party-in-person/respondent No.1, who is also the cross- objector. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs - appellants taking through the pleadings submitted as under: (i) Krishna Jois was the propositus. He had four sons viz., Gopal Jois, Narayana Jois, Narasimha Jois and Narahari Jois. Gopal Jois died issueless. Gopal Jois under the Will dated 14.04.1940 bequeathed the property in favour of his brother Narayana Jois conferring life estate on Narayana Jois, and after the demise of Narayana Jois, testator conferred absolute estate in favour of three sons of Narayana Jois viz., Narasimha Jois, Ramachandra Jois and Krishnamurthy. (ii) After the demise of Narayana Jois, in the year 1964 the property of Gopal Jois was inherited by the legatees viz., Narasimha Jois, Ramachandra Jois and Krishnamurthy, in terms of the Will referred to above. Thus, aforementioned legatees, acquired 1/3 share each in the suit property. (iii) On 04.01.1971, Narasimha Jois who had 1/3 share in the property in terms of the Will referred to above released his 9 1/3rd share jointly in favour of his brothers Ramachandra Jois and Krishnamurthy. (iv) On 11.05.1973, Ramachandra Jois and Krishna Murthy effected partition through deed dated 11.05.1973 and in said partition, the said property is allotted to the share of Ramachandra Jois. Thus, Ramachandra Jois became the absolute owner of the property. 6. It is relevant to notice that Narayana Jois died in 1964 and he enjoyed his life estate over the property under the Will dated 14.04.1940, till his death. Narayana Jois was not the absolute owner of the property and he had only a life estate. Thus his three sons acquired the right over the property through the Will of their uncle Gopal Jois. Ramachandra Jois who had only a life estate died in the year 2000. 7. The suit for partition and separate possession is filed by wife and children of Ramachandra Jois against one of the sons of Ramachandra Jois the sole defendant. 8. The defendant contested the suit. The defendant urged that the daughters of Ramachandra Jois are not entitled to claim share in the residential house in view of the bar contained under Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 10 (for short, 'Act, 1956'). The defendant also took a contention that plaintiffs are not entitled to the share as claimed by them. The defendant urged that the property is the ancestral property and the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim equal share. 9. The Trial Court held that the property is the ancestral property and denied share to the daughters born before 1956. The Trial Court awarded 1/70th share to each of the plaintiffs No.1 and 5 to 7, and 1/70th share to plaintiffs No.2 to 4 together, and 11/70th share to each of the plaintiffs No.8 to 11. The Trial Court also awarded 11/70th share to the defendant. 10. On appeal by the plaintiffs, First Appellate Court has also confirmed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. As already noticed, the cross appeal filed by the defendant is also dismissed. 11. This appeal was admitted on 30.03.2021 to answer the following substantial questions of law:- i. Whether the Courts below were right in partitioning the suit properties in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prakash and Others v. Phulavati and Others reported in (2016)2 SCC 36? 11 ii. Whether the suit for partition in respect of the joint family was maintainable under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in view of the judgment G.Sekar v. Geetha & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.2535 of 2009? Later, on 23.01.2024, the following substantial question of law is also framed:- “i) Whether Section 6 of Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1990, would prevail over Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, as it had received assent of President and determine rights of daughters herein?” 12. Thereafter, this Court vide order dated 28.07.2025 framed two more substantial questions of law as under:- "1. Whether the trial Court and the first appellate Court were justified in awarding share by applying Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956? 2. Whether Section 23 of the Act of 1956 which is omitted in the year 2015 does apply to the cases instituted before 09.09.2005?" 13. Learned counsel for the appellants would urge that the property in question is inherited under the Will executed by Gopal Jois. Narayana Jois who is the brother of the testator Gopal Jois inherited the property under the Will as a limited 12 owner as such Narayana Jois had only life estate. And after his demise, three children of Narayana Jois inherited the property jointly under the Will executed by their uncle Gopal Jois. Later, one of legatees, namely Narasimha Jois released his 1/3rd share to remaining two legatees Ramachandra Jois and Krishnamurthy. Later, in the partition between Ramanchandra Jois and Krishnamurthy, the suit property is allotted to the name of Ramachandra Jois. It is urged that aforementioned facts are not in dispute and under law, the property would be self acquisition by Ramachandra Jois and not a coparcenary property. 14. The party in person/ the respondent No.1 has urged various contentions in his written submissions and has cited several judgments. 15. The respondent No.1 urged that the property being the residential house, the daughters cannot maintain a suit for partition in view of the bar contained under Section 23 of the Act, 1956. When the suit was filed in the year 2003, Section 23 of the Act, 1956 was still in force and the said provision imposed a bar on the daughter to claim share in the residential house, is the submission. Despite deletion of Section 23 of the Act, 1956, in the year 2005, by way of an amendment, the 13 rights and liabilities of the parties have to be decided with reference to the provision that was in force when the suit was filed. 16. The party in person has also filed written submission and cited various judgments and also took a contention in the written statement that the Will dated 14.04.1940 was not executed by Gopal Jois. 17. It is also urged that the property being ancestral property, the daughters cannot claim the equal share in the suit property. 18. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 19. The first thing to be noticed is that there is no dispute relating to the execution of the Will dated 14.04.1940 conferring right estate in favour of Narayana Jois and later absolute estate in favour of three children of Narayana Jois, namely, Narasimha Jois, Ramachandra Jois and Krishnamurthy. Release of property by Narasimha Jois in favour of Ramachandra Jois and Krishnamurthy under the Release Deed dated 04.01.1971 is also not in dispute. Division of property 14 between Ramachandra Jois and Krishnamurthy through registered partition deed dated 11.05.1973 is not in dispute. 20. As per the partition deed dated 11.05.1973 the suit property is allotted to the share of Ramachandra Jois who died in the year 2000. 21. Ranganayakamma, the wife of Ramachandra Jois- first plaintiff died during the pendency of first appeal i.e., on 19.05.2013. 22. It is noticed that the cross objection is filed by M R Narendra Simha and not by S Vasantha Lakshmi. Registry to take note of this. 23. Before this Court, the defendant has also disputed the execution of Will at Ex.P.7. This Court is of the view that dispute relating to execution of Will cannot be raised for first time before this Court as the execution of Will by Gopal Jois was admitted by defendant before the Trial Court. 24. Under Hindu Law, the property acquired through the brothers and uncles will not be the co-parcenery property and the property acquired under the Will, will not be the co- parcenery property. Said property will be the separate 15 property of the legatee or the person acquiring the same under any other device. 25. This being the position, the defendant's contention that the suit property is the ancestral co-parcenery property and succession after the demise of Ramachandra Jois is governed by Section 6 of the Act, 1956 is incorrect. 26. The Trial Court and First Appellate Court have proceeded on the erroneous premise that the property is the ancestral property in the hands of Ramachandra Jois. Both the Courts missed the point that the property in the hands of Ramachandra Jois is not the co-parcenery property and more over Ramachandra Jois did not have the absolute right over the property, he had only a life estate. 27. For the reasons stated above, Section 6 of the Act, 1956 has no application to the facts of the case. Section 8 of the Act, 1956 applies and under the said provision, the plaintiffs and defendant who are the descendants of Ramachandra Jois inherited the property equally. 28. There is one more angle to the present case. Assuming that the property in the hands of Ramachandra Jois was the ancestral property at the time of his death who died in 16 the year 2000, then the property would devolve on his legal representatives under Section 6 of the Act, 1956 as it stood then. Later, in the year 2005, Section 6 is amended conferring status of coparcener to the daughter. In terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma & Others1, the amended provision has a retroactive effect. In that event, the daughters are also entitled to equal share in the coparcenery property subject to certain exceptions recognised under Section 6 of the Act, 1956 as amended in the year 2005. 29. The said exceptions are; previous partition, alienation or testamentary succession before 20.12.2004. The defendant has not pleaded and established any such defence. Hence, even assuming that the properties in the hands of Ramachandra Jois was ancestral property, the daughters of Ramachandra Jois are entitled to equal share. 30. Defendant has also raised a contention that the suit is barred under Section 23 of the Act, 1956. 31. The suit is filed in the year 2003. Later, the said Section is omitted by way of an amendment in the year 2005. 1 AIR 2020 SC 3717 17 The contention is the law was in force as on the date of the suit and the case has to be decided based on the law as it was prevailing as on the date of the suit. 32. Section 23 does not bar the suit for partition in respect of a residential house by the wife of the deceased and the sons of the deceased. The bar contained under Section 23 was only against the daughters who were not enabled under law to file a suit for partition as long as their brothers did not seek to effect partition. The suit for partition is filed by the mother, and the daughters and the sons of Ramachandra Jois against the defendant who is also the son of Ramachanda Jois. Thus, the bar contained under Section 23 of the Act, 1956 does not apply. 33. This Court has also referred to the various judgments cited by party in person along with his written submissions. Those judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case where the Court is dealing with succession under Sections 8 and 23 of the Act, 1956. As already noticed, the property being self acquired property in the hands of Ramachandra Jois, the succession has opened equally in favour of all the children of Ramachandra Jois and his wife. Section 18 23 of the Act, 1956 does not apply as the brothers have chosen to effect partition among themselves. 34. Since Ranganayakamma-wife of Ramachandra Jois is said to have died intestate during the pendency of the appeal, her share would devolve equally among all the children of Ramachandra Jois. 35. Hence the following: ORDER (a) The appeal in RSA No.1197/2014 is allowed. (b) RSA Cross Objection 07/2015 is dismissed. (c) The judgment and decree dated 07.07.2014 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Mysuru in Regular Appeal No.79/2012 so also the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru in O.S.No.260/2003 are modified. (d) The names and ranks of the parties entitled to the share in the suit schedule property is mentioned in the table below; Name of the Parties Rank in RSA Share *Page No.18 is re-typed and re-placed vide court order dated 08.01.2026 19 Smt.Vasanthalakshmi Sri.M.P.Kailash Banu Simha Smt.M.P.Nikhila Appellant No.1 Appellant No.9 Respondent No.2 1/9th Smt.Usha M R Appellant No.2 1/9th Smt.M.R.Srilatha Appellant No.3 1/9th Smt.Indira M R Appellant No.4 1/9th Late Anantha Krishna M.R Smt.Sreedevi M.R Sri Vikram Simha M.A Sri Vaishak Simha M.A Appellant No.5 Appellant No.5(a) Appellant No.5(b) Appellant No.5(c) 1/9th Late M.R.Amara Simha Smt.M.S.Girija Sri M.A.Divya Simha, Appellant No.6 Appellant No.6(a) Appellant No.6(b) 1/9th Smt.M.R.Vasudha Appellant No.7 1/9th Smt.Sujatha M.R. Appellant No.8 1/9th Sri M.R.Narendra Simha Respondent No.1 1/9th * No order as to cost. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE YKL/BRN/GVP/CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28 *Page No.19 is re-typed and re-placed vide court order dated 08.01.2026.