- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:351-DB RFA No. 100305 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100305 OF 2019 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: 1. BALAPPA @ BALACHANDRA BHOVI S/O BHIMAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S., 1a. CHANDRALEKHA WD/O. BALACHANDRA DASAGAL AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOMEMAKER R/O: BALACHANDRA NIVAS KADAPA BANDA, PONDA-403 401 STATE - GOA. 1b. BANESH S/O. BALACHANDRA BHOVI AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: BALACHANDRA NIVAS KADAPA BANDA, PONDA-403 401 STATE - GOA. 2. SMT. ANDAVVA BHOVI W/O BASAVARAJ AGE. 66 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. BHOVI GALLI NEAR J.G. HOSPITAL GHATAPRABHA-591 306 TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI. Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:351-DB RFA No. 100305 of 2019 3. SMT. BASAVVA CHANAGIRI W/O BASAPPA AGE.46 YEARS OCC. HOUSEHOLD R/O. MANTUR-591 306 TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 4. NAGARAJ BHOVI S/O BASAVARAJ AGE. 41 YEARS OCC. KSRTC MACHNIC R/O. BHOVI GALLI, NEAR J.G. HOSPITAL GHATAPRABHA-591 306 TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI 5. MANJUNATH BHOVI S/O BASAVARAJ AGE. 36 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE/COOLIE R/O. BHOVI GALLI, NEAR J.G. HOSPITAL GHATAPRABHA-591 306 TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI 6. SMT. ANNAPURNA PADESUR W/O JAGADISH AGE.34 YEARS OCC. HOUSEHOLD R/O. GURUVINAHALLI-580 009 TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. C.S SHETTAR, ADV FOR APPELLANTS) AND: 1. SMT. YALLAWWA BHOVI @ JATBHOVI W/O GADIGEPPA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:351-DB RFA No. 100305 of 2019 AGE. 54 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE/COOLIE R/O. BHOVI GALLI NEAR J.G. HOSPITAL GHATAPRABHA-591 306 TQ. GOKAK DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. SMT. JAYASHREE AANI W/O BASAVARAJ AGE.49 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. DAMBAL-582 113 TQ. MUNDRAGI, DIST. GOKAK. 3. PRAKASH @ FAKIRAPPA BHOVI S/O BHIMAPPA AGE. 63 YEARS OCC. HOUSEHOLD R/O. BHOVI GALLI NEAR J.G. HOSPITAL GHATAPRABHA-591 306 TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI. 4. SMT. MANJULA KALLUR W/O CHANDRAPPA AGE. 41 YEARS OCC. HOUSEHOLD R/O. NARAGUND-582 207 TQ. NARAGUND, DIST. GADAG. 5. SMT. PREMA DODAMANI W/O MANJUNATH AGE. 36 YEARS OCC. HOUSEHOLD R/O. KADADI-582 102 TQ. GADAG, DIST. GADAG. 6. SHIVANAND BHOVI, S/O SHANKAR AGE. 32 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:351-DB RFA No. 100305 of 2019 R/O. BHOVI GALLI NEAR J.G. HOSPITAL GHATAPRABHA-591 306 TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI. 7. SMT. MALLAWWA HEBBALLI @ M.H. MALATI W/O MALLIKARJUN AGE. 61 YEARS OCC. PVT. SERVICE R/O. MALATI NILAYA KADARANAHALLI PARK, 4TH ROAD BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE BANGALORE-560050. 8. SMT. SAVITRI KARISAKRANNAVAR W/O VIRUPAXI AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. TEACHER R/O. GOVT. PRIMARY SCHOOL KARAPDA-580 021 TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHRIDHAR HIREMATH & SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADVS FOR C/R1 & R2, SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY HIREMATH & SRI. G.V.RAMANAGOUDAR, ADVS FOR R3, SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S HALLIKERI, ADV FOR R4 TO R6 AND SRI. SHIVARAJ C BELLAKKI, ADV FOR R7 & R8) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD:15.03.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.394/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GOKAK, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:351-DB RFA No. 100305 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This regular first appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and preliminary decree dated 15.03.2019 passed in O.S. No.394/2013 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gokak. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The appellants were defendant Nos.1 to 6, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were the plaintiffs and the other respondents were defendant Nos.7 to 12. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession regarding the suit schedule properties. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Bhimappa was the original propositus. He died on 09.07.1991. His wife Nagawwa died on 15.07.2011. Both - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:351-DB RFA No. 100305 of 2019 of them died leaving behind the plaintiffs, defendant Nos.1, 7, 11 and 12, as their legal representatives. Defendant Nos.2 to 6 are the wife and children of Basavaraj, i.e., son of Bhimappa and defendant Nos.8 to 10 are the children of Sitawwa i.e. daughter of Bhimappa. The plaintiffs and the defendants are members of the Hindu undivided joint family. The suit ‘A’ schedule properties were granted to deceased Bhimappa as per the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal, after coming into force of certain land Inam Abolition Act. It is contended that Bhimappa died about 20 years back and his wife died on 15.07.2011 leaving behind the plaintiffs and the defendants as their legal heirs. No partition is effected between the plaintiffs and the defendants by metes and bounds regarding the suit schedule properties. It is contended that after the death of mother Nagavva, the relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants was strained, and have started to act contrary to the joint family interest. It is contended that after the demise of Bhimappa, the names of defendant - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:351-DB RFA No. 100305 of 2019 Nos.1, 7 and deceased Basavaraj were mutated in the Revenue Records regarding the suit properties for and on behalf of the plaintiffs and other defendants as they were elder brothers and managing the family affairs. It is contended that the plaintiffs never relinquished their rights over the suit schedule properties. M.E. No.4979 of Dhupadal village is not correct. The plaintiffs have not submitted any such wardi to mutate the names of defendant Nos.1, 7 and deceased Basavaraj. The defendants based on the mutation entry, have not acquired any right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties. After the demise of their mother Nagawwa, the defendants started a hostile attitude against the plaintiffs, intending to alienate suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs demanded for a partition and separate possession but the defendants refused. Hence, a cause of action arises for the plaintiffs to file a suit for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the suit. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:351-DB RFA No. 100305 of 2019 4. Defendant Nos.7 to 10, despite service of notice, have remained unrepresented and they were placed exparte. 5. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that the plaintiffs were never in joint possession of the suit schedule properties at any point of time. It is contended that there was already a partition between defendant Nos.1, 7 and deceased Basavaraj in 2005 and no declaration is sought by the plaintiffs in respect of the said partition. Hence, the suit for partition is not maintainable. It is contended that, as per M.E.No.2240, originally, the suit lands were vested with the Government and were cultivated by the deceased Bhimappa independently, and accordingly, the occupancy rights of the lands were granted in favour of Bhimappa by the Tahsildar and confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal. It is denied that the suit schedule properties are ancestral joint family properties. Bhimappa died on 09.07.1991. In the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:351-DB RFA No. 100305 of 2019 partition, defendant No.1 was allotted 1 acre 31 guntas in R.S. No.35/3, 2 acres 7 guntas of land in R.S. No.36/3, 1 acre 29 guntas in R.S. No.41/3. Similarly, land measuring 1 acre 31 guntas in R.S. No.35/3, 2 acres 7 guntas in land R.S. No.36/3, 1 acre 29 guntas in R.S. No.41/3 fallen to the share of deceased Basavaraj. Defendant No.7 was also allotted a share i.e., an area measuring 1 acre 32 guntas in R.S. No.35/3, 2 acres 13 guntas in R.S. No.36/3 and 1 acre 28 guntas in R.S. No.41/3. The partition was reduced into writing and the parties have acted upon, and the mutation entry was made after due notice to the persons interested. It is stated that, a suit for mere partition and separate possession without seeking a relief of declaration with regard to the partition dated 06.01.2005 is not maintainable. It is contended that as per sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the definition of “Family” excludes married daughters. Hence, it is stated that the plaintiffs are the married daughters, they cannot claim a share in the granted land and tenanted lands. The suit filed by the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:351-DB RFA No. 100305 of 2019 plaintiffs is barred by limitation. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit against defendant No.1. 6. Defendant No.4 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, except admitting the relationship. Defendant No.4 reiterated the written statement averments filed by defendant No.1 and accordingly, prays to dismiss the suit. 7. Defendant Nos.11 and 12 filed their written statement admitting the averments made in the plaint and prayed to decree the suit as prayed for and also prayed to allot a share to defendant Nos.11 and 12 and they are ready to pay necessary court fee for the share allotted to them. 8. Defendant Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by defendant No.4. 9. The trial Court based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues and additional issues: - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:351-DB RFA No. 100305 of 2019 ISSUES 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit properties are ancestral family properties of the joint family comprising of themselves and the defendant Nos.1 to 12? 2. Whether defendant Nos.2 to 6 proves that already there is a legal partition in respect of suit properties prior to 20th December 2004? 3. Whether the defendants No.1 and 2 to 6 further prove that the plaintiffs being the married daughters are not entitled to claim share in the suit properties as per the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act? 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitle for the relief of partition as prayed? 5. What Order of decree? ADDL. ISSUES 1. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that partition dated 06-01-2005, in respect of suit properties an alleged? 2. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the suit is barred by limitation? 10. The plaintiffs to substantiate their case, Plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW.1 and marked 21 documents as - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:351-DB RFA No. 100305 of 2019 Exs.P.1 to P-21. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1, examined two witnesses as DWs.2 and 3 and marked 24 documents as Exs.D-1 to D-24. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing on both sides and on the assessment of oral and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1, 2, 3 and additional issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative, Issue No.4 in the affirmative and issue No.5 as per the final order. The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs declaring that the plaintiffs, defendant Nos.1, 7, 11 and 12 are entitled to 1/8th equal share in the suit schedule properties. Defendant Nos.2 to 6 are together entitled to 1/8th share of deceased Basavaraj and defendant Nos.8 to 10 are entitled to 1/8th share of deceased Sitavva. 11. Defendant Nos.1 to 6 aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree dated 15.03.2019 passed in O.S. No.394/2013 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gokak, have filed this regular first appeal. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:351-DB RFA No. 100305 of 2019 12. Heard the learned counsel for defendant Nos.1 to 6 and the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. 13. Learned counsel for defendant Nos.1 to 6 submits that the suit schedule properties are the tenanted and granted lands. The plaintiffs being the married daughters are excluded from the definition of ‘Family’ as per sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and they are not entitled to a share in the tenanted lands. It is contended that the said aspect was not considered by the trial Court and passed the impugned order. He also submits that, there was a partition effected on 06.01.2005 between Balappa, deceased Basavaraj and defendant No.7 and the same was reduced into writing, and produced the same, which is marked as Ex.D-23. Ex.D-23 is the partition deed, which discloses that a partition was effected between defendant Nos.1, 7 and deceased Basavaraj. Hence, he submits that the trial Court has committed an error in passing the impugned - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:351-DB RFA No. 100305 of 2019 judgment. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. He submits that there was no partition effected in between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The defendants have failed to prove the alleged partition dated 06.01.2005. The trial Court considering Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, has rightly granted a share to the plaintiffs. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 15. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 16. The point that arises for our consideration are: (i) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants? - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:351-DB RFA No. 100305 of 2019 (ii) Whether the defendants prove that the plaintiffs being the married daughters are not entitled to claim a share in the suit schedule properties as per the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act? (iii) Whether the defendants prove that the partition was effected between defendant No.1, 7 and deceased Basavaraj? (iv) Whether defendant Nos.1 to 6 prove that the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court is arbitrary and erroneous? and (v) What order or decree? 17. Point Nos.(i) and (iii) are interlinked to each other. Hence, they are taken up for the common discussion to avoid repetition of the facts. Point No.(i) & (iii): 18. Bhimappa was the original propositus. Nagawwa was his wife. Bhimappa and Nagawwa were the parents of the plaintiffs, defendant Nos.1, 7, 11 and 12, deceased Basavaraj and Sitawwa. The plaintiffs and the defendants constitute members of a Hindu Joint Family - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:351-DB RFA No. 100305 of 2019 and the suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. The plaintiffs and the defendants are enjoying the suit schedule properties jointly. Suit ‘A’ Schedule properties were granted to deceased Bhimappa as per the certain Land Abolition Act and the same was re-granted in favour of deceased Bhimappa, who died about 20 years back leaving behind the plaintiffs and the defendants as his legal heirs. No partition is effected between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The plaintiffs, to prove their case, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW.1. She reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief and to prove that the suit schedule properties stood in the name of Bhimappa, the plaintiffs produced Ex.P-1, which is the Record of Rights for the year 2013-14 in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.35/3 stands in the name of Bhimappa; Ex.P-2 is the RTC extract in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.36/3 which stands in the name of Bhimappa; Ex.P-3 is the RTC extract in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.41 which stands in the name of Bhimappa; Ex.P-4 is the - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:351-DB RFA No. 100305 of 2019 House property extract in respect of the House bearing No.117 which stands in the name of Bhimappa; Ex.P-5 to 11 are the Mutation extracts, which discloses that the properties were mutated in the name of Bhimappa; Ex.P- 12 is also the Mutation register, which discloses the name of Bhimappa; Exs.P-13 to 15 are the RTC extracts in respect of the suit schedule properties which disclose that the suit schedule properties stood in the name of Bhimappa; Ex.P-16 is the transfer certificate of plaintiff No.1; Ex.P-17 is the transfer certificate of plaintiff No.2; Ex.P-18 is the death certificate of Sitawwa, who died on 09.01.2008, Ex.P-19 is the leaving certificate, issued by the Ghataprabha Shikshana Samiti’s English School, Ghataprabha, which pertains to Mallamma Bhimmappa Bovi; Exs.D-20 and 21 are the marriage invitation cards. During the course of cross-examination, it was suggested to PW.1 that the suit schedule properties were granted in favour of Bhimappa and the suit schedule properties were in possession of her grandfather and to establish that her grandfather was in possession of the suit schedule - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:351-DB RFA No. 100305 of 2019 properties, she has produced the documents. She further deposed that, she has not produced any records to show that her grandfather was cultivating the suit schedule properties. It was suggested to PW.1 that the properties were transferred in the name of her father, the witness volunteers that the properties were transferred in the name of her father, as he was elder male member of the family. She admits that her marriage was performed in 1991 and the marriage of plaintiff No.1 was performed in 1980. She admits that defendant No.1, 7 and Basavaraj partitioned the suit schedule properties and it is also elicited that Bhimppa filed Form No.7 and lands were granted in favour of Bhimappa. It is elicited that after the demise of Bhimappa, the plaintiffs have not submitted an application to the Revenue Authorities to enter their names as the legal heirs of the deceased Bhimappa. It was elicited that the defendants are in possession of the properties. The witness volunteers that they are in possession on behalf of the entire family and it was - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:351-DB RFA No. 100305 of 2019 suggested that the plaintiffs have no right to claim a share in the partition. 19. Defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1. He reiterated the written statement averments in the examination-in-chief. He has deposed that the suit schedule properties were granted in favour of Bhimappa and after his demise, defendant No.s1, 7 and the deceased Basavaraj inherited the properties of Bhimappa and there was a partition between defendant Nos.1, 7 and the deceased Basavaraj in 2005, and the partition was reduced into writing. He has deposed that the plaintiffs being the married daughters, are not entitled to a share in the granted lands. The plaintiffs have no right to claim a share in the suit schedule properties. 20. Defendants to prove their defence produced documents i.e. Ex.D1 is the application, Ex.D-2 is the ‘U’ Form, Ex.D-3 is Kabuli application, Ex.D-4 is the letter issued by Village Accountant, Dhupadal, Ex.D-5 is Form No.8(A), Ex.D-6 is Hakku badalavane patra, Ex.D-7 is - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:351-DB RFA No. 100305 of 2019 check list, Exs.D-8 and D-9 are the receipts, Exs.D-10 to D-12 are the RTC extracts, Ex.D-13 is the mutation register, Ex.D-14 is Appendix ‘B’, Ex.D-15 is varasa report, Ex.D-16 is Chalana, Exs.D-17 to D-19 are RTC extracts, Ex.D-20 is the death extract, Ex.D-21 is the mutation register, Ex.D-22 is Kabuli patra, Ex.D-23 is vatni patra and Ex.D-24 is Kabuli patra. 21. During the course of cross-examination, D.W.1 admitted that Bhimappa was the second son and defendant No.7 was the third son and defendant No.1 is the elder son and he was born in 1946. His sister Sitavva died about 10 years back and he did not know the date of birth of Sitavva. During the lifetime of Bhimappa, defendants were residing jointly. It is elicited that defendants were residing in the matrimonial home and during the lifetime of Bhimappa, he was managing the entire affairs. It is elicited that the suit schedule properties were granted in favour of Bhimappa and the said lands were granted in 1977-78. Plaintiff No.2 and defendant - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:351-DB RFA No. 100305 of 2019 No.12’s marriage was performed in 1992 and defendant No.11’s marriage was performed in 1979. Bhimappa died on 09.07.1999 and at the time of the death of Bhimappa, the suit schedule properties stood in the name of Bhimappa. After the demise of Bhimappa, defendant No.1 was looking after the family affairs. It is suggested to D.W.1 that the plaintiffs never executed “Kabulipatra”, the said suggestion was denied by D.W.1. It is denied that parties gave varadi to the revenue authorities to enter the name of the parties. It is elicited that mother died in 2005. It is denied that after the demise of the mother, the relationship between the plaintiffs and defendants were strained. He deposed that the sisters gave varadi to the Talati. From perusal of the evidence of D.W.1, it is clear that the suit schedule properties were granted in favour of Bhimappa, i.e., father of plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1, 7, 11 and 12. 22. The defence of the defendants that there was a partition between defendant Nos.1, 7 and deceased - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:351-DB RFA No. 100305 of 2019 Basavaraj and to prove that there was prior partition, produced Ex.D2, which is an unregistered document. From the perusal of the contents of Ex.D22, it does not disclose that the plaintiffs and other sisters have relinquished their rights over the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant Nos.1, 7 and the deceased Basavaraj. The said document is unregistered. It is settled law that, as per Section 17 of the Registration Act, in order to transfer the immovable property, the market value of which is more than Rs.100/-, it requires compulsory registration. The said document is unregistered and the same is inadmissible in evidence. Further, the defendants also produced Ex.D23-Watnipatra, i.e., partition deed to prove the factum of partition between defendant Nos.1, 7, and deceased Basavaraj. The plaintiffs were not signatories to Ex.D23. The defendants have failed to establish that there was a prior partition between defendant Nos.1, 7, and the deceased Basavaraj. From the perusal of the records produced by the parties and the evidence on record, it clearly discloses that the suit schedule properties were - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:351-DB RFA No. 100305 of 2019 granted in favour of Bhimappa, i.e., father of the plaintiffs, defendant Nos.1, 7, 11 and 12. Bhimappa died intestate leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendants as his legal heirs. Admittedly, there is no partition effected between the plaintiffs and the defendants. Defendant Nos.1, 7 and deceased Basavaraj and the plaintiffs, being the daughters of the deceased Bhimappa, they are coparceners as per Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. Admittedly, no partition is effected between the plaintiffs and the defendants. Thus, the plaintiffs proved that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. They constitute members of a Hindu undivided joint family and no partition is effected between the plaintiffs and the defendants. 23. Further, it is the defence of the defendants that the plaintiffs have relinquished their rights by submitting varadi before the revenue authorities. Admittedly, based on the varadi recorded by the revenue authorities, the - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:351-DB RFA No. 100305 of 2019 properties were transferred in the name of defendant Nos.1, 7, and the deceased Basavaraj. Merely, on the basis of the varadi, could it be the legal transfer of right, title and interest in the immovable property? 24. The so called varadi in the form of registered document evidencing the transfer of immovable property. The nature of varadi is, as to whether, it was oral or in writing, if so, the identity of the person, who gave report, are the material particulars, which are not forthcoming in the written statement. The transfer of immovable property, it is tried to be legal, must be in accordance with the Transfer of Property Act, 1982. 25. In the facts and circumstances of this case, in the absence of the registered document, the transfer of immovable property, “varadi” per se, cannot constitute a valuable legal transfer of the immovable property. When an entry in the revenue records is to be deleted by a new entry, the statute imposes a duty on the revenue authorities to initiate proceedings under Section 128 of the - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:351-DB RFA No. 100305 of 2019 Land Revenue Act, 1964, and after the due notice to the parties concerned, an opportunity of hearing is provided to the parties, ought to have passed the orders. 26. The defendants have not produced any records to establish that the revenue authorities have followed the procedure prescribed under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Further, the mutation extract is not supported by any related document. Any order passed under the mutation proceedings even as a piece of evidence has little evidentiary value, when it is founded on a material piece of evidence, which was untrue. 27. As recorded above, the defendants have failed to establish that the plaintiffs have relinquished their share in the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant Nos.1, 7 and deceased Basavaraj. In view of the above discussion, we answer point No.(i) in the affirmative and point No.(iii) in the negative. - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:351-DB RFA No. 100305 of 2019 Point No.(ii). 28. It is the case of the defendants that, the plaintiffs are the married daughters and they are not entitled to claim a share in the suit schedule properties, as the properties were the granted lands. The plaintiffs are the married daughters. They do not fall within the definition of “family”, as defined under sub-section (12) of Section 2 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The said issue was considered by the Coordinate Bench of this court in RFA No.100149/2014 disposed of on 13.01.2020 between Sri.Aravind and Another vs Smt.Sunanda and Others. The said issue was followed by the Division Bench of this court in RFA No.100189/2020 wherein it is held that, there cannot be any doubt that the grantee’s successors, who are the plaintiffs and the defendants, are entitled to an undivided share and the defendants were unable to show any provision in the KLR Act, that determined, the succession of land in question after the death of grantee. As a matter of fact, there is no provision - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:351-DB RFA No. 100305 of 2019 delineating the mode of succession to the lands that are conferred on tenants under the KLR Act. The judgment passed in RFA No.100149/2014 is aptly applicable to the present case on hand. We concur with the findings rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court in RFA No.100149/2014. In view of the law laid down by this court in RFA No.100149/2014, the married daughters are entitled to a share in the granted lands. The plaintiffs being the daughters of Bhimappa, they are coparceners, as per Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, they are entitled for a share in the suit schedule properties. The defendants have failed to prove that the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim a share in the suit schedule properties, as per Section 2(12) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. In view of the above discussion, we answer point No.(ii) in the negative. Point No.(iv). 29. The trial court considering that the suit schedule properties were granted in favour of Bhimappa, - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:351-DB RFA No. 100305 of 2019 held that the plaintiffs, defendant Nos.1, 7 and the deceased Basavaraj are the children of the Deceased Bhimappa and Bhimappa died intestate leaving behind the plaintiffs and the defendants as his legal heirs. After the demise of Bhimappa, the plaintiffs and the defendants have succeeded to the estate of the deceased Bhimappa. The plaintiffs and the defendants are the members of the Hindu undivided family and no partition is effected between them. As observed above, though the defendants have taken a defence that there was a partition between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1, 7 and the deceased Basavaraj, the defendants have failed to prove the alleged partition, which took place between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1, 7 and the deceased Basavaraj. The trial court has rightly held that the plaintiffs are the daughters of Bhimappa, they are coparceners, are entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties and rightly decreed the suit. We do not find any error in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, we answer point No.(iv) in the negative. - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:351-DB RFA No. 100305 of 2019 Point No.(v). 30. In view of the above discussion, we proceed to pass the following; ORDER i) The Regular First Appeal is dismissed. ii) The judgment and decree dated 15.03.2019 passed in O.S.No.394/2013 passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gokak is hereby confirmed. iii) No order as to the cost. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE Kmv upto para 20 MBS 21 to end CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20