- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9145 RSA No. 100816 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100816/2018 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI. SURESH RADDI S/O. NINGAREDDI KENCHAREDDI. AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: MAGOD, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI – 581 115. …APPELLANT]\ (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. GIRIJAMMA W/O. BHARAMAPPA AMATI, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: MAGOD, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI – 581 115. 2. SMT.NEELAMMA W/O SANJEEVAPPA YARESIME. AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: MAGOD, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI – 581 115. 3. SMT. RENUKA W/O. SHIVAMURTHEPPA HALEMANI. AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE & AGRICULTURE, R/O: HALAGERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI – 581 115. Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9145 RSA No. 100816 of 2018 4. SRI. JAGADEESH S/O. BHARAMAPPA @ JAGADEESH, (ADOPTED SON OF SAHADEVAPPA AMATHI), AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, MUNDARAGI, R/O: MAGOD, TQ: RANEBENUR, DIST: HAVERI – 581 115. 5. SRI.RAMAPPA S/O. BHARAMAPPA AMATI, AG: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: SHIBARA CAMP, KONDAJJI ROAD, TQ & DIST: DAVANAGERE – 577 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; R4 IS SERVED; NOTICE TO R5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.08.2018 IN R.A.NO.43/2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED IIIRD ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, RANEBENNUR AT RANEBENNUR, AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.07.2016 O.S.NO.148/2008 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND 1ST JMFC RANEBENNUR, AND DISMISS THE SUIT O.S.NO.148/2008 BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL WITH EXEMPLARY COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9145 RSA No. 100816 of 2018 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) 1. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the contesting respondents, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal is by defendant No.3 aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2016 passed in O.S.No.148/2008 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and I JMFC, Ranebennur which is confirmed by the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2018 passed in R.A.No.43/2016 on the file of III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ranebennur. 3. The above suit in O.S. No.148 of 2008 was filed by plaintiffs seeking the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the following items of the properties: zÁªÁzÀ D¹ÛAiÀÄ ªÀtð£É: ºÁªÉÃj f¯Áè gÁuɨɣÀÆßgÀ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ ªÀiÁUÉÆÃqÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ: j ¸À £ÀA. PÉëÃvÀæ J-UÀÄA DPÁgÀ gÀÆ-¥ÉÊ 1. L 83/2 3-00 7-00 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9145 RSA No. 100816 of 2018 2. «¦¹: 52 ªÀiÁ¼ÀV ªÀÄ£É EzÀgÀ CAzÁdÄ «ÄªÀÄävÀÄÛ 10,000-00 3. «¦¹ £ÀA: 404/J Rt EzÀgÀ°èAiÀÄ 1/3 »¸ÉìÃzÀ ºÀQÌ£À ¥ÀǪÀð¨sÁUÀzÀ Rt 4. J ¸À £ÀA: 96/4 PÉëÃvÀæ 10 UÀÄAmÉ EzÀgÀ CAzÁdÄ QªÀÄävÀÄÛ 50,000-00 4. The plaintiffs contended, inter alia, that the suit properties are the ancestral properties and originally belonged to one Bharamappa, who passed away leaving behind his wife, Girijamma (plaintiff No.1), daughters namely Neelamma (plaintiff No.2) and Renuka (plaintiff No.3), Jagadeesha (defendant No.1) and Ramappa (defendant No.2). It is further contended that defendant No. 1, Jagadeesh was given in adoption to one Sahadevappa, the brother of the propositus Bharamappa. It is alleged that defendant Nos.1 and 2, in collusion, created a relinquishment deed dated 27.10.2007 and, in furtherance thereof, executed a deed of sale dated 04.06.2008, conveying the suit properties in favour of defendant No.3, thereby denying the right, title, or interest - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9145 RSA No. 100816 of 2018 of the plaintiffs. Hence, the suit for partition, seeking ¼th share each in the suit properties. 5. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement denying the plaint averments. It is contended that, after the demise of Bharamappa on 28.04.2000, the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 had declared that they had no right in the ancestral properties, as they had been given movables in lieu of their share during their marriage. It is further stated that plaintiff No.1, who was under the care and custody of defendant No.2, had also consented to the change of Khata of the suit properties in the name of defendant No.2 by swearing to an affidavit. Based on this, defendant No.2 mutated his name in the revenue records in respect of the suit properties and thereby became the absolute owner thereof. 6. It is further contended that since defendant No.2 was in need of money, he conveyed the land in item No.1 of the suit properties in favour of defendant No.2, for a consideration of ₹1,65,000/-, by executing a relinquishment deed dated 27.10.2007. Consequently, defendant No.1 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9145 RSA No. 100816 of 2018 became the absolute owner of Item No.1 of the suit properties, and subsequently sold the same in favour of defendant No.3 under a registered deed of sale dated 04.06.2008. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the suit. 7. Defendant No.2 appeared and filed a separate written statement supporting the case of the plaintiffs. He denied that defendant No.1 had any share in the suit properties, which would enable him to sell the same in favour of defendant No.3, who was impleaded subsequently. Despite supporting the case of the plaintiffs, defendant No.2 contended that he had purchased the property from defendant No.1 under a deed of sale. He further stated that defendant No.1 had acquired the said property pursuant to the relinquishment deed executed by defendant No.2, and thereby become the absolute owner of the suit properties. Accordingly, he claimed to be the absolute owner thereof. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9145 RSA No. 100816 of 2018 8. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues and additional issues, which were recast, as follows: ISSUES ORIGINALLY FRAMED 1. Whether the plaintiffs proves that the gemology mentioned in the plaint? 2. Whether the suit schedule property is ancestral property and liable for partition? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant No. 1 the adopted son of Sahadevappa Amati had got revenue records concocted in his name? 4. Whether the court fee paid is sufficient and property for the purpose of determining jurisdiction of the court? 5. Whether defendant No. 3 proves that defendant had executed relinquishment deed in favour of defendant No. 1 and defendant No 1 has become absolute owner of the suit schedule property? 6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/4th share in the suit schedule property? 7. What relief are plaintiffs entitled to? 8. What order or decree? ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO. 1 FRAMED ON 20-03-2013 1. Whether the suit is bad for partial partition? ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO. 2 FRAMED ON 01-09-2015: 1. Whether plaintiffs prove, sale deeds dated: 27- 10-2007 and 04-06-2008 in favour of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9145 RSA No. 100816 of 2018 defendants No. and 3 are not binding on plaintiffs? ISSUES RECASTED ON 16-11-2015 1. Whether plaintiffs prove that, defendant No. 2 illegally created varadhi, thereby illegally got entered his name to suit schedule properties bearing R.S.No.83/2 and R.S. No.96/4? 2. Whether plaintiffs further prove that, sale deeds dated:27-10-2007 and 04-06-2008 in favour of defendants No. 1 and 3 in respect of suit properties not binding on the plaintiffs? 3. Whether court fee paid is sufficient? 4. Whether defendants prove that, court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit? 5. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for relief as prayed for? 6. What order or decree? 9. On recording the evidence and appreciating the same, , the trial Court partly decreed the suit, declaring that plaintiff No.1 being entitled for 5/12th share, plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 being entitled for 1/12th share each, defendant No.2 being entitled for 5/12th share each. 10. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant No.3 preferred an appeal in R.A. No.43 of 2016 before the First Appellate Court. . - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9145 RSA No. 100816 of 2018 11. The First Appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration: 1. Whether the appellants/defendants proves that, impugned judgment and decree of the Court below is against the law and facts and circumstances of the case? 2. Whether the appellants prove that, the interference of this Court is required with the impugned Judgment and decree of the Court below? 3. What order or decree? 12. On re-appreciation of the evidence and materials on record, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 13. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, defendant No.3 has preferred this regular second appeal before this Court. 14. This Court admitted this appeal to consider the following substantial question of law for its consideration, which reads as under: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9145 RSA No. 100816 of 2018 “Whether the trial Court and the First Appellate Court were justified in decreeing the suit by allotting the shares to the plaintiffs and defendant No.2, without considering the claim of the defendant No.3 / appellant herein of he having purchased item No.1 of the suit properties in terms of deed of sale dated 04.06.2008?” 15. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant herein is a bona fide purchaser, having purchased the property from defendant No.1, who had, in turn acquired right, title and interest in respect of the entire suit properties in terms of the relinquishment deed that was executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 on 27.10.2007 as per Ex.D5. 16. He contended that, in the absence of any challenge to the said relinquishment deed, the suit itself was not maintainable, which aspect of the matter has not been considered by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court. He further submitted that, in any event, the trial Court and the First Appellate Court ought to have recognized the entitlement of the appellant being the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9145 RSA No. 100816 of 2018 purchaser of the suit properties, which has not been done. Hence, he prayed for allowing of the appeal. 17. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents / plaintiffs submitted that the appellant herein, who is the purchaser during the pendency of the proceedings. Therefore, he is bound by the outcome of the proceedings. It is further submitted that the trial Court and ha rightly determined and allotted the shares of the parties, which was subsequently confirmed by the First appellate Court. Hence, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. 18. Both the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the respondents however jointly submits that trial Court and the First Appellate Court erred in the allotting the shares to the parties in terms of the law that prevailed earlier to the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, without taking into consideration the change in the statutory provisions, which provide for equal shares to the descendants of the deceased Bharamappa. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9145 RSA No. 100816 of 2018 Hence, they submit that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court is required to be modified. 19. Heard. Perused the records. 20. The present appeal pertains to item No.1 of the suit properties, which the appellant / defendant No.3 claimed to have purchased under the deed of sale dated 04.06.2008, produced at Ex.D7, from defendant No.1. It is not in dispute that the suit properties originally belonged to Bharamappa and, upon his demise, his legal heirs became entitled to a share in the said properties. However, it is admitted that defendant No.1, Jagadeesha, was given in adoption to the family of one Sahadevappa, the brother of Bharamappa, which fact has not been disputed. Therefore, defendant No.1 would not be entitled to any share in the suit properties. 21. In normal circumstances, upon the demise of Bharamappa, and in view of defendant No.1 having been given in adoption, the suit properties would devolve upon - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9145 RSA No. 100816 of 2018 his class-I heirs, namely his wife, daughters and son. Though, the trial Court and the First Appellate Court applied the law as it stood prior to the amendment to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, thereby granting unequal shares, by virtue of the amendment that came into existence during the pendency of the proceedings, the legal heirs i.e., the plaintiffs being wife and daughters and defendant No.2 being the son, would each be entitled to an equal ¼th share in the suit properties. 22. Accordingly, defendant No.2 could not have executed relinquishment deed dated 27.10.2007 relinquishing the rights in favour of defendant No.1 with respect to the entire item No.1 of the suit properties, depriving the rights of the plaintiffs. The said relinquishment deed, in any case, would be valid only to the extent of ¼th share of defendant No.2. Thus, the trial Court and the First Appellate Court in the considered view of this court have lost sight of this aspect of the matter. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9145 RSA No. 100816 of 2018 23. Therefore, the shares of the parties are required to be modified, holding that each of the legal heirs of Bharamappa, namely the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 being wife, daughters and son is entitled to an equal ¼th share in the suit properties. 24. Adverting to the claim of the appellant / defendant No.3, who is a purchaser, is concerned, though he claims to have purchased the entire extent of 3 acres of land in Item No.1 of the suit properties, this Court having held that defendant No.2 was entitled only to a ¼th share in the suit properties, consequently, the relinquishment deed under which defendant No.1 acquired rights would have to be restricted only to the extent of the said ¼th share. Therefore, the sale deed subsequently executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3, who is appellant herein will eventually be valid only to the extent of said ¼th share and the same would not be binding to the remaining 3/4th share of the plaintiffs. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9145 RSA No. 100816 of 2018 25. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to a ¼th share in item No.1 of the suit properties in the light of the provisions contained in Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act. The substantial question of law raised in this appeal is answered accordingly. 26. The parties may work out their equities in respect of the shares, as determined above, during the final decree proceedings. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is partly allowed; (ii) The plaintiffs and defendant No.2 are held entitled for ¼th share each in respect of all the suit properties; (iii) While allotting the shares in respect of item No.1 of the suit properties, ¼th share of Ramappa (defendant No.2) needs to be allotted to the share of the appellant / defendant No.3. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9145 RSA No. 100816 of 2018 (iv) Defendant No.3 is also entitled to seek equities against the share of Ramappa – defendant No.2 in other items of the suit properties, as may be permissible under law. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE VNP/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5