- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11100-DB RFA No. 100204 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100204 OF 2025 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: 1. CHANNAVVA D/O. BASAPPA PARASAGOND AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. KANKANAKOPPA, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALAKOTE-587201. 2. SHOBHA D/O. BASAPPA PARASAGOND AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. KANKANAKOPPA, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALAKOTE-587201. 3. SMT. MALIYAVVA W/O. MALLAPPA SANNAYALLAPPANAVAR, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER, R/O. KANKANAKOPPA, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587201. 4. POOJA D/O. BASAPPA PARASAGOND AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. DHAVALESHWAR RC, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587116. 5. SHYAYAVVA D/O. BASAPPA PARASAGOND AGE: 11 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. DHAVALESHWAR RC, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587116. (APPELLANTS NO.4 AND 5 ARE MINORS, Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.09.08 15:30:37 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11100-DB RFA No. 100204 of 2025 REP. BY THEIR MINOR GUARDIAN / MOTHER APPELLANT NO.6) 6. SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O. BASAPPA PARASAGOND AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER, R/O. DHAVALESHWAR RC, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587116. 7. BANDAVVA D/O. SHANKRAPPA PARASAGOND AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. DHAVALESHWAR RC, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587116. 8. SAVITA D/O. SHANKRAPPA PARASAGOND AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, (APPELLANT NO.8 IS MINOR, REPRESENTED BY THEIR MINOR GUARDIAN / MOTHER APPELLANT NO.9) 9. SMT. MEENAKSHI W/O. SHANKRAPPA PARASAGOND, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER, R/O. DHAVALESHWAR RC, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587116. 10. HANAMANT S/O. LAKSHMAN PARASAGOND AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. DHAVALESHWAR RC, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587116. 11. PRAVEEN S/O. LAKSHMAN PARASAGOND AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. DHAVALESHWAR RC, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587116. 12. PAVITRA D/O. LAKSHMAN PARASAGOND AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. DHAVALESHWAR RC, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587116, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11100-DB RFA No. 100204 of 2025 (APPELLANTS NO. 11 AND 12 ARE MINORS R/BY THIER MINOR GUARDIAN /MOTHER APPELLANT NO.13). 13. SMT. ROOPA W/O. LAKSHMAN PARASAGOND AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER, R/O. DHAVALESHWAR RC, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587116. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. PARVATEVVA W/O. DUNDAPPA PARASAGOND, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER, R/O. DHAVALESHWAR RC, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587116. 2. SMT. SANGAVVA W/O. RAVI GOUDAR AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER, R/O. YANKANCHI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAVAN B.DODDATTI AND SMT. DEEPA P.DODDATTI, ADVOCATES) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.02.2025 AND DECREE DATED 17.02.2025 IN OS NO.28/2020 PASSED BY THE HONBLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BILAGI CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE OS NO.28/2020 IN ENTIRETY TO SERVE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11100-DB RFA No. 100204 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of both the learned counsels, the same is heard and taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal by the defendants in O.S.No.28/2020 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 06.02.2025 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bilagi1 whereby the said suit filed by the respondents – plaintiffs for partition and separate possession for their alleged share in the plaint schedule immovable properties was decreed in favour of respondents – plaintiffs against the appellants – defendants by the Trial Court. 3. For ease of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their respective rank before the Trial Court. 4. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under: 1 Hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court” for short - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11100-DB RFA No. 100204 of 2025 Plaintiff No.1 – Smt.Parvatevva is the widow of the Late Dundappa Parasagond, propositus, who undisputedly died intestate on 11.08.2004. Plaintiff No.2 is the only daughter of Smt.Parvatevva and Dundappa, who had three sons Late Basappa, Late Shankrappa and Late Lakshman. The aforesaid Basappa had two wives by name Smt.Rukmavva and Smt.Laxmibai (defendant No.6), whose children are defendant Nos.4 and 5, while defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the children of deceased Rukmavva wife of Basappa. Late Shankarappa, the second son of Late Dundappa and Smt.Parvatevva, left behind his wife Smt.Meenakshi (defendant No.9), whose children are arrayed as defendant Nos.7 and 8. Similarly, Late Lakshman deceased son of Dundappa and Smt.Parvatevva left behind his wife Smt.Roopa (defendant No.13) and defendant Nos.10, 11 and 12 are their children. Under these circumstances, the wife and daughter of propositus Late Dundappa instituted the aforesaid suit for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the plaint schedule properties. 5. It is a matter of record that, plaint ‘B’ schedule properties are landed properties compromising of six items, while - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11100-DB RFA No. 100204 of 2025 plaint ‘C’ schedule properties are the house properties bearing plot No.A-102 and plot No.C-12, both situated at Dhavaleshwar village of Bilagi Taluk, allotted by the Government under rehabilitation scheme. 6. A perusal of the plaint averments will indicate and it is specifically contended that, all the plaint schedule properties are ancestral joint family properties and that upon the demise of Dundappa in the year 2004 without leaving behind any Will, the plaint schedule properties were succeeded to by all the parties, who were entitled to their legitimate share in the plaint schedule properties. 7. In the written statement filed by the appellants - defendants, while admitting the relationship between the parties, the appellants - defendants denied and disputed the claim of the respondents - plaintiffs. It was contended that the respondents - plaintiffs did not have any share in the plaint schedule properties and they had relinquished their right over the plaint schedule properties on 14.09.2007 and necessary mutation entries were recorded in this regard and consequently the present suit was not maintainable. It was also contended that insofar as ‘C’ - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11100-DB RFA No. 100204 of 2025 schedule properties are concerned, the respondents - plaintiffs were not entitled to any share in the plaint schedule properties also and the suit in relation to these properties was also liable to be dismissed. 8. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether plaintiffs prove that plaintiffs and defendants are the members of Hindu undivided Mitakshar family? 2. Whether plaintiffs prove that suit schedule ‘B’ properties are the ancestral joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same? 3. Whether defendant No.6, 9. 13 prove that plaintiffs have relinquished their share as per MR No.10/2007-08 dated 14.09.2007? 4. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as sought for? 5. What order or decree? ADDITIONAL ISSUE 1. Whether defendants prove that the suit schedule ‘C’ properties are self acquired properties of deceased Dundappa and Basappa? - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11100-DB RFA No. 100204 of 2025 9. Plaintiff No.2 examined herself as PW.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.24 were marked on their behalf. Defendant No.13 examined herself as DW.1 and one witness as DW.2 and documentary evidences at Exs.D.1 to D.5 were marked on their behalf. 10. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that both ‘B’ schedule properties as well as ‘C’ schedule properties were joint family properties, in which, all the parties were entitled to their legitimate share and consequently proceeded to decree the suit filed by the respondents - plaintiffs. However, the Trial Court decreed the suit only insofar as ‘D’ schedule properties and item No.2 of ‘C’ schedule properties and did not pass any decree in relation to item No.1 of the suit schedule ‘C’ properties. 11. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the appellants - defendants are before this Court by way of the present appeal. 12. Heard learned counsel for the appellants - defendants and learned counsel for the respondents – plaintiffs and perused the material on record. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11100-DB RFA No. 100204 of 2025 13. Learned counsel for the appellants – defendants would invite our attention to the pleadings and evidence on record in order to point out that the Trial Court committed an error in upholding the claim for partition put forth by the respondents - plaintiffs without appreciating that, the respondents - plaintiffs themselves had relinquished their alleged claim / share over the plaint schedule properties in the year 2007 itself and necessary mutation entries had been made in the revenue records and the suit filed after more than 13 years of such entry in the revenue records was not maintainable and the suit was liable to be dismissed. It was also pointed out that item No.2 of the plaint schedule ‘C’ house property bearing plot No.C- 12 was acquired in the name of defendant No.9 – Smt.Meenakshi and defendant No.13 – Smt.Roopa vide two registered sale deeds at Ex.D.2 and D.3 dated 4.11.2016 and by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the said properties would become absolute, separate, exclusive and self acquired of defendant Nos.9 and 13 and respondents - plaintiffs would not be entitled to claim any share in relation to the said properties. It was therefore submitted that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court deserves to be - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11100-DB RFA No. 100204 of 2025 set aside and the suit of the respondents - plaintiffs was liable to be dismissed. 14. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents – plaintiffs would support the impugned judgment and decree and submits that there is no merit in the appeal and that the same is liable to be dismissed. It was also submitted that, though the Trial Court did not record any finding as to whether item No.1 of plaint ‘C’ schedule properties bearing plot No.A-102 was not the joint family property, due to oversight and inadvertence, the Trial Court did not pass decree for partition in respect of this property and requests this Court to exercise its jurisdiction / powers under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19082 and modify the impugned judgment and decree by declaring that the respondents - plaintiffs were entitled to a share in item No.1 of ‘C’ schedule especially when the said property stands in the name of propositus Dundappa and Basappa son of Dundappa, as a result of which, all parties should be entitled to a share in the plaint schedule properties. 2 Hereinafter referred to as “the CPC” for short - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11100-DB RFA No. 100204 of 2025 15. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and contentions and perused the material on record. 16. The following points arise for consideration in the present appeal: (i) Whether the Trial was justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs in respect of Plaint ‘B’ schedule properties? (ii) Whether the Trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in respect of item No.2 of ‘C’ schedule property bearing khata No.C.12? (iii) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in not decreeing the suit in respect of item No.1 of the plaint ‘C’ schedule properties bearing khata No.A.102 and whether the facts and circumstance of the instant case warrant exercise of powers conferred on this Court under Order XLI Rule 33 of CPC in relation to the said property? Reg. Point No.(i) : 17. In the plaint, the plaintiff specifically contend that ‘B’ schedule properties were the ancestral joint family properties of the parties and they are inherited by them from the original propositus Dundappa and after his demise all the parties would be entitled to their legitimate share in the plaint ‘B’ schedule - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11100-DB RFA No. 100204 of 2025 properties. In order to establish this fact, the parties have produced revenue records which clearly indicate that the properties stood in the name of Dundappa. According to the appellants - defendants, in the year 2007 pursuant to a varadhi / report submitted by Revenue Officer, the khata in relation to the plaint ‘B’ schedule property were mutated in favour of three sons of Late Dundappa, as a result of which, there was relinquishment of the alleged share of Dundappa’s wife and daughter, the respondents - plaintiffs herein in favour of the three sons of Dundappa and Smt.Parvatevva in relation to plaint ‘B’ schedule properties. 18. In this context, the Trial Court rejected the said claim of relinquishment put forth by the defendants on the ground that there was no registered document executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the sons of Dundappa so as to extinguish or relinquish their alleged right in the plaint ‘B’ schedule properties in favour of three sons of Dundappa. The Trial Court also took into account that mere change of Khata pursuant to alleged Varadi would not have the effect of extinguishing the share of the plaintiffs and creation of absolute right in plaint ‘B’ schedule properties in - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11100-DB RFA No. 100204 of 2025 favour of three sons of Dundappa. While arriving at the said conclusion, the Trial Court held as under: “9. Issue No.1 to 3 and Addl. Issue No.1: These issues are taken together for common discussion as they are interlinked to each other and to avoid repetition of facts. 10. It is the case of plaintiffs that the suit properties are the ancestral joint family properties and they are in joint possession. But the defendants got deleted the names of plaintiffs on the basis of alleged relinquishment deed. The plaintiffs have not relinquished their share and they have got share in the suit properties. In support of the case, the plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW.1 by filing affidavit in lieu of her examination in chief and reiterated the plaint averments. PW.1 also got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.24 documents. Ex.P.1 is the RTC of R.S.No.116/4 for the years 2020-21 measuring 6 acres 12 guntas, Ex.P.19 is the RTC of R.S.No.116/4 for the years 2022-23 standing in the name of defendant No.1, 2, 4 to 9. The mode of acquisition is shown as inheritance as per MR No.H30/2017-18 dated 29.03.2018, MR No.H1/2019-20 dated 21.08.2019. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11100-DB RFA No. 100204 of 2025 Ex.P.2 is the RTC of R.S.No.119/4 for the years 2020-21 measuring 5 acres 4 guntas and Ex.P.21 is the RTC for the years 2022-23 standing in the name of defendant No.7 to 9. The mode of acquisition is shown as inheritance as per MR No.H3/2014-15 dated 13.10.2014. Ex.P.3 is the RTC of R.S.No.119/3 for the years 2020-21 measuring 5 acres 29 guntas and Ex.P.20 is the RTC for the years 2022-23 standing in the name of defendant No.10 to 13. The mode of acquisition is shown as inheritance as per MR No.H38/2017-18 dated 16.07.2018. Ex.P.4 is the RTC of R.S.No.69/6 for the years 2020-21 measuring 1 acre 14 guntas and Ex.P.18 is the RTC for the years 2022-23 standing in the name of defendant No.1, 2, 4 to 6. The mode of acquisition is shown as inheritance as per MR No.H30/2017-18 dated 29.03.2018 and MR No.H5/2021-22 dated 02.11.2021. Ex.P.5 is the RTC of R.S.No.69/5 for the years 2020-21 measuring 1 acre 13 guntas and Ex.P.17 is the RTC for the years 2022-23 standing in the name of defendant No.7 to 9. The mode of acquisition is shown as inheritance as per MR No.H3/2014-15 dated 13.10.2014. Ex.P.6 is the RTC of R.S.No.69/4 for the years 2020-21 measuring 1 acre 13 guntas and - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11100-DB RFA No. 100204 of 2025 Ex.P.16 is the RTC for the years 2022-23 in the name of defendant No.13. The mode of acquisition is shown as partition as per MR No.H1/2010-11 dated 23.08.2010. Ex.P.7 is the MR No.16/2004-05. It reflects that after death of Dundappa Hanamappa Parasgonda the names of his wife and children mutated to the lands R.S.No.69/1B measuring 4 guntas, 116/4 measuring 6 acres 12 guntas and 119/3 measuring 5 acres 17 guntas. Ex.P.8 is the MR No.37/2004-05. It reflects that they have availed loan on the said lands. Ex.P.9 is the MR No.12/2003-04. It reflects about availing loan by Dundappa Hanamappa Parasgond on lands R.S.No.116/4 and 119/3. Ex.P.10 is the MR No.10/2007-08. It reflects that in view of relinquishment the names of plaintiffs were deleted and the names of Basappa, Lakshmappa and Lakshman were retained to the lands R.S.No.69/1B, 116/4 and 119/3. Ex.P.11 is the MR No.1/2010-11. It reflects that as per partition in between Lakshman and the defendant No.13, the land R.S.No.119/3 measuring 5 acres 29 guntas was allotted to Lakshman and R.S.No.69/4 measuring 1 acre 13 guntas was allotted to the defendant No.13. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11100-DB RFA No. 100204 of 2025 Ex.P.12 is ME No.2231. It reflects that the name of Dundappa Hanamappa Parasgond was mutated to the lands R.S.No.19/5, 20/5, 34/1, 38/1A, 60/2B, 146/1B/2 and 147/1B/2 as per Will executed by Channavva Sangappa Honnihal. Ex.P.13 is the certified copy of ME No.2550. It reflects that Dundappa Hanamappa Parasgond has purchased land R.S.No.119/3 measuring 5 acres 17 guntas out of 10 acres 33 guntas from Yamanappa Gangadhar Desai. As per M.E.No.2621 marked at Ex.P.14 he has purchased land R.S.No.119/3 measuring 5 acres 16 guntas from Bhimappa Hanamappa Parasgond. Ex.P.15 is the survivorship certificate as per which the plaintiffs, Basappa and defendants No.1, 2, 6 to 13 are shown as legal heirs of Dundappa Hanamappa Parasgond. Ex.P.22 is the certificate issued by PDO, Gram Panchayat, Hosakorti dated 02.09.2022, which reflects that as per hakku patra register the house property No.C12 of Dhavaleshwar village standing in the name of Basappa Sangappa Honnihal and house property No.A102 is standing in the name of Dundappa Sangappa Honnihal. Ex.P.23 is the copy of ºÀPÀÄÌ ¥ÀvÀæ which reflects that the Government has allotted house - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11100-DB RFA No. 100204 of 2025 property No.A 102 in the name of Dundappa Sangappa Honnihal. Ex.P.24 is the copy of ºÀPÀÄÌ ¥ÀvÀæ which reflects that the Government has allotted house property No.C12 in the name of Basappa Sangappa Honnihal. 11. The defendant No.13 was examined as DW.1. In her evidence she has reiterated the contention taken in the written statement. She got marked the documents at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.5. The certified copies of varadi and the attached documents are marked at Ex.D.1 as per which the varadi was given on 30.07.2007 for deletion of names of plaintiffs from the records pertaining to lands R.S.No.69/1B, 116/4 and 119/3. Ex.D.2 is the registered sale deed dated 04.11.2016, which reflects that middle portion of open site No.C-12 sold by the Basappa in favour of Smt.Meenakshi-defendant No.9. Ex.D.3 is the registered sale deed dated 04.11.2016, which reflects that towards eastern portion of open site No.C-12 sold by the Basappa in favour of Smt.Roopa-defendant No.13. Ex.D.4 is the property register extract of C12 towards eastern portion standing in the name of Smt.Roopa-defendant No.13. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11100-DB RFA No. 100204 of 2025 Ex.D.5 is the property register extract of C12 towards middle portion standing in the name of Smt.Meenakshi-defendant No.9. DW2 in this evidence stated that the plaintiffs have relinquished their right. But they have filed suit in order to trouble the defendants. There is no dispute as regards relationship of the parties. The plaintiffs are the wife and daughter of Dundappa. After death of Dundappa the names of plaintiffs and the sons of Dundappa by name Basappa, Shankrappa and Lakshman were entered to the lands R.S.No.69/1B measuring 4 guntas, 116/4 measuring 6 acres 12 guntas and 119/3 measuring 10 acres 32 guntas. The defendants have taken contention that the plaintiffs have relinquished their right and in that regard MR No.10/2007-08 was effected. But the same is denied by the plaintiffs. It is for the defendant to prove that the plaintiffs have relinquished their right. The defendants have relied on the documents marked at Ex.D.1. As per the said documents the plaintiffs have given consent to delete their names in the revenue records pertaining to land R.S.No.69/1B, 116/4 and 119/3. The plaintiffs have denied the said documents. During cross examination PW1 has denied that herself and her mother have executed consent deed and relinquished their right in the suit properties. The defendants have - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11100-DB RFA No. 100204 of 2025 examined DW2 in support of their contention. He has stated that the plaintiffs have relinquished their right by executing consent deed. As per his version an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was deposited in the name of plaintiff No.1 and she is receiving upto date interest on the said amount for her livelihood. During cross examination he has admitted that Dundappa was managing the family and after his death the plaintiff No.1 was managing the affairs of the family. As per his version the partition has taken place after death of Dundappa. He has stated that he does not know in between whom the partition was effected. He has stated he has not seen the documents produced in the suit. He has stated that the defendant No.5, 6 and 13 brought him to the Court to give evidence to the effect that an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was given to the plaintiff No.1 after death of Dundappa. He has stated that he has not read the contents of the said document. As per his version there is mention of giving Rs.5,00,000/- to the plaintiff No.1. But in Ex.D1 there is no mention regarding any amount given to the plaintiff No.1. His evidence is not helpful to the defendants to prove the relinquishment by the plaintiffs. 19. As could be seen from the aforesaid findings recorded by the Trial Court, the specific plea urged by the defendants that - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11100-DB RFA No. 100204 of 2025 the plaintiffs had received a sum of ₹5,00,000/- from three sons of Dundappa in the year 2007 and had accordingly relinquished their share in the suit schedule ‘B’ properties, had not been established by them in accordance with law and consequently, the Trial Court proceeded to reject the said claim of the defendants and upheld the claim for partition put forth by the plaintiffs in plaint ‘B’ schedule properties. 20. In the present appeal also, except reiterating the aforesaid defence of relinquishment, payment of consideration and change of Khata pursuant to Varadi, appellants/defendants have not placed any other material on record so as to either establish the alleged relinquishment or payment of ₹5,00,000/- to the plaintiffs as contended by them before the Trial Court. 21. Under these circumstances, upon re-appreciation, reconsideration and revaluation of the entire material on record, we are of the view that the impugned judgment insofar as it relates to decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs against the defendants in respect of the plaint ‘B’ schedule properties cannot be said to have suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can be said to be capricious or perverse or contrary to law warranting - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11100-DB RFA No. 100204 of 2025 interference by this Court in the present appeal. Point No.(i) is accordingly, answered against the appellants and by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in this regard. Reg. Point No.(ii): 22. As stated earlier while plaint ‘B’ schedule properties are landed properties, plaint ‘C’ schedule properties comprise of two items of house properties viz., item No.1 bearing plot No.A102 and item No.2 bearing plot No.C-12. Though the defendants have not specifically put forth detailed pleadings as regards source of acquisition of item No.2 of the plaint ‘C’ schedule property bearing plot No.C-12 is concerned, during the course of their evidence, the defendants have produced Ex.D2 and Ex.D3, two registered sale deeds dated 04.11.2016 pertaining to two portions of item No.2 of ‘C’ schedule properties, which clearly indicate that the entire item No.2 of the suit schedule ‘C’ property had been sold in favour of the defendant No.9 and 13 pursuant to which the Khata was registered in their respective names. In this context, the plaintiffs contend that these two properties originally belonged to Dundappa and - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11100-DB RFA No. 100204 of 2025 Basappa as borne out from the revenue records and since the aforesaid defendant No.9 and 13 were housewives and did not have any separate source of income and the father himself was the vendor, said sale deeds were sham and nominal documents and did not confer any right in favour of defendant No.9 and 13 in relation to item No.2 of the plaint ‘C’ schedule property. The said contention cannot be accepted in the light of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act as enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gangamma v. G. Nagarathnamma and others3 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the property possessed by a female Hindu would be held by her not as a limited owner but as an absolute owner and consequently, notwithstanding the fact that father himself was the vendor of the item No.2 of the suit schedule ‘C’ property in favour of defendant No.9 and 13, the right acquired by defendant No.9 and 13 under two registered sale deeds at Ex.D2 and Ex.D3 dated 04.11.2016 albeit limited and by the father in favour of defendant No.9 and 13, would stand enlarged and blossomed into the absolute right as contemplated under Section 14(1) of 3 AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 2561 - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11100-DB RFA No. 100204 of 2025 the Hindu Succession Act, 19564. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: 14. Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has a bearing on the issue. As the properties at item Nos. 1 & 2 are recorded in the name of the appellant, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary in this case, the appellant by operation of Section 14(1) of the said Act is the full owner of those properties. In the facts of this case discussed above it has to be accepted that those properties are not joint properties but the appellant is the sole owner of those properties. 15. The principle laid down in Section 14(1) of the said Act has been read by courts in a very comprehensive manner since the said Act overrides the old law on Stri Dhana in respect of properties possessed by female Hindu. In Eramma Vs. Veerupana and others5, Justice Ramaswami speaking for the Court held that Section 14(1) of the Act contemplates that a female Hindu, who in the absence of the said provision would have been a limited owner of the property, will now become full owner by virtue of the said section. Such female Hindu will have all 4 Hereinafter referred to as “the Act” 5 AIR 1966 SC 1879 - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11100-DB RFA No. 100204 of 2025 powers of disposition to make the estate heritable by their own heirs and not revertible to the heirs of the last male holder. 16. Again in the case of Punithavalli Ammal Vs. Minor Ramalingam and another6, a three- Judge Bench of this Court reiterated the position that the said Act has overriding effect and confers full ownership on Hindu female and made it very clear that rights conferred under Section 14(1) to a Hindu female are not restricted or limited by any rule of Hindu law. In the opinion of the Court in Punithavalli (supra) the said section makes a clear departure from all texts of Hindu laws and rules and those texts and rules cannot be used for circumventing the plain meaning of Section 14(1) of the said Act. 17. In Badri Pershad Vs. Smt. Kanso Devi7 , the learned Judges held that the word 'acquired' in sub-Section (1) of Section 14 of the said Act has to be given the widest possible meaning (See paras 6 & 7). 18. In Vaddeboyina Tulasamma and others Vs. Vaddeboyina Sesha Reddi (dead) by L.Rs.8, Justice Bhagwati speaking for the Court 6 AIR 1970 SC 1730 7 AIR 1970 SC 1963 8 AIR 1977 SC 1944 - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11100-DB RFA No. 100204 of 2025 held that sub-Section (1) of Section 14 is very large in its amplitude and covers every kind of acquisition of property by a female Hindu. Regardless of whether such property was possessed by a female Hindu on the date of commencement of the Act or was subsequently acquired or possessed, she would be the full owner of the property. 19. In view of such consistent views taken by this Court on the interpretation of Section 14, we hold that Section 14(1) of the said Act would apply in respect of the properties which stand in the name of the appellant and the appellant would be the full owner of those properties. 20. Therefore the order of the High Court cannot be upheld and is set aside. The order of the Learned Trial Judge is affirmed. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There is no order as to costs. 23. In the instant case, a perusal of the impugned judgment will indicate that the Trial Court has proceeded on the premise that the defendants did not prove their relinquishment and since item No.2 of the suit schedule ‘C’ property stood in the name of Basappa and Dundappa, all the parties were entitled to - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11100-DB RFA No. 100204 of 2025 equal share in this property also. The said finding recorded by the Trial Court reads as under: “14. As regards the house properties are concerned the defendants have taken contention that after submergence of the properties of the adoptive family of Basappa, the suit plots were allotted in the name of Basappa and Dundappa. As per the contention of the plaintiffs the suit plots are allotted in the name of Dundappa and Basappa in view of submergence of the properties of the propositus. There is no evidence on record in support of the contention regarding adoption of Basappa to the family of Honnihal. The defendants have produced the sale deeds as per Ex.D2 and 3 as per which defendant No.9 has purchased 15x20 metres and the defendant No.13 has purchased 15x20 metres in plot No.C-12 from Basappa adoptive father Sangappa Honnial (Basappa s/o. Dundappa Parasagond). But these documents are not sufficient to prove that Basappa was given in adoption to the family of Honnihal. As per Ex.P.22 the plot No.C-12 and A-102 are in the name of Basappa Sangappa Honnihal and Dundappa Sangappa Honnihal. Ex.P.23 and 24 Hakku patra also reflect that the said plots are allotted in the name of Basappa - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11100-DB RFA No. 100204 of 2025 Sangappa Honnihal and Dundappa Sangappa Honnihal. It is not the case of defendants that Dundappa was also gone in adoption to Sangappa Honnihal. Hence the contention of the defendants that Basappa was gone in adoption to the family of Honnihal is not acceptable. There is no evidence on record to show that the family properties of the propositus were submerged and in view of the same the plots were allotted in the name of Dundappa and Basappa. If these plots were allotted to Dundappa and his son Basappa there would not have been mention as sons of Sangappa Honnihal. Both parties have failed to prove their contention with regard to acquisition of these plots by Dundappa and Basappa. However, one plot is purchased by the family members. The defendant No.9 and 13 have purchased plot No.C-12. It is not their contention that they have got any separate independent income and from that they have purchased the said plot. It is clear from the evidence they are getting income from the suit lands and the plaintiffs have not been given amount of their share. DW1 has stated that as the plaintiffs have relinquished their right, they have been not given the sugar cane amount. But it is clear from the evidence that the defendants have failed to prove - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11100-DB RFA No. 100204 of 2025 relinquishment by the plaintiffs. The plot purchased in the names of defendant No.9 and 13 cannot be treated as self acquired properties as the same has been acquired from the income of family properties. By considering all these facts and circumstances, the plaintiffs have successfully proved that the suit schedule B properties and plot No.C-12 are the joint family properties. The defendants have failed to prove relinquishment by the plaintiffs and also self acquisition of plots by Dundappa and Basappa. Accordingly, Issue No.1 and 2 are answered in the Affirmative, Issue No.3 and additional No.1 are answered in the Negative.” 24. The Trial Court has clearly fallen in error in failing to consider and appreciate not only the two registered sale deeds at Ex.D2 and Ex.D3 dated 04.11.2016 in relation to house property bearing Plot No.C-12, but has also failed to consider or appreciate the provisions contained in Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act and failure to appreciate the same has resulted in erroneous conclusion. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and decree insofar as it relates to decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs in respect of item No.2 of - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11100-DB RFA No. 100204 of 2025 the plaint ‘C’ schedule property bearing plot No.C-12 deserves to be set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs in that regard is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, point No.(ii) is answered in favour of the appellants/defendants and against the respondents /plaintiffs. Reg. Point No.(iii): 25. A perusal of the impugned judgment and decree will indicate that while the Trial Court has recorded findings to the effect that both items of ‘C’ schedule properties i.e., plot No.A102 and plot No.C-12 were joint family properties and that the parties were entitled to their legitimate share in ‘C’ schedule properties also, in the operative portion of the judgment and decree, the Trial Court has committed an error in not decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs in relation to item No.1 of the ‘C’ schedule property bearing plot No.A102. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs in the facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case, it would be apposite to exercise powers conferred upon us under Order XLI Rule 33 of CPC, which reads as under: - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11100-DB RFA No. 100204 of 2025 “33. Power of Court of Appeal.—The Appellate Court shall have power to pass any decree and make any order which ought to have been passed or made and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may require, and this power may be exercised by the Court notwithstanding that the appeal is as to part only of the decree and may be exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents or parties, although such respondents or parties may not have filed any appeal or objection 1 [and may, where there have been decrees in cross-suits or where two or more decrees are passed in one suit, be exercised in respect of all or any of the decrees, although an appeal may not have been filed against such decrees]: Provided that the Appellate Court shall not make any order under section 35A in pursuance of any objection on which the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has omitted or refused to make such order.” 26. The power of this Court (Appellate Court) to do substantial justice and declare the rights of the parties notwithstanding a separate cross-objection/cross-appeal not - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11100-DB RFA No. 100204 of 2025 having been filed came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Pralhad and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another9 and the Apex Court has held as under: 18. The provision of Order 41 Rule 33 CPC is clearly an enabling provision, whereby the appellate court is empowered to pass any decree or make any order which ought to have been passed or made, and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may require. Therefore, the power is very wide and in this enabling provision, the crucial words are that the appellate court is empowered to pass any order which ought to have been made as the case may require. The expression “order ought to have been made” would obviously mean an order which justice of the case requires to be made. This is made clear from the expression used in the said Rule by saying “the court may pass such further or other order as the case may require”. This expression “case” would mean the justice of the case. Of course, this power cannot be exercised ignoring a legal interdict or a prohibition clamped by law. 19. In fact, the ambit of this provision has come up for consideration in several decisions of this Court. Commenting on this power, Mulla (Civil Procedure Code, 15th Edn., p. 2647) observed that this Rule is modelled 9 (2010) 10 SCC 458 - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11100-DB RFA No. 100204 of 2025 on Order 59 Rule 10(4) of the Supreme Court of Judicature of England, and Mulla further opined that the purpose of this Rule is to do complete justice between the parties. 20 [Ed.: Para 20 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./121/2010 dated 25- 10-2010.] . In Banarsi v. Ram Phal [(2003) 9 SCC 606 : AIR 2003 SC 1989] this Court construing the provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 CPC held that this provision confers powers of the widest amplitude on the appellate court so as to do complete justice between the parties. This Court further held that such power is unfettered by considerations as to what is the subject-matter of the appeal or who has filed the appeal or whether the appeal is being dismissed, allowed or disposed of while modifying the judgments appealed against. The learned Judges held that one of the objects in conferring such power is to avoid inconsistency, inequity and inequality in granting reliefs and the overriding consideration is achieving the ends of justice. The learned Judges also held that the power can be exercised subject to three limitations: firstly, this power cannot be exercised to the prejudice of a person who is not a party before the court; secondly, this power cannot be exercised in favour of a claim which has been given up or lost; and thirdly, the power cannot be exercised when such part of the decree which has been permitted to become final by a party is reversed to the advantage of that party. (See SCC p. 619, para 15 : AIR para 15 at p. 1997.) - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11100-DB RFA No. 100204 of 2025 It has also been held by this Court in Samundra Devi v. Narendra Kaur [(2008) 9 SCC 100 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 690] SCC (para 21), that this power under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC cannot be exercised ignoring a legal interdict. 21. In the instant case, the right of the landowner to receive the benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Principal Act is legally permissible in view of the majority decision in Paripoornan [(1994) 5 SCC 593] . Therefore, the law declared by this Court in Paripoornan [(1994) 5 SCC 593] is binding on the High Court under Article 141 of the Constitution and the High Court is bound to follow the same, especially when an application has been made by the landowner under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC. 22. In view of the aforesaid interpretation given to Order 41 Rule 33 CPC by this Court, we are of the opinion that the High Court denied the relief to the appellants to which they are entitled in view of the Constitution Bench decision in Paripoornan [(1994) 5 SCC 593] , by taking a rather restricted and narrow view of the scope of Order 41 Rule 33 CPC and also on a misconstruction of the ratio in Paripoornan [(1994) 5 SCC 593] . 23. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court holds that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of the amended provision of Section 23(1-A) of the Principal Act in view of the clear law laid down by this Court in Paripoornan [(1994) 5 SCC 593] . The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11100-DB RFA No. 100204 of 2025 27. In the instant case, as stated supra at paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment and decree, the Trial Court records a categorical finding that both items of ‘C’ schedule properties i.e. plot No.A102 and plot No.C-12 were joint family properties and that the parties were entitled to their legitimate share in both the items of the properties. However in the operative portion of the impugned judgment and decree, there seems to be an inadvertent error due to oversight committed by the Trial Court, which decrees the suit only in respect of item No.2 of ‘C’ schedule property bearing plot No.C-12 without expressly dismissing the suit in relation to item No.1 of ‘C’ schedule property bearing plot No.A-102. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the present appeal is a fit case to exercise our jurisdiction/powers under Order XLI Rule 33 of CPC and modify the impugned judgment and decree by declaring that the respondents/plaintiffs would be entitled to their legitimate share in item No.1 of plaint ‘C’ schedule property bearing plot No.A102 and modify the decree accordingly. 28. Even on merit, it is relevant to stated that while in respect of item No.2 of ‘C’ schedule property bearing Plot No.C12 - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11100-DB RFA No. 100204 of 2025 is concerned, the defendants had produced registered sale deeds indicating their acquisition of this property, insofar as item No.1 of ‘C’ schedule property bearing plot No.A102 is concerned, no such separate sale deeds or documents evidencing their right has been produced by the defendants. On the other hand, the revenue records and other documents produced by the parties clearly indicate that item No.1 of ‘C’ schedule property bearing Plot No.A102 stood in the name of the propositus-Dundappa, upon whose demise, all the properties would have to be shared between all the parties in accordance with law. It follows therefrom that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in declaring/granting share of the parties in item No.1 of the plaint ‘C’ schedule property would have to be set aside and the impugned judgment and decree in that regard deserves to be modified. Accordingly, point No.(iii) is answered in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. 29. In the result, the following: ORDER i) The appeal is hereby partly allowed. ii) The impugned judgment and decree insofar as it relates to decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs - 36 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11100-DB RFA No. 100204 of 2025 in respect of suit schedule ‘B’ properties is concerned is hereby confirmed. iii) The impugned judgment and decree insofar as it relates to decreeing the suit in respect of item No.2 of ‘C’ schedule property bearing Plot No.C-12 is hereby set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs dismissed as against item No.2 of suit schedule ‘C’ property. iv) The impugned judgment and decree insofar as does not grant a share in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of item No.1 of plaint ‘C’ schedule property i.e. plot No.A-102 is concerned, the same is hereby set aside and the plaintiffs are declared to be entitled to 1/5th share each in the said plot No.A102 of plaint ‘C’ schedule property. v) Registry to draw up modified decree accordingly. Sd/- (S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE EM/YAN Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12