- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11162 RFA No. 100531 of 2018 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100016 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100531 OF 2018 (PAR/POS) C/W RFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100016 OF 2019 RFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100017 OF 2019 IN RFA.NO.100531/2018: BETWEEN: 1. SHANKAREPPA GANAGI S/O. RAMAPPA AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NEGINHAL-591102, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. RENUKA GANAGI W/O. SHANKAREPPA, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: NEGINHAL-591102, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. MAHESH GANAGI S/O. SHANKAREPPA, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NEGINHAL-591102, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. GIRISH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. YALLAVVA PATIL W/O. BASANAGOUDA, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: NEGINHAL-591102, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.17 15:46:09 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11162 RFA No. 100531 of 2018 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100016 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2019 2. BASAVVA GANAGI W/O. YALLAPPA, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: NEGINHAL-591102, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. BASAPPA GANAGI S/O. YALLAPPA AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: NEGINHAL-591102, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. SHOBHA KALAWAD W/O. MAHANTESH, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: HANAMGERI ONI, SAVADATTI-591126, TQ: SAVADATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 5. RAMAPPA GANAGO S/O. YALLAPPA, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NEGINHAL-591102, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. BALAGOUDA A. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R4 AND R5; NOTOCE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.09.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.82/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAILHONGAL, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. IN RFA.CROB.NO.100016/2019: BETWEEN: 1. SMT.BASAVVA W/O. YALLAPPA GANAGI, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: NEGINHAL-591102, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11162 RFA No. 100531 of 2018 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100016 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2019 2. SMT.SHOBHA W/O. MAHANTESH KALWAD, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: HANAMAGERI NI, SAVADATTI-591126, TQ: SAVADATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. SHRI RAMAPPA S/O. YALLAPPA GANAGI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NEGINHAL-591102, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. …CROSS OBJECTORS (BY SRI. BALAGOUDA A. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI SHANKAREPPA S/O. RAMAPPA GANAGI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NEGINHAL-591102, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. SMT.RENUKA W/O SHANKAREPPA GANAGI AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: NEGINHAL-591102, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. SHRI MAHESH S/O. SHANKAREPPA GANAGI, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NEGINHAL-591102, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. SMT.YALLAVVA W/O. BASANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: NEGINHAL-591102, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. 5. SHRI BASAPPA S/O. YALLAPPA GANAGI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NEGINHAL-591102, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GIRISH HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11162 RFA No. 100531 of 2018 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100016 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2019 SMT. SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R4; NOTICE TO R5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS RFA.CROB IN RFA NO.100531/2018 FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 READ WITH SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.09.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.82/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAILHONGAL, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. IN RFA.CROB.NO.100017/2019: BETWEEN: SMT.YALLAVVA W/O. BASANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: NEGINHAL-591102, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. ……CROSS OBJECTOR (BY SMT. SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI SHANKAREPPA S/O. RAMAPPA GANAGI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NEGINHAL-591102, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. SMT.RENUKA W/O. SHANKAREPPA GANAGI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: NEGINHAL-591102, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. SHRI MAHESH S/O. SHANKAREPPA GANAGI, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NEGINHAL-591102, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. SMT. BASAVVA W/O. YALLAPPA GANAGI, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: NEGINHAL-591102, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11162 RFA No. 100531 of 2018 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100016 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2019 TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. 5. SHRI BASAPPA S/O. YALLAPPA GANAGI AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NEGINHAL-591102, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. 6. SMT.SHOBHA W/O. MAHANTESH KALWAD, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: HANAMAGERI ONI, SAVADATTI-591126, TQ: SAVADATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 7. SHRI RAMAPPA S/O. YALLAPPA GANAGI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NEGINHAL-591102, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GIRISH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. BALAGOUDA A. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4, R6 AND R7; NOTICE TO R5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS RFA.CROB IN RFA NO.100531/2018 FILED UNDER SECTION 96(1) READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.09.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.82/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAILHONGAL, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11162 RFA No. 100531 of 2018 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100016 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) These Regular First Appeal, and the Cross Objections arise out of the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2018 passed in O.S.No.82/2016 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’ for short). 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the Tribunal. The Appellants in RFA No.100531/2018 were defendant Nos.1 to 3, and respondent No.1 was the plaintiff, and the other respondents were defendant Nos.4 to 7. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: 4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for a partition separate possession regarding the suit schedule properties. It is contended that one Yallappa- the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11162 RFA No. 100531 of 2018 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100016 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2019 Plaintiffs grandfather was the original propositus. He had two sons by name Basappa and Ramappa. The Plaintiff is the daughter of the deceased Basappa. The deceased Ramappa had two sons, namely, Yallappa and Shankareppa- defendant No. 1. Defendant No.2 is wife of defendant No.1, and defendant No.3 is the son of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Yallappa died leaving behind defendant Nos.4 to 7 as his legal heirs. The suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. It is contended that Sy.No.17/3 was purchased out of the joint family nucleus in the name of defendant No.1 (Repeated) The Plaintiff and the defendants are the members of a Hindu undivided joint family, and no partition is effected between the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff demanded a partition and separate possession, but the defendants refused to effect a partition. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for a partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11162 RFA No. 100531 of 2018 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100016 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2019 5. Defendant No.3 filed a written statement contending that the suit filed by the plaintiff is false, frivolous and vexatious, suppressing the material facts. It is contended that Sy.No.17/3 was purchased by defendant No.1 out of his own income, and it is his self-acquired property. It is contended that the plaintiff’s father has ½ share in Sy.No.244/1, and he was the absolute owner of suit property bearing No.467, and he was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the above said two properties. Since, he has no male issues, he has bequeathed the above said properties in favour of defendant No.3 by executing a Will dated 17.03.2016 in the presence of the plaintiff, Suresh Basappa Belagavi, Dundayya Madivalayya Hiremath, and Bhimappa Kallappa Ganagi. The said Will was written by the bond writer and it was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bailhongal. Since the father of the plaintiff executed a Will in the presence of the plaintiff and the plaintiff knowing the above said facts, has signed the Will. The plaintiff’s father passed away on 25.05.2016, and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11162 RFA No. 100531 of 2018 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100016 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2019 after his demise, defendant No.3 filed an application to certify the name of defendant No.3 regarding the properties bequeathed under the Registered Will dated 17.03.2016. The revenue authorities have certified the name of defendant No.3 based on the Will executed by the father of the plaintiff. Hence, he prays to dismiss the suit against defendant No.3. 6. Defendant No.7 filed a written statement admitting the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that the suit properties are the ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiff and all the defendants, wherein the plaintiff has got ½ share. In the remaining ½ share, defendant Nos.1 to 3 have 1/4th share and defendant Nos.4 to 7 have got 1/4th share. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit of the plaintiff. 7. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues as follows: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11162 RFA No. 100531 of 2018 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100016 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2019 (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that, suit properties are the ancestor joint family properties of herself and defendant No.1? (2) Whether plaintiff further proves that, she has got ½ share in the suit properties? (3) Whether defendant No.3 proves that, deceased Basappa Yallappa Gangi was the exclusive owner of suit survey No.244/1 and suit property bearing panchayat No.467? (4) Whether defendant No.3 further proves that, deceased Basappa Yallappa Gangi executed the register Will in his favour on 17-3-2016? (5) Whether plaintiff entitled the relief sought under their respective pleadings? (6) What order or decree? 8. To substantiate her case, plaintiff examined her power of attorney holder as P.W.1, and marked 6 documents as Exs.P1 to Ex.P6. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 examined himself as D.W.1, examined three witnesses as D.Ws.2 to 4, and marked 56 documents as Ex.D1 to D56. 9. The trial court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides, and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1, 2 and 5 partly in the affirmative, issue No.4 in the affirmative, issue No.3 in the negative, and issue No.6 as per the final order. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11162 RFA No. 100531 of 2018 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100016 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2019 The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed in part vide judgment dated 27.09.2018. It is ordered and declared that the plaintiff has got 1/4th share in the suit Sy.No.244/1 and GP No.467 of Neginhal village. Further, the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share in the above said properties as required under Section 54 of the CPC. 10. Aggrieved by the judgment and the decree passed in O.S.No.82/2016 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal, defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed an appeal in RFA No.100531/2018, challenging the quantum of share, defendant Nos.4, 6 and 7 have filed the Cross objection in RFA Crob.No.100016/2019, on the ground that they have not been allotted any share, and the plaintiff filed an appeal in RFA Crob.No.100017/2019, on the ground that the trial court committed an error in not granting any share in G.P.No.468. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11162 RFA No. 100531 of 2018 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100016 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2019 11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. 12. Learned counsel for defendant Nos.1 to 3 submits that the plaintiff is entitled to a ½ share in Basappa’s share. However, the trial court granted 1/4th share. He submits that defendant Nos.1 to 3 have proved the execution of a registered Will, executed by Basappa in favour of defendant No.3 bequeathing his undivided ½ share in the suit schedule properties. He submits that the trial court committed an error in granting 1/4th share to the Plaintiff. He fairly concedes that the property in G.P.No.468 is the ancestral property, and the plaintiff is entitled to get a ½ share in GP No.468 i.e., her father’s share. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 13. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the trial court has not granted share to the plaintiff in GP No.468. Further, she also submits that if the partition is effected between Basappa and Ramappa, Basappa will get - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11162 RFA No. 100531 of 2018 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100016 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2019 ½ share in the suit schedule properties, and in a ½ share of Basappa, the plaintiff will get a ½ share and not a 1/4th share. She submits that the trial court committed an error in granting 1/4th share, and not granting any share in the property in GP No.468. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to allow the cross objection filed by the plaintiff. 14. Learned counsel for defendant Nos.4 to 7 submits that defendant Nos.4 to 7 are the legal heirs of Yallappa, and they are also entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties. But the trial court has not granted any share to defendant Nos.4 to 7. Hence, hse prays to allow the cross objection filed by defendant Nos.4 to 7 ,and grant a share to them. 15. Perused the records, and considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. 16. The points that would arise for consideration are; 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11162 RFA No. 100531 of 2018 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100016 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2019 family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants, and they constitute a joint family? 2) Whether defendant No.3 proves that Basappa executed a registered Will bequeathing is undivided ½ share in Sy.No.244/1 and GP No.467 vide registered Will dated 17.03.2016? 3) Whether the plaintiff and defendant Nos.4 to 7 prove that the quantum of share granted by the trial court is incorrect? 4) What order or decree? Reg. Point Nos. 1 to 3: 17. Point Nos.1 to 3 are interlinked with each other, and are taken together for common discussion, to avoid the repetition of facts. 18. There is no dispute regarding the relationship between the parties to the suit. The plaintiff to substantiate her case examined her power of attorney holder as P.W.1. She reiterated the plaint averments in her examination-in- chief, and produced the documents. Ex.P1 is the special Power Of Attorney, which discloses that the plaintiff has executed the special POA in favour of her daughter to depose on behalf of the plaintiff. Ex.P2 is the record of - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11162 RFA No. 100531 of 2018 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100016 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2019 rights of Sy.No.244/1, which discloses that properties stood in the name of Basappa, i.e., father of the plaintiff. Ex.P3 is the record of rights regarding Sy.No.17/3, which stands in the name of defendant No.1. Ex.P4 is the tax assessment extract of house No.468 standing in the name of defendant No.1. Ex.P5 is the tax assessment extract of house No.467 standing in the name of Defendant No.2. Ex.P6 is a certified copy of M.E.No.348. During the course of cross-examination of P.W.1, Ex.D1 was confronted to P.W.1, wherein she has admitted the signature of her mother/ the plaintiff on Ex.D1. The plaintiff is well aware about the execution of a registered Will in favour of defendant No.3, bequeathing Basappa’s undivided share in Sy.No.244/1 and G.P.No.467. Further, P.W.1 has also admitted that the plaintiff has come to the court and sitting outside the court hall. When the plaintiff had come to the court, she ought to have entered the witness box. On the contrary, the plaintiff examined her daughter/ POA holder as P.W.1. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11162 RFA No. 100531 of 2018 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100016 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2019 19. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 examined himself as D.W.1 and deposed that Basappa has bequeathed his share in Sy.No.244/1 and GP No.467 in the presence of the plaintiff and other witnesses, and the plaintiff is signatory to the Will and the said Will was registered and marked as Ex.D1. The defendant also produced the documents in support of his defense. EX D-1 is the registered will dated 17.03.2016 Ex.D2 is the notice dated 22.07.2016. Ex.D3 is the death certificate of Basappa, which discloses that Basappa died on 25.05.2016. Ex.D4 is the order of the Tahasildar dated 18.11.2016. Ex.D5 is the RTC extract of the land in Sy. No. 244/1, which discloses the name of defendant No.1 as an owner and possessor. Exs.D6, D7 to D8 are the weight list. Ex.D-54 is the sale deed dated 01.08.2012 which discloses that defendant No.1 had purchased Sy.No.17/3, and it is purchased out of is own income. He has paid the consideration amount to purchase Sy.No.17/3. Ex.D55 is the M.R.No.H37 and Ex. D56 is the ‘Akarana’ extract of VPC No.467. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11162 RFA No. 100531 of 2018 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100016 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2019 20. The defendants also examined the attesting witnesses by name, Suresh Basappa Belagavi and Dundayya Madivalayya Hiremath as D.Ws.2 to 4. They deposed that Basappa had bequeathed his undivided ½ share in favour of defendant No.3 under a registered Will. Basappa instructed to draft the Will, and he affixed his thumb impression on Ex.D1, and thereafter, the Will was registered. They have also deposed that plaintiff has signed Ex.D1 and they have identified their signatures. 21. There is no dispute regarding the execution of a registered Will in favour of defendant No.3. Admittedly, Sy.No.244/1 and GP Nos.467 and 468 are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff and the defendants, and they constitute a Hindu undivided joint family. No partition was effected between the parties regarding the suit schedule properties. Thus, the plaintiff has proved that the suit schedule properties are the joint and ancestral properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. Defendant No.3 has proved that Basappa has executed a registered Will dated - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11162 RFA No. 100531 of 2018 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100016 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2019 17.03.2016 in favour of defendant No.3 bequeathing his undivided share, i.e., ½ share in Sy.No.244/1 and G.P.No.467. 22. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to a½ share in the branch of the deceased Basappa. Further, defendant Nos.4 to 7 are the children of deceased Yallappa, and no share has been allotted to the branch of Yallappa. If the partition is effected between Basappa and Ramappa, Basappa will get a ½ share in Sy.No.244/1, G.P.Nos.467 and 468, and Ramappa will get ½ share in Sy.No.244/1, G.P.Nos.467 and 468. If the partition is effected between Basappa and Yallavva, Basappa will get a ½ share and Yallavva will get a ½ share in the branch of Basappa. 23. In the branch of Ramappa, one half share of Ramappa is shared equally by two sons Yallappa and Shankarappa, i.e., each take one half share in the one half share of Ramappa, i.e., each son of Ramappa takes 1/4th share. In the branch of Yallappa s/o Ramappa, his 1/4th - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11162 RFA No. 100531 of 2018 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100016 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2019 share is divided equally between his wife and three children who are Defendant Nos.4 to 7, take 1/4th of 1/4th, i.e., 1/16th share each. The second son of Ramappa namely Shankarappa, his wife and son, i.e., Defendant Nos.1 to 3 take 1/3rd share each in 1/4th share, i.e., Defendant Nos.1 to 3 takes 1/12th share each. Defendant No.3 gets 1/4th share of Basappa by a Will plus 1/12th share, i.e., defendant No.3 is entitled to ¼ + 1/12th = 4/12th share. 24. The plaintiff takes 12/48th share, Defendant Nos.4 to 7 take 3/48th share each, and Defendant Nos.1 and 2 take 4/48th share each in Suit proeprties i.e., Sy No. 244/1 and GP NO. 467. Defendant No.3 takes 12/48th share of Ramappa under a Will and in addition to it, 4/48th as a coparcener. Thus, he is entitled to a 16/48th share in the suit properties, i.e., Sy.No.244/1 and G.P.No.467 of Neginhal Village. 25. In G.P.No.468 of Neghinal Village, the plaintiff is entitled to a ½ share, Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11162 RFA No. 100531 of 2018 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100016 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2019 entitled to a 1/12th share each and Defendant Nos.4 to 7 are entitled to 1/16th share each. 26. Hence, the shares granted by the trial court needs to be modified. In view of the above discussion, I answer point No.1 partly in the affirmative, point No.2 in the affirmative and point No.3 in the affirmative. Point No.4. 27. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeal in RFA No. 100531/2018 and the cross objections in RFA Crob No. 100016/2019 and RFA Crob No. 100017/2019 are allowed in part. ii) The judgment and decree dated 27.09.2018 passed in O.S.No.82/2016 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal is hereby modified. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11162 RFA No. 100531 of 2018 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100016 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2019 iii) The plaintiff is entitled to a 12/48th share, Defendant Nos.4 to 7 are entitled to a 3/48th share each, and Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to a 4/48th share each, and Defendant No.3 is entitled to a 16/48th share in the suit properties, i.e., Sy.No.244/1 and G.P.No.467 of Neginhal Village. iv) In G.P.No.468 of Neghinal Village, the plaintiff is entitled to a ½ share, Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are entitled to a 1/12th share each, and Defendant Nos.4 to 7 are entitled to 1/16th share each. v) Draw a preliminary decree. Learned counsel submits that I.A.No.1/2021 filed in RFA Crob.No.100017/2019 may be dismissed as not pressed. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2021 is dismissed as not pressed. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11162 RFA No. 100531 of 2018 C/W RFA.CROB No. 100016 of 2019 RFA.CROB No. 100017 of 2019 In view of the disposal of the appeal and cross objections, pending I.A’s, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same are disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE MBS CT:PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9