- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7297 RSA No. 6090 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.6090 OF 2012 (PAR) BETWEEN: SHRI SADANAND S/O. NARAYAN DESHBHANDARI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: HONDAKKALA ANTRAVALLI VILLAGE, TQ: KUMTA – 581 343, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GANGADHAR S/O. NARAYAN DESHBHANDARI, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HONDAKKALA ANTRAVALLI VILLAGE, TQ: KUMTA – 581 343, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. 2. GANAPATI S/O. NARAYAN DESHBHANDARI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HONDAKALA ANTRAVALLI VILLAGE, TQ: KUMTA – 581 343, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. 3. SMT. SARASI KOM VASUDEVA DESHBHANDARI THROUGH HER LEGAL HEIR UFM CHANDRAKANTA S/O. VASUDEVA DESHBHANDARI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: SALEKERI, HALDIPUR VILLAGE, TQ:HONNAVAR – 581 343, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7297 RSA No. 6090 of 2012 4. SMT. SALI W/O. RAMACHANDRA DESHBHANDARI, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SANTEGULI HINDABAIL, TQ: KUMTA – 581 343, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. 5. RAMABAI W/O. GANESH DESHBANDARI, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: HONDAKKALA, ANTRAVALLI VILLAGE, TQ: KUMTA – 581 343, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. 6. MALINI W/O. SHRIDHARA DESHBHANDARI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: HONDAKKALA, ANTRAVALLI VILLAGE, TQ: KUMTA – 581 343, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. 7. SHANTI W/O. RAVI DESHBHANDARI , AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: HONDAKKALA, ANTRAVALLI VILLAGE, TQ: KUMTA – 581 343, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. 8. SMT. MUKTA W/O. CHANDRAKANT DESHBHANDARI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: HONDAKKALA, ANTRAVALLI VILLAGE, TQ: KUMTA – 581 343, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. 9. SADASHIVA S/O. ISHWARA DESAI, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: HONDAKKALA, ANTRAVALLI VILLAGE, TQ: KUMTA – 581 343, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. 10. RAMCHANDRA S/O. ISHWARA DESAI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: HONDAKKALA, ANTRAVALLI VILLAGE, TQ: KUMTA – 581 343, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. …RESPONDENTS (R1 TO R10 ARE SERVED) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF C.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.02.2012 PASSED IN RA 18/2009 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE KUMTA CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.12.2007 PASSED IN OS 88/2006 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE JR.DN KUMTA BY ALLOWING THE TOP NOTED APPEAL TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7297 RSA No. 6090 of 2012 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) 1. The present appeal is by the defendant No.1 aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2007 passed in O.S. No.88 of 2006 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) Kumta (for short “the trial Court”), which is confirmed by the judgment and decree dated 29.02.2012, passed in R.A. No.18/2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kumta (for short “the First Appellate Court”) by which the said suit is decreed granting 1/9th share each to the plaintiff and the defendants. 2. The above suit is filed by the plaintiff – respondent No.1 herein for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties consisting of landed and house properties (suit schedule properties). It is claimed that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 8 are the brothers and sisters. The schedule properties originally belonged to their father by name Narayan Devagya - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7297 RSA No. 6090 of 2012 Deshbhandari, and were his self acquired properties. That plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 8, being his children, are therefore entitled to equal share in the suit properties. Defendant Nos.9 and 10, though not members of the family of the plaintiff, were impleaded as parties to the suit since their names were reflected in the revenue records. The plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 had earlier partitioned the property orally in the presence of the elders and had constructed separate residential houses in the portions allotted to them. When the plaintiff demanded and called upon defendant Nos.1 and 2 to effect the partition in respect of the remaining properties, they refused, thereby constraining the plaintiff to file the present suit. 3. Defendant Nos.2 to 8 were represented through the counsel. Defendant Nos.1, 2, 3, 6 and 8 filed their written statement. Defendant Nos. 9 and 10 have adopted the written statement of defendant No.1. Defendant Nos.5 and 7 did not file any written statement. 4. The trial Court decreed the suit, granting a 1/9th - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7297 RSA No. 6090 of 2012 share each to the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 8 in the suit A schedule property. The claim of the plaintiff in respect of suit B Schedule property was rejected, apparently based on a memo dated 07.12.2007 filed by the plaintiff, wherein he gave up the relief sought in respect of suit B Schedule property. 5. Defendant No.1, being one of the brothers of plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 8, preferred appeal in R.A. No.18/2009 contending that the suit schedule properties were granted in favour of their father, and as such, the sisters namely defendant Nos.4, 5, 6 and 8 are not entitled for any share in the land granted to the joint family. The said contention of defendant No.1 has been negated by the First Appellate Court while rejecting the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal by defendant No.1. 6. The grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal is that defendant Nos.4, 5, 6 and 8 being the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7297 RSA No. 6090 of 2012 daughters are not at all entitled for share in the property. 7. The other contention urged is that though the plaintiff had given up his claim in respect of residential houses described in B schedule property, the First Appellate Court without taking the same into consideration has modified the order of the Trial Court allotting the share even in the suit B Schedule property. On these two grounds, the appellant - defendant is before this Court. 8. The First Appellate Court has taken note of these contentions urged by the defendants and has answered the same in the negative by holding that originally the suit properties were belonged to one Narayan Devagya Deshbhandari and upon his demise, the property has been devolved upon to his children. Further no records have been produced to show that the tenency was inherited by Narayan from his ancestors. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court have come to the conclusion that the property having been granted in favour of the father of the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 to 8. The plaintiff and the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7297 RSA No. 6090 of 2012 defendant Nos.1 to 8 and they being class-I heirs, are entitled for equal share under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. 9. Be that as it may. Even if the said properties were to be ancestral, by virtue of amended Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act and in light of the judgment in the case of Vinita Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma1, the daughters would also be entitled to an equal share in the joint family properties. 10. As regards the contention of the First Appellate Court modifying the judgment and decree of the trial Court with regard to the suit B schedule property is concerned as seen at para 25 of the judgment of the First Appellate Court, it is observed that notwithstanding the filing of such memo, equities could be worked out with regard to the residential houses which are constructed on the suit A schedule property. 1 (2020) 9 SCC 1 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7297 RSA No. 6090 of 2012 11. In that view of the matter no substantial question of law would arise for consideration in the matter Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court stands confirmed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE VNP / CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24