- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4431 RSA No. 5969 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5961 of 2013 RSA No. 5962 of 2013 AND 1 OTHER IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 5969 OF 2013 (PAR-) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 5961 OF 2013 REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 5962 OF 2013 REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 5963 OF 2013 IN R.S.A.NO.5969/2013 BETWEEN: SURESHGOUDA S/O. MANOHARGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHILAVANT SOMAPUR, TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI-581110. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.N. BANAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. JAYASHREE W/O. VIVEK @ PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’S. 1(A) SRI. VIVEK @ PRAKASH SHRIVASTHAVA, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED EMPLOYEE, R/O. G.B.J. 270, 9TH CROSS, HAL QUARTERS, BENGALURU-560037. 1(B) SRI. SHUBHAM S/O. VIVEK @ PRAKASH SHRIVASTHAVA, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. G.B.J. 270, 9TH CROSS, HAL QUARTERS, BENGALURU-560037. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4431 RSA No. 5969 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5961 of 2013 RSA No. 5962 of 2013 AND 1 OTHER 2. PRAKASH @ PRAKASHGOUDA S/O. MANOHAR @ MANOPHARGOUDA PATIL, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S. 2(A) SMT. SUNITA W/O. PRAKASHGOUDA PATIL AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. SHILAVANT SOMAPUR, TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI-581110. 2(B) SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O. SOMANNA UPPIN, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER, R/O. NEAR BUS DEPOT, ISHWAR NAGAR, LAXMESHWAR, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG-582116. 2(C) CHANDRAGOUDA S/O. PRAKASHGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. SHILAVANT SOMAPUR, TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI-581110. 2(D) SMT. MADHU W/O. PRAKASH BURADIKATTI, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KURABAGERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. 2(E) SMT. JYOTI W/O. SIDDHU KURUBAGONDA, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KARAJAGI, TQ: & DIST: HAVERI-581112. 2(F) RANGANAGOUDA S/O. PRAKASHGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. SHILAVANT SOMAPUR, TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI-581110. 3. SMT. LAXMI W/O. VEERUPAXGOUDA PATIL , AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. PATTAPUR, TQ: MANVI, DIST: RAICHUR-584101. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4431 RSA No. 5969 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5961 of 2013 RSA No. 5962 of 2013 AND 1 OTHER 4. SMT. SHOBHA W/O. HARISH MARADDI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. J.S.S. HIGH SCHOOL, JAI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560011. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.R. PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT & DECREE PASSED IN R.A.NO.72/2010 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE, HAVERI DATED 11.09.2010, SO ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.54/2003 DATED: 01.04.2010 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN), HAVERI AND TO DISMISS THE SUIT IN O.S.NO.54/2003, AND TO ALLOW R.A.NO.72/2010 BY ALLOWING REGULAR SECOND APPEAL WITH COST THROUGHOUT. IN R.S.A. NO. 5961/2013 BETWEEN: 1. PRAKASHGOUDA S/O. MANOHARGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHILAVANTASOMAPUR (S. SOMAPUR), TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI-5812055. 1(A) SMT. SUNITA W/O. PRAKASHGOUDA PATIL AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 1(B) SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O. SOMANNA UPPIN, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER, R/O. NEAR BUS DEPOT, ISHWAR NAGAR, LAXMESHWAR, DIST: GADAG. 1(C) CHANDRAGOUDA S/O. PRAKASHGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 1(D) SMT. MADHU W/O. PRAKASH BURADIKATTI, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4431 RSA No. 5969 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5961 of 2013 RSA No. 5962 of 2013 AND 1 OTHER R/O. KURABGIRI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. 1(E) SMT. JYOTI W/O. SIDDHU KUEABGONDA, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. KARAJAGI, TQ: DIST: HAVERI-58. 1(F) RANGANGOUDA S/O. PRAKASHGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. N.P. VIVEKMEHTA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. JAYSHREE W/O. VIVEK @ PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA, AGE: 42 YEARS,OCC: SERVICE R/O. G.B.J. 270, 9TH CROSS, HAL QUARTERS, BENGALURU-37. FOLLOWING ARE HER LR’S 1A AND 1B BROUGHT ON RECORD AS PER ORDER 1A. VIVEK @ PRAKASH SHRIVASTHAVA, (HUSBAND) AGE: MAJOR, OCC: SERVICE, 1B. SHUBHAM S/O. VIVEK @ PRAKASH SHRIVASTHAVA,(SON) AGE: MAHIRM, OCC: SERVICE, BOTH ARE R/O. NO.477, 10TH MAIN, 6TH STAGE, BEML LAYOUT, THUBARHALLI, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE-560066. 2. SURESHGOUDA S/O. MANOHARGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHILAVANTASOMAPUR (S. SOMAPUR), TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI-5812055. 3. SMT. LAXMI W/O. VEERUPAXGOUDA PATIL , AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. PATTAPUR, TQ: MANVI, DIST: RAICHUR-584123. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4431 RSA No. 5969 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5961 of 2013 RSA No. 5962 of 2013 AND 1 OTHER 4. SMT. SHOBHA W/O. HARISH MARADDI, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. J.S.S. HIGH SCHOOL, SARASWATIPURAM, MYSORE-570001. 5. SMT. NIRMALA W/O. CHANNABASAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. VIJAYANAGAR, HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI-581111. 6. VIJAYANAGOUDA S/O. CHANNABASAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. VIJAYANAGAR, HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI-581111. 7. PRAVEENAGOUDA S/O. CHANNABASAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. VIJAYANAGAR, HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI-581111. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.R. PATIL, ADVCOATE) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT & DECREE OF THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, HAVERI DATED 11.09.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.68/2010 AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN), HAVERI DATED 01.04.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.120/99, AND DISMISS THE SUIT BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL. IN R.S.A. NO. 5962/2013 BETWEEN: 1. PRAKASHGOUDA S/O. MANOHARGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHILAVANTASOMAPUR (S. SOMAPUR), - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4431 RSA No. 5969 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5961 of 2013 RSA No. 5962 of 2013 AND 1 OTHER TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI-5812055. 1(A) SMT. SUNITA W/O. PRAKASHGOUDA PATIL AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 1(B) SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O. SOMANNA UPPIN, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER, R/O. NEAR BUS DEPOT, ISHAWAR NAGAR, LAXMESHWAR, DIST: GADAG. 1(C) CHANDRAGOUDA S/O. PRAKASHGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 1(D) SMT. MADHU W/O. PRAKASH BURADIKATTI, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KURABGIRI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. 1(E) SMT. JYOTI W/O. SIDDHU KUEABGONDA, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. KARAJAGI, TQ: DIST: HAVERI-58. 1(F) RANGANGOUDA S/O. PRAKASHGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. N.P. VIVEKMEHTA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. JAYSHREE W/O. VIVEK @ PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA, AGE: 42 YEARS,OCC: SERVICE R/O. G.B.J. 270, 9TH CROSS, HAL QUARTERS, BENGALURU-37. FOLLOWING ARE HER LR’S 1A AND 1B BROUGHT ON RECORD AS PER ORDER 1A. VIVEK @ PRAKASH SHRIVASTHAVA, (HUSBAND) AGE: MAJOR, OCC: SERVICE, 1B. SHUBHAM S/O. VIVEK @ PRAKASH SHRIVASTHAVA,(SON) - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4431 RSA No. 5969 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5961 of 2013 RSA No. 5962 of 2013 AND 1 OTHER AGE: MAHIRM, OCC: SERVICE, BOTH ARE R/O. NO.477, 10TH MAIN, 6TH STAGE, BEML LAYOUT, THUBARHALLI, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE-560066. 2. SURESHGOUDA S/O. MANOHARGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHILAVANTASOMAPUR (S. SOMAPUR), TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI-5812055. 3. SMT. LAXMI W/O. VEERUPAXGOUDA PATIL , AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. PATTPUR, TQ: MANAVI, DIST: RAICHUR-584123. 4. SMT. SHOBHA W/O. HARISH MARADDI, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. J.S.S. HIGH SCHOOL, SARASWATIPURAM, MYSORE-570001. 5. SMT. NIRMALA W/O. CHANNABASANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLDWORK, R/O. VIJAYANAGAR, HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI-581111. 6. VIJAYANAGOUDA S/O. CHANNABASANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. VIJAYANAGAR, HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI-581111. 7. PRAVEENAGOUDA S/O. CHANNABASANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. VIJAYANAGAR, HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI-581111. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.R. PATIL, ADVCOATE) - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4431 RSA No. 5969 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5961 of 2013 RSA No. 5962 of 2013 AND 1 OTHER THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT & DECREE OF THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, HAVERI DATED 11.09.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.66/2010 AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN), HAVERI DATED 01.04.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.120/99, AND DISMISS THE SUIT BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL. IN R.S.A. NO. 5963/2013 BETWEEN: 1. PRAKASHGOUDA S/O. MANOHARGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHILAVANTASOMAPUR (S. SOMAPUR), TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI-5812055. (DIED ON 19/03/2021) FOLLOWING ARE HIS LR’S A1A TO A1F AS PER ORDER DATED 5/7/2023 1(A) SMT. SUNITA W/O. PRAKASHGOUDA PATIL AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 1(B) SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O. SOMANNA UPPIN, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER, R/O. NEAR BUS DEPOT, ISHAWAR NAGAR, LAKSHEMESHWAR, DIST: GADAG. 1(C) CHANDRAGOUDA S/O. PRAKASHGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 1(D) SMT. MADHU W/O. PRAKASH BURADIKATTI, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KURABGIRI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115. 1(E) SMT. JYOTI W/O. SIDDHU KUEABGONDA, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4431 RSA No. 5969 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5961 of 2013 RSA No. 5962 of 2013 AND 1 OTHER AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. KARAJAGI, TQ: DIST: HAVERI-58. 1(F) RANGANGOUDA S/O. PRAKASHGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. N.P. VIVEKMEHTA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SURESHGOUDA S/O. MANOHARGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHILAVANTASOMAPUR (S. SOMAPUR), TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI-5812055. 2. SMT. JAYSHREE W/O. VIVEK @ PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA, AGE: 42 YEARS,OCC: SERVICE R/O. G.B.J. 270, 9TH CROSS, HAL QUARTERS, BENGALURU-37. (DIED ON 26/05/2021) FOLLOWING ARE HER LR’S 2A AND 2B BROUGHT ON RECORD AS PER ORDER DATED 05/07/2023. 2A. VIVEK @ PRAKASH SHRIVASTHAVA, (HUSBAND) AGE: MAJOR, OCC: SERVICE, 2B. SHUBHAM S/O. VIVEK @ PRAKASH SHRIVASTHAVA,(SON) AGE: MAHIRM, OCC: SERVICE, BOTH ARE R/O. NO.477, 10TH MAIN, 6TH STAGE, BEML LAYOUT, THUBARHALLI, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE-560066. 3. SMT. LAXMI W/O. VEERUPAXGOUDA PATIL , AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. PATTPUR, TQ: MANAVI, DIST: RAICHUR-584123. 4. SMT. SHOBHA W/O. HARISH MARADDI, - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4431 RSA No. 5969 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5961 of 2013 RSA No. 5962 of 2013 AND 1 OTHER AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O. J.S.S. HIGH SCHOOL, SARASWATIPURAM, MYSORE-570001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.R. PATIL, ADVCOATE) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT & DECREE OF THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, HAVERI DATED 11.09.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.67/2010 AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN), HAVERI DATED 01.04.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.54/2003, AND DECREE THE SUIT BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT These appeals are arising out of the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2013 in R.A.No.66/2010, 67/2010, 68/2010 and 72/2010 on the file of the District Judge Haveri allowing the appeal in R.A.No.68/2010 and dismissing the appeal in R.A.No.66/2010, R.A.No.67/2010 and R.A.No.72/2010 by modifying the shares in the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2010 in O.S.No.120/1999 and O.S.No.54/2013 on the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4431 RSA No. 5969 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5961 of 2013 RSA No. 5962 of 2013 AND 1 OTHER file of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Haveri decreeing the suit in part. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their rank in O.S.No.120/1999. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5 are the children of Manoharagouda (defendant No.1), who died on 24.01.2005, and Smt.Savitri, who died during 1976. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and defendants constitute Hindu Joint Family and the schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants and accordingly, the plaintiff has filed O.S.No.120/1999 seeking partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. Defendant No.2 in O.S.No.120/1999 (Prakashgouda) has filed separate suit in O.S.No.54/2003 seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. 3.1. After service of notice, the defendants entered appearance and filed detailed written statement admitting the relationship between the parties. It is the case of the defendant - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4431 RSA No. 5969 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5961 of 2013 RSA No. 5962 of 2013 AND 1 OTHER No.1-Manoharagouda and defendant No.3-Suresh Gouda that the suit item No.1 and 2 of the schedule properties are self- acquired properties of Manoharagouda and as such, the said Manoharagouda has executed gift deed dated 18.01.2003 in favour of the defendant No.3 and therefore, it is the case of the defendant No.1 and 3 that the plaintiffs are not entitled for share in item No.1 and 2 of the schedule properties. Accordingly, the defendants have sought for dismissal of the suit. 3.2. The Trial Court based on the pleadings on record, has formulated issues for consideration. The Trial Court has clubbed both the suits viz., O.S.No.120/1999 and O.S.No.54/2003 and common evidence was recorded. The plaintiff in O.S.No.120/1999 was examined as PW1 and got marked 16 documents and same were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. The defendants in O.S.No.120/1999 have examined two witnesses as DW1 and DW2 and produced 21 documents, which were marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D21. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 01.04.2010 partly decreed the suit holding that the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4431 RSA No. 5969 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5961 of 2013 RSA No. 5962 of 2013 AND 1 OTHER plaintiff in O.S.No.120/1999 is entitled for 1/20th share in Sl.No.1 to 14 of schedule ‘A’ properties and Sl.No.1 and 2 of schedule ‘B’ properties. The suit in O.S.No.54/2003 was partly decreed holding that the plaintiff is entitled for 3/10th share in Sl.No.1 to 14 of the suit schedule ‘A’ properties and Sl.No.1 and 2 of the suit schedule ‘B’ properties in O.S.No.54/2003. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, Prakashagouda (defendant No.2) in O.S.No.120/1999 has filed R.A.No.66/2010 and R.A.No.67/2010 challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.120/1999 and O.S.No.54/2003. The plaintiff in O.S.No.120/1999 has filed R.A.No.68/2010 challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.120/1999. Defendant No.3 (Sureshgouda) has filed R.A.No.72/2010 challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.120/1999 and O.S.No.54/2003. The respondents therein have contested the matter. 3.3. The First Appellate Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 11.09.2013 allowed R.A.No.68/2010 in part and dismissed R.A.No.66/2010, 67/2010 and 72/2010 holding that the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4431 RSA No. 5969 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5961 of 2013 RSA No. 5962 of 2013 AND 1 OTHER children of Manoharagouda are entitled for 1/5th share each in the suit schedule properties. Feeling aggrieved by the same, defendant No.2-Prakashagouda has preferred RSA No.5961/2013, RSA No.5962/2010 and RSA No.5963/2010 and the defendant No.3-Sureshgouda has preferred RSA No.5969/2013 and these appeals are listed for admission today. 4. I have heard Sri.S.N.Banakar, learned counsel for the appellant in RSA No.5969/2013, Sri. N.P.Vivek Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant in RSA No.5961/2013, RSA No.5962/2013 and RSA No.5963/2013 and Sri. A.R.Patil, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4. 5. Sri. S. N. Banakar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Sureshgouda in RSA No.5969/2013 submitted that both the Courts below have committed an error in not considering the fact that the suit item No.1 and 2 of the suit properties are the self-acquired properties of Manoharagouda, which was gifted in favour of defendant No.3-Sureshgouda as per the gift deed dated 18.01.2003 and as such, the First Appellate Court has committed an error in not considering the - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4431 RSA No. 5969 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5961 of 2013 RSA No. 5962 of 2013 AND 1 OTHER alienation of the item No.1 and 2 of the schedule properties as per the gift deed mentioned above and therefore, he sought for interference of this Court. 6. Sri. N.P.Vivek Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has invited the attention of this court to the genealogy produced in the memorandum of appeal and he contended that the First Appellate Court has committed an error in granting 1/5th share each in the suit schedule properties despite the fact that the plaintiff in O.S.No.120/1999 has sought for lesser share in the suit schedule properties i.e. 7/36th share in the suit schedule properties and therefore, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court ought to have restricted the relief insofar as the claim made by the plaintiff in O.S.No.120/1999 and therefore, he contended that both the Courts below have committed an error in not considering the evidence on record, particularly, Ex.D1 to Ex.D4, which clearly establish the fact that Prakashgouda-defendant No.2 is having absolute right over the suit schedule properties and accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4431 RSA No. 5969 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5961 of 2013 RSA No. 5962 of 2013 AND 1 OTHER 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that since Manoharagouda died on 24.01.2005 and his wife Savitri, predeceased to Manohargouda and therefore, as they had five children, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff that all the five children are entitled for equitable share in the suit schedule properties and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeals. 8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by both the Courts below. In order to understand the relationship between the parties, the genealogy of the parties is reproduced as under: Manoharagouda (D1) died on 24.01.2005 Savitri (wife) died in 1976 Prakashgouda Sureshgouda Laxmi Shobha Jayashree D2 D3 D4 D6 Plaintiff - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4431 RSA No. 5969 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5961 of 2013 RSA No. 5962 of 2013 AND 1 OTHER 9. Perusal of the genealogy would indicate that Manoharagouda(defendant No.1) and Smt.Savitri had five children viz., Prakashagouda (defendant No.2), Sureshagouda(defendant No.3, Laxmi (defendant No.4), Shobha (defendant No.5) and Jayashree (plaintiff). It is not in dispute that the defendant No.1-Manoharagouda was given in adoption to one Sri.Ranganagouda and Smt.Gangamma and therefore, the suit schedule properties are belonging to the Ranganagouda and therefore, those properties have to be considered as ancestral properties insofar as children of Manohargouda is concerned. It is also forthcoming from the finding recorded by both the Courts below that the defendant No.1 had acquired two items of schedule properties i.e. item No.1 and 2 as per the registered sale deeds dated 31.05.1973 and dated 03.07.1990. However, perusal of the same would indicate that the properties have been acquired by defendant No.1 through the nucleus of the joint family properties and therefore, these two items of the schedule properties though acquired by defendant No.1 as per the registered sale deeds referred to above, however, same has to be considered as joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants. It is also to be - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4431 RSA No. 5969 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5961 of 2013 RSA No. 5962 of 2013 AND 1 OTHER noted that the aforementioned property was gifted by defendant No.1 in favour of Sureshgouda (defendant No.3) as per the gift deed dated 18.01.2003 (Ex.D5). Perusal of the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court would indicate that the gift deed dated 18.01.2003 though produced and marked before the Trial Court, however, same was not proved by defendant No.3 in a manner known to law by examining the witnesses/attesters to the said deed. Therefore, the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court requires to be confirmed in the light of the observations made by the First Appellate Court at paragraph 28. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the declaration of law made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma and Rakesh Sharma, reported in AIR 2020 SC 3717 all the children of Sri.Manoharagouda, who died on 24.01.2005 and Smt. Savitri i.e., the plaintiff in O.S.No.120/1999 and defendants 2 to 5 are entitled to 1/5th share each in the suit schedule properties. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court, I am of the view that the First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the material on record and applying the settled principles of law, has rightly - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4431 RSA No. 5969 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5961 of 2013 RSA No. 5962 of 2013 AND 1 OTHER arrived at a conclusion that all the children of Manoharagouda are entitled for 1/5th share each in the schedule properties and in that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the appeals. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed as the appellants herein have not made out a case for interference in this appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C. by formulating substantial question of law. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. 10. In view of disposal of appeals, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YAN CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22