- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26972 RFA No. 1461 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1461 OF 2021 (DEC/PAR) BETWEEN: SMT.MANGALAMMA W/O CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT KARADIGERE VILLAGE MAKANAHALLI POST HEBBUR HOBLI TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 120 … APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.R.LINGARAJU, ADV.) AND: 1. SRI.NANJUNDAPPA S/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O KODIYALA VILLAGE BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK & DIST. – 562 109 2. SRI.YOGESH KUMAR K.S. S/O NANJUNDAIAH K.S. AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT NO.E/316 ANCHEPALYA, KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK AND DISTRICT – 560 074 3. SMT. RENUKAMBA @ RENUKAMMA W/O SADASHIVAIAH D/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26972 RFA No. 1461 of 2021 R/AT ARJUNA BETTAHALLI VILLAGE GOLLAHALLI POST, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DIST – 562 123 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.R.NARAYANAN, ADV. FOR R1; SRI.RAGHAVAN M., ADV. FOR R3; R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.06.2020 PASSED IN OS.NO.84/2016 ON THE FILE OF XIX ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAMANAGARA, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION, SEPARATE POSSESSION AND DECLARATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 07.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) The appellant is the defendant No.2 before the Trial Court, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 01.06.2020 passed in O.S.No.84/2016 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagar, preferred this appeal. 2. The ranks of the parties henceforth will be considered as per their rankings before the Trial Court, for convenience. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26972 RFA No. 1461 of 2021 Factual matrix of the case: 3. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant No.1 is the father of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3. The defendant No.1 had two wives namely Smt. Revakka and Smt. Puttamma. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the children of defendant No.1, through his first wife. The plaintiff born through the second wife. Admittedly, the parties to the suit are the members of Hindu undivided joint family. The plaintiff contended that the Suit Scheduled Properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. There are no joint possession and enjoyment of the same. Defendant No.1 is managing the joint family properties as a Kartha. The plaintiff requested defendant No.1 to effect the partition of the properties. However, the defendants were not interested to make partition of the properties for one or the other reasons. In this regard, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendants demanding them for effecting the partition. 4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties and also for declaration that the gift deed dated - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26972 RFA No. 1461 of 2021 06.04.2015 is in binding on the share of the plaintiff over the suit scheduled properties etc. 5. The defendants entered their appearance and filed the written statement. Defendant No.2 admitted the case of the plaintiff except that defendant No.1 in collusion with the other defendants misused the joint family income and that the plaintiff demanded for effecting the partition of the suit scheduled properties. Even defendant No.2 also praying for decreeing the suit, however, defendant Nos.3 and 4 filed their written statement contending that defendant No.1 had executed gift deed in favour of defendant No.4. The second defendant has executed a registered release deed in favour of the third defendant. At the time of execution of the release deed, the second defendant had received a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-. Defendant No.1 had executed the gift deed in favour of defendant No.4 in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule property. 6. It is further stated that the plaintiff has received her share at the time of her marriage, and she has married long ago. As such, they denied the plaint averments and contended that the suit is not properly valued and the suit is bad for non- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26972 RFA No. 1461 of 2021 joinder of necessary parties. As such defendant Nos.3 and 4 prayed for dismissal of the suit. 7. Having considered the rival contentions, the Trial Court has framed the following issues: ISSUES I. Whether the plaintiff proves that herself and defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties? II. Whether the plaintiff further proves that, the registered Gift Deed dated : 06.04.2015 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 4th defendant in respect of item No.1 of suit schedule properties is not binding on the plaintiff’s right and share over the suit schedule properties? III. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a share in suit schedule properties. If so, to what extent? IV. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaratory relief as sought for? V. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs sought for? VI. What Order or Decree? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26972 RFA No. 1461 of 2021 8. The Trial Court after having answered all the issues, decreed the suit stating that the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the suit schedule properties and she is entitled for 4/12th (1/3rd) share in the suit scheduled properties. Further, the Trial Court declared that, gift deed dated 06.04.2015 is not binding on the share of the plaintiff. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that defendant No.2 who is the appellant herein in this case, though she defended her claim that she had not executed the release deed, the same has not been considered by the Trial Court. On perusal of the averments of the written statement of defendant No.2, it would indicate that defendant No.2 did not state about either execution of the release deed or she did not raise any disputes in respect of the said release deed. The Trial Court while appreciating the documents on record, held that defendant No.2 in his written statement claimed partition of the suit scheduled properties. However, she has not stated anything regarding the registered release deed dated 16.03.2015. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 contended that defendant No.2 has released her right over the suit scheduled properties in favour of defendant No.3 by executing the registered release - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26972 RFA No. 1461 of 2021 deed dated 16.03.2015 on receipt of a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- defendant No.2 had not adduced any evidence in that regard. Defendant No.2 has not denied the execution of the said release deed either by adducing the evidence or by denying the same in the written statement. Moreover, the Ex-D.2 is the registered release deed, the recital of the said release deed would indicate that defendant No.2 has received a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- in the presence of the witnesses and relinquished her right over the family properties. Therefore, her right over the property has been extinguished by executing the said release deed. 10. As regards, the execution of gift deed is concerned, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff has proved the case that the entire properties were being managed by defendant No.1 – as Kartha of the joint family. Even though, the said defendant No.1 – Kartha stated to have executed the gift deed in favour of defendant No.4, the fact remains that he had no right to execute the gift deed in favour of defendant No.4 for the reason that he had no valid title or right over the properties as absolute owner thereof. Such being the fact, the execution of gift deed in favour of defendant No.4 in respect of all the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26972 RFA No. 1461 of 2021 properties would not arise. Therefore, the issue No.2 of the plaint has been answered by the Trial Court is proper and appropriate and there are no reasons to interfere with the said findings. 11. As regards, partition is concerned, admittedly, the suit scheduled properties are the ancestral properties. The same has been admitted by DW.1 and produced Exs-D3 to D5, R.T.C’s and Exs-P.9 and P.10 which are the certified copies of Demand Register Extracts relating to ancestral properties. Admittedly, father of D.W.1 i.e., defendant No.1 married the mother of the plaintiff, after the death of the mother of the defendant No.3. 12. Therefore, the plaintiff being a co-parcener of the joint family properties is entitled for equal share in the suit scheduled properties. The said findings of the Trial Court is proper and relevant. In fact, the said findings of the Trial Court are based on the evidence and also admission of the respective parties etc. 13. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the findings of the Trial Court in respect of the above issues are - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26972 RFA No. 1461 of 2021 proper and relevant. There is no reason to interfere with the said findings. Hence, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER The appeal stands dismissed without cost. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50