- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5604-DB RFA No. 100544 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100544 OF 2019 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. KRISHNAPPA SALAGARE, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: DIGGEWADI-591213, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. SANDEEP S/O. KRISHNAPPA SALAGARE, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. DIGGEWADI-591213, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. SMT. PUTALAWWA W/O. SHRISHAIL PARAPPANAVAR, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MADARKHANDI-587119, TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A.NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SUSHILA W/O. KRISHNAPPA SALAGARE, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.04.29 15:43:48 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5604-DB RFA No. 100544 of 2019 R/O. SOUNDATTI-591213, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. SMT. KALAVATI W/O. SURESH CHOUGALE, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SOUNDATTI-591213, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. SMT. SULOCHANA S/O. MARUTI MANE, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. EXAMBA-591201, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. PARASHURAM S/O. JOTEPPA SALAGARE, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. DIGGEWADI-591213, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 5. GANGUSHA S/O. JOTEPPA SALAGARE, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. DIGGEWADI-591213, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 6. SMT. RATNAWA RAMA CHOUGALE, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SOUNDATTI-591213, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 7. SMT. SONAWA NAGAPPA DESAI, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SAMBRA-591124, TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI. 8. SATYAPPA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5604-DB RFA No. 100544 of 2019 APPU CHOUGALE, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SOUDATTI-591213, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 9. BALASAB APPU CHOUGALE, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SOUDATTI-591213, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 10. SUBHASH APPU CHOUGALE, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SOUDATTI-591213, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 11. SURESH APPU CHOUGALE, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SOUDATTI-591213, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 12. SMT. SHOBHA MAHADEV DONAWADE, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. DIGGEWADI-591213, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1 TO R3, R6 TO R12 ARE SERVED; NOTICE TO R4 AND R5 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 18.04.2023) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.10.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.27/2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.27/2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, RAIBAG, DISMISSING THE SUIT BEARING O.S.NO.27/2019 IN ITS ENTIRETY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5604-DB RFA No. 100544 of 2019 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) The captioned appeal is by the unsuccessful defendants, who have challenged the preliminary decree drawn in O.S.No.27/2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. The facts leading to the case are that; Before we examine the issue on hand, we deem it appropriate to cull out the family tree, which is as under: Joteppa Ratnappa Salagare (died long back) Krishnappa Parashuram Gangusha (died) (D4) (D5) | =Sushila (1st wife)(P-1) | =Mahadevi (2nd wife)(D-1) Kalavati (P2) Sandeep (D2) Sulochana (D3) (by 1st wife) (by 2nd wife) (by 2nd wife) - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5604-DB RFA No. 100544 of 2019 4. The plaintiffs are the first wife and a daughter of deceased Krishnappa Salagare, who filed a partition suit in O.S.No.27/2017 contending that suit schedule properties are the joint family ancestral properties. The plaintiffs alleged that though suit properties are the joint family ancestral properties and there is no partition between the family and the defendants inspite of repeated request, refused to effect partition by metes and bounds. Hence, the present suit is filed. 5. The defendants on receipt of summons, tendered appearance and filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire plaint averments. The defendants seriously disputed the family tree contending that it is not true and correct. Defendants No.4 and 5 also filed written statement and claimed that rights of plaintiffs’ is decided in O.S.No.130/1988 and therefore, the present suit is hit by doctrine of res judicata and hence, prayed for dismissal of suit. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5604-DB RFA No. 100544 of 2019 6. The plaintiffs and defendants to substantiate their respective claims, led in oral and documentary evidence. The defendants to non suit plaintiffs, produced the compromise petition and compromise decree recorded in O.S.No.130/1988. 7. The trial Court having assessed the oral and documentary evidence let in by both the parties, took note of the fact that plaintiff No.1 is party to the earlier suit, which ended in compromise. Therefore, trial Court was of the view that plaintiff No.1 is not entitled for any share. However, having noticed that plaintiff No.2/daughter is not a party to the earlier compromise decree, proceeded to grant her legitimate share in the suit schedule properties. The trial Court accordingly granted 1/9th share in all the suit schedule properties to plaintiff No.2 and suit came to be decreed. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the defendants. There is no contest by the plaintiffs. Perused the records. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5604-DB RFA No. 100544 of 2019 9. We have given our anxious consideration to the pleadings. We have also examined the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.130/1988. 10. The following points would arise for consideration: i) Whether the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court warrants interference? ii) Whether the quantification of share done by trial Court is proper in the light of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Revanashiddapppa and Another vs. Mallikarjun and Others1? iii) What order? FINDINGS ON POINT Nos.1 and 2:- 11. The defendants have contended that the present suit is barred by the principle of res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’ for brevity), on the 1 (2011) 11 SCC 1 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5604-DB RFA No. 100544 of 2019 ground that a compromise was earlier recorded in O.S. No.130/1988. However, this contention cannot be accepted for the reason that the said compromise was entered into exclusively between plaintiff No.1 and the defendants. It is an admitted fact that plaintiff No.2, who is the daughter of late Krishnappa through his first wife, Smt. Sushila, was not a party to the said compromise proceedings. Consequently, she cannot be bound by the compromise decree passed therein. It is well settled that a compromise decree operates only between the parties to the suit and cannot affect the rights of third parties who are neither parties to the proceedings nor represented therein. 12. In the present case, plaintiff No.2, being the daughter of Krishnappa born through his legally wedded wife Smt. Sushila, is a coparcener in the Hindu Undivided Family governed by Mitakshara law. As such, she is legally entitled to a share in the coparcenary property by virtue of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5604-DB RFA No. 100544 of 2019 of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Others2. On the other hand, defendants No.2 and 3 are the children born to Krishnappa through his second wife, Smt. Mahadevi. The marriage between Krishnappa and Mahadevi being void in law, the children born from such a union are treated as illegitimate children. In accordance with settled principles of law, illegitimate children are entitled to a notional share in the property of their father, though they do not acquire coparcenary rights. Hence, while plaintiff No.2 is entitled to a direct coparcenary share, defendants No.2 and 3 are only entitled to a share in the notional portion that would have devolved upon Krishnappa. 13. On applying these legal principles to the present case, it is seen that the branch of late Krishnappa is entitled to 1/6th share in the overall suit schedule properties. Out of this 1/6th share, if a notional ½ share is allocated to Krishnappa himself for the purpose of 2 [(2019) 6 SCC 164] - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5604-DB RFA No. 100544 of 2019 determining the inheritance rights of his legal heirs, the remaining ½ would automatically go to plaintiff No.2 as a coparcener. Thus, plaintiff No.2 becomes entitled to 1/12th share in the suit schedule properties directly. 14. As regards the notional ½ share of Krishnappa (i.e., 1/12th of the entire property), this would devolve equally among all his children, including plaintiff No.2 and defendants No.2 and 3. Therefore, this 1/12th share will be divided into three equal portions, each amounting to 1/36th share. Accordingly, plaintiff No.2 will get an additional 1/36th share, in addition to her 1/12th direct coparcenary share, resulting in a total entitlement of 1/12 + 1/36 = 4/36 = 1/9th share in the suit schedule properties. Similarly, defendants No.2 and 3 will each be entitled to 1/36th share in the suit schedule properties by virtue of the notional devolution from their father's share. 15. Although the present appeal has been filed by the defendants, this Court is nonetheless bound to apply the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5604-DB RFA No. 100544 of 2019 Court in Vineeta Sharma’s case (supra), which has clarified the rights of daughters as coparceners under the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. In view of this binding precedent, this Court is duty-bound to re-compute and re-determine the shares of the parties based on their legal status and corresponding entitlements in law, notwithstanding the fact that the appeal has been preferred by the defendants and not the plaintiff. Accordingly, the share of plaintiff No.2 is re-determined at 1/9th share, and the shares of defendants No.2 and 3 are re-determined at 1/36th share each in the suit schedule properties. 16. It is a well-established principle of appellate jurisprudence that an appellate Court is not merely confined to the reliefs prayed for by the appellant. The powers of an Appellate Court under Section 96 and Order XLI of the CPC, are wide and comprehensive. Even in an appeal filed by the defendant, the appellate court is empowered to grant relief to a plaintiff if the facts and the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5604-DB RFA No. 100544 of 2019 law so warrant, particularly in cases where doing so is essential to render complete justice and to finally adjudicate the rights of the parties. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again emphasized that an appellate court is not restricted by the technicalities of pleadings or formal prayers. In Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor & General Traders3, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Courts are duty-bound to consider subsequent developments and mould the relief accordingly even if such relief was not originally prayed for. 18. Further, in the context of Hindu Succession and partition suits, where the shares of coparceners and heirs are to be determined based on statutory rights, the court is not bound by the parties' specific contentions if those contentions lead to an incorrect distribution. This is particularly true after the authoritative judgment in Vineeta Sharma’s case (supra), wherein the Hon’ble 3 [(1975) 1 SCC 770] - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5604-DB RFA No. 100544 of 2019 Apex Court clarified the retrospective conferment of coparcenary rights on daughters. Appellate courts are therefore obligated to ensure that the final adjudication reflects the correct legal entitlements of each party. 19. In the present case, though the appeal has been filed by the defendants, the Court is well within its jurisdiction to re-evaluate the shares of all parties, including the plaintiff, in accordance with settled principles of Hindu law. Such re-determination is not only permissible but necessary to prevent perpetuation of illegality and to uphold the principles of substantive justice. Accordingly, points No.1 and 2 is answered in the ‘negative’. FINDING ON POINT NO.3:- 20. For the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) Appeal is allowed in part. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5604-DB RFA No. 100544 of 2019 ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 22.10.2019 passed in O.S.No.27/2017 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Raibag is hereby modified. iii) Plaintiff No.2 is entitled for 1/9th share whereas, defendants No.2 and 3 are entitled for 1/36th share in the suit schedule properties. Defendants No.4 and 5 are also entitled for 1/6th share each in the suit schedule properties. iv) Draw preliminary decree accordingly. v) No order as to cost. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE AM Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28