- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34680 RSA No. 269 of 2022 C/W RSA No. 573 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.269 OF 2022 (PAR) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.573 OF 2021 IN RSA No. 269/2022 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. JAYAMMA WIFE OF NAGARAJ, DAUGHTER OF LATE BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT LAKSHMINARASIMHA STREET, KIKKERI, K.R. PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-577 133. 2. SMT. RUKMINI WIFE OF G. KUMAR, DAUGHTER OF LATE BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NARAYANAPURA, KEGGERE POST, K.R. NAGARA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 602. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI J.N.NAVEEN, ADVOCATE FOR A1; SRI M.C.JAYAKIRTHI, ADVOCATE FOR A2) AND: 1. SMT. BASAMMA WIFE OF LATE BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS, Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34680 RSA No. 269 of 2022 C/W RSA No. 573 of 2021 RESIDING AT KALLUR VILLAGE, YELWALA HOBLI, MYSURU-571 130. SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 7 ARE TREATED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.1 2. SRI. E. NANJUNDEGOWDA SON OF LATE BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 259/260, LIG GROUP-III, K.H.B. COLONY, HOOTAGALLI, MYSURU-570 020. 3. PUTTARAJU SON OF LATE BOREGOWDA, SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE 3(a) SMT.POORNIMA W/O LATE PUTTARAJU AGED ABOUT YEARS RESIDING AT KALLUR VILLAGE, YELWALA HOBLI, MYSURU-571 130. VIDE ORDER DATED 27.06.2025 RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 7 AND 3(a) ARE TREATED AS LR’s OF DECEASED R3 4. SHIVANANJU SON OF LATE BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT BEERANAHALLI VILLAGE, HEBBAL POST, K.R. NAGARA TALUK, MYSURU-571 602. 5. P. RAGHAVENDRA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34680 RSA No. 269 of 2022 C/W RSA No. 573 of 2021 SON OF PUTTARAJU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 6. P. THIRTHA SON OF PUTTARAJU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 7. K. R. YADUKUMAR SON OF PUTTARAJU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT KALLURU VILLAGE AND POST, YELWALA HOBLI, MYSURU-571 130. 8. SRI. Y. S. RAJU SON OF SHIVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT OLD CANARA BANK ROAD, YELWALA VILLAGE, MYSURU-571 130. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SRINIVASA.S, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4; SRI VINAY RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6; SRI AJAY PRABHU.M, ADVOCATE FOR R3(A); SRI SRIKANTH.N.V, ADVOCATE FOR R7; VIDE ORDER DATED 27.06.2025, R2 TO R7 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED R1; R5 TO R7, R3(A) ARE TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED R3; NOTICE TO R8 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATE 20.12.2019 PASSED IN RA No.724/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.01.2016 PASSED IN OS No.196/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSORE. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34680 RSA No. 269 of 2022 C/W RSA No. 573 of 2021 IN RSA NO. 573/2021 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. P. RAGHAVENDRA S/O PUTTARAJU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 2. P THIRTHA S/O PUTTARAJU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT KALLURU VILLAGE YELAWALA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK-571 130 ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI NAGENDRA.B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O NAGARAJU D/O LATE BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O LAKSHMINARASIMHA STREET KIKKERI, K R PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-577 133 2. SMT.RUKMINI W/O G KUMAR, D/O LATE BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O NARAYANAPURA KEGGERE POST K R NAGARA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571 602 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34680 RSA No. 269 of 2022 C/W RSA No. 573 of 2021 3. SMT.BASAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LRS 3(a) SMT.JAYAMMA W/O NAGARAJU D/O LATE BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/O LAKSHMINARASIMHA STREET KIKKERI, K.R.PET TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 577 133 3(b) SMT.RUKMINI W/O G.KUMAR D/O LATE BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O NARAYANApura, KEGGERE POST K.R.NAGARA TALUK, MYSURU -571 602 3(c) SRI B.NANJUNDEGOWDA S/O LATE BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O NO.259/260, LIG GROUP-III, K.H.B.COLONY, HOOTAGALLI MYSURU -570 020 3(d) SRI PUTTARAJU S/O LATE BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT KALLUR VILLAGE YELWALA HOBLI MYSURU – 570 130 3(e) SRI SHIVANANJU S/O LATE BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O KALLURU VILLAGE YELWALA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK-571 130 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34680 RSA No. 269 of 2022 C/W RSA No. 573 of 2021 4. SRI B NANJUNDEGOWDA S/O LATE BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O NO.259/260, LIG, GROUP III, KHB COLONY HOOTAGALLI MYSURU-570 020 5. SRI PUTTARAJU SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE 5(a) SMT.POORNIMA W/O LATE PUTTARAJU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT KALLUR VILLAGE YELWALA HOBLI MYSURU – 571 130 6. SRI SHIVANANJU S/O LATE BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O KALLURU VILLAGE YELAWALA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK -571 130 7. SRI K R YADUKUMAR W/O K C RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O KALLURU VILLAGE YELAWALA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK-571 130 8. SRI Y S RAJU S/O SHIVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O OLD CANARA BANK ROAD, YELAWALA VILLAGE, MYSURU TALUK-571 130 ...RESPONDENTS - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34680 RSA No. 269 of 2022 C/W RSA No. 573 of 2021 (BY SRI SRINIVASA.S, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R6; SRI AJAY PRABHU.M, ADVOCATE FOR R5(A); SRI SRIKANTH N.V, ADVOCATE FOR R7; VIDE ORDER DATED 14.07.2025, R1, R2, R4 TO R6 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED R3; R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED 03.09.2025, NOTICE TO R8 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.12.2019 PASSED IN RA.NO.724/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.01.2016 PASSED IN O.S.O.196/2009 ON THE FIE OF THE II CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., MYSURU. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34680 RSA No. 269 of 2022 C/W RSA No. 573 of 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri M.C.Jayakirthi and Sri V.Vinay Raghavendra, learned counsel for the parties. 2. Plaintiffs in O.S.No.196/2009 on the file of the II Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, are the appellants in RSA No.269/2022. Defendant Nos.5 and 6 in the said suit have preferred RSA No.573/2021. 3. Parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants for the sake of convenience. 4. Facts of the case in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present Second Appeals are as under: The plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 are the children of defendant No.1-Basamma and late Boregowda. Defendant Nos.5 and 6 are the children of defendant No.3- Puttaraju. After the death of Kapanigowda, late Boregowda who is the husband of defendant No.1-Basamma inherited the properties detailed below hereinafter referred to as ‘suit properties’. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34680 RSA No. 269 of 2022 C/W RSA No. 573 of 2021 (i) Land bearing Sy No.111 measuring 2 acre 18 guntas (now in Sy No.111/1 measuring 2 acres 15 guntas, and in Sy.No.111/2 measuring 3 guntas) situated at Kalluru Naganahalli village, Yelwala Hobli, Mysore Taluk, bounded on: East by: Land of Yedalli Gowdappa, West by: Road, North by: Lands of Yedalli Naganna, South by: Channel. (ii) Land bearing Sy.No.15/1, measuring 1 acre 15 guntas situated at Kalluru Naganahalli village, Yelwala Hobli, Mysore Taluk, bounded on: East by: Garden land of Mahadeva S/o Ramegowda West by: Kallu-Yedalli Road, North by: Halla South by Arasikere Railway lane (iii) Vacant site bearing katha No.168 of Kalluru village, Yelwala Hobli, Mysore Taluk, bounded on: East by: House of Shivaramegowda, West by: Land of Muthushaiah, North by: Lands of Kengegowda, South by: Property of Kalegowda measuring 35 x 40 feet (iv) Residential house bearing No.177 of Kalluru village, Yelwala Holali, Mysore Taluk, bounded on - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34680 RSA No. 269 of 2022 C/W RSA No. 573 of 2021 East by: House of Mahadeva S/o Ramegowda West by: Galli, North by: House of Ramaswamy, S/o Nanjundegowda South by: Road. Measuring East to West 24 feet, and North to South 16 feet.” 5. A suit in O.S.No.196/2009 came to be filed by the daughters of late Boregowda and defendant No.1-Basamma, for the relief of partition and separate possession. 6. In the case on hand, relationship is not in dispute. So also the nature of the properties is also not in dispute. 7. However, before the Trial Court, the suit was resisted by defendant Nos.5 and 6 who are the children of defendant No.3, by filing the written statement contending that suit is filed to harass the defendants and to get unlawful enrichment, without seeking the relief of declaration. 8. It was also contended that suit is not maintainable, as there was an oral partition effected between plaintiffs and their brothers (defendant Nos.2 to 4). Defendant Nos.2 and 4 being - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34680 RSA No. 269 of 2022 C/W RSA No. 573 of 2021 the brothers of the plaintiffs relinquished their right in favour of defendant No.3 who is the father of defendant Nos.5 and 6. 9. It is also contended that relinquishment was in respect of land in Sy.No.111 measuring 2 acres 15 guntas, by receiving a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash. By suppressing the said fact, suit came to be filed. 10. Learned Trial Judge raised the following issues for consideration: (i) Whether the plaintiffs prove that suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of plaintiffs and defendants No.2 to 6? (ii) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the partition deed dated 11.01.2008 is not binding on them? (iii) Whether the suit is not maintainable without seeking relief of declaration of title? (iv) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of partition and separate possession? (v) What order or decree? 11. Learned Trial Judge, after recording the evidence of the parties and hearing the arguments, answered Issue Nos. 1, 2 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34680 RSA No. 269 of 2022 C/W RSA No. 573 of 2021 and 4 in the affirmative and Issue No.3 in the negative and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. 12. The operative portion of the Judgment of the Trial Court reads as under. “Suit of the plaintiffs is hereby decreed with costs. It is held that the plaintiffs each are entitled for 7/36th share over the suit schedule properties, the defendant No.1 is entitled for 1/36th share and the defendant No.2 to 4 are entitled for 7/36th share each in the suit schedule properties. The share of the defendant No.5 and 6 are to be calculated out of the shares of defendant No.3. The right of the defendant No.7 could be enforced only against his vendors during the allotment. The defendant No.8 has no right to partition in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession of their respective shares in the suit schedule properties.” 13. Being aggrieved by the same, Defendant Nos.5 and 6 filed R.A.No.724/2016 on the file of the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34680 RSA No. 269 of 2022 C/W RSA No. 573 of 2021 14. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and formulated the following points consideration: “1. Whether the application filed by the appellants U/o 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of written statement deserves to be allowed? 2. Whether the application filed by the appellants U/o 41 Rule 27 CPC for additional evidence deserves to be allowed? 3. Whether the appellants / defendants No.5 & 6 prove that finding of the trial court that suit schedule properties are ancestral joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 4 and are available for partition is not correct? 4. Whether the appellants/ defendants No.5 & 6 prove that finding of the trial court that partition deed dated 11.01.2008 is not binding on the plaintiffs is not correct? 5. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial court calls for interference? 6. What order or decree?” 15. After hearing the arguments, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court answered point Nos.1 to 4 in the negative and - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34680 RSA No. 269 of 2022 C/W RSA No. 573 of 2021 point No. 5 partly in the affirmative and modified the sharing pattern and allowed the appeal in part. 16. Operative portion of the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.724/2016 reads as under: “I.A.No.IV the application filed by the appellants U/o 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of written statement is rejected. IA.No.V the application filed by the appellants U/o 41 Rule 27 of CPC for additional evidence is rejected. The Regular Appeal is partly allowed without cost. The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.196/2009 dated 16.01.2016 is confirmed by modifying as under: It is declared that the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/24th share each in the suit schedule properties. It is declared that the defendant No.1 is entitled to 1/24th share in the suit schedule properties. It is declared that the defendants No.2 to 4 are entitled to 1/4th plus 1/24th share each in the suit schedule properties. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34680 RSA No. 269 of 2022 C/W RSA No. 573 of 2021 The plaintiffs are entitled to get partition and separate possession of their 1/24th share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds by appointing court commissioner as provided under law. The defendants No.1 to 4 are entitled to get partition and separate possession of their respective shares as declared above in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds by appointing court commissioner as provided under law after payment of necessary court fee. Draw preliminary decree accordingly.” 17. Being further aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs have filed appeal in RSA No.269/2022. Whereas defendant Nos.5 and 6 have filed RSA No.573/2021. 18. RSA No.269/2022 is already admitted to consider the following substantial question of law: “Whether both Courts erred in granting that notional share in partition contrary to law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme court in (2020)9 SCC 1 in case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma?” - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34680 RSA No. 269 of 2022 C/W RSA No. 573 of 2021 19. RSA No.573/2021 filed by the defendant Nos.5 and 6 is formally admitted today on following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether defendant Nos.5 and 6 establish that both the courts have wrongly concluded that there was no oral partition and therefore plaintiffs are not entitled for any share? (ii) Whether defendants Nos.5 and 6 establish that there was a valid relinquishment in respect of land in Sy.No.111 measuring 2 acres 15 guntas by taking cash of ₹ 2,00,000/-? 20. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 21. In the case on hand, there is no dispute as to the relationship among the parties. 22. The suit was resisted by defendants Nos.5 and 6 on the primary ground that there was an oral partition long back and there was also a relinquishment by defendant Nos.2 and 4 in favour of defendant No.3 in respect of land in Sy. No.111 measuring 2 acres 15 guntas. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34680 RSA No. 269 of 2022 C/W RSA No. 573 of 2021 23. To establish the same, the defendants have placed oral and documentary evidence before the Court. Among the documentary evidence relied by defendants, Ex.D-1 is the order sheet in O.S No.183/2005 and Exs.D-2 to D-4 are the RTC Extracts, Ex.D-5 is the certified copy of Inheritance Register. 24. The Trial Court disbelieved the oral and documentary evidence placed on record on behalf of defendants. Except the self-serving testimony of DW-1 there is no other evidence on record to establish that there was an oral partition earlier. 25. It is pertinent to note that in the written statement, the date of oral partition is not mentioned and as to who all were present at the time of oral partition. 26. Ex.D-5 is the Inheritance Register placed on record on behalf of the defendants to establish that there was mutation of revenue entries soon after the said oral partition. 27. On close reading of the said Inheritance Register marked at Ex.D-5, it is seen that the relevant entry is 2000-2001 in respect of the suit properties viz., Sy.No.111. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34680 RSA No. 269 of 2022 C/W RSA No. 573 of 2021 28. For the remaining properties mutation of revenue entries are not forthcoming in the Ex.D-5. 29. In respect of Sy.No.111 there is an entry rounding of 0.32 acres and 2 acre 15 guntas has been entered. But the reason that has been shown in Ex.D-5 itself is that these entries are carried out based on the successorship of the children of late Kapanigowda and not on the basis of oral partition or on relinquishment. 30. Exs.D-2 to D5 are the RTC extracts which are of the year 2013-14, 2007-08 and year is not mentioned in Ex.D-4. Except for producing the Exs.D2 to D5, there is no other document to establish that there was an oral partition. Nor any person who was present at the time of alleged oral partition is examined on behalf of the parties. 31. If there was an oral partition much earlier to the filing of the suit (date being not mentioned by defendant Nos.5 and 6 in the written statement) it was for the defendants to establish as to when the said oral partition has taken place. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34680 RSA No. 269 of 2022 C/W RSA No. 573 of 2021 32. Pertinently, defendant Nos.2 and 4 have supported the case of the plaintiffs. 33. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, even though the learned Trial Judge has not expressed his opinion in happy words to arrive at the finding that defendant Nos.5 and 6 have failed to prove the oral partition, rejection of the plea of oral partition and relinquishment is just and proper. 34. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court upon the appeal filed by the defendant Nos.5 and 6, re-appreciated the material on record, has rightly come to the conclusion that there is no material evidence on record, to accept the case of the appellants that there was an oral partition and relinquishment of rights in respect of land in Sy.No.111 to the extent of 2 acres 15 guntas. 35. In other words, two Courts consistently on factual aspects has held that defendants Nos.5 and 6 failed to establish the oral partition and alleged relinquishment. 36. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, the substantial questions of law raised in RSA No.573/2021 needs - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34680 RSA No. 269 of 2022 C/W RSA No. 573 of 2021 to be answered in the negative and against the appellants who are defendant Nos. 5 and 6. 37. This would take us to the question with regard to consideration of modification of the share made by the First Appellate Court while maintaining the decree passed in the suit. 38. The point No.5 raised by the First Appellate Court is answered in the affirmative by the First Appellate Court by a detailed discussion in paragraph 35 of its judgment. For the sake of clarity and ready reference, paragraph No.35 is culled out hereunder. “35. Point No.5 :While dealing with point No.1 to 4, I have already held that, I.A.No.IV the application filed by the appellants / defendants No.5 & 6 under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. R/w Order 107(2) of CPC for amendment of written statement is liable to be rejected. Further I hold that I.A. No.V the application filed by the appellants/defendants No.5 & 6 for production of additional evidence as provided U/o. 41 Rule 27 of CPC is liable to be rejected. Further I hold that the plaintiffs proved by preponderance of probability that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties of themselves and defendants No.1 to 4 and are available for partition. Further I hold that the plaintiffs proved that the alleged partition dated 11.01.2008 between defendant - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34680 RSA No. 269 of 2022 C/W RSA No. 573 of 2021 No.1 wife and children is not binding on the plaintiffs. Further I hold that the father of the plaintiffs Boregowda was died prior to mutation No.IHR 22/200001 which can be seen from Ex.P16. Therefore, the law prevailing at that time, as per Hindu Succession Act 1956 the daughters are entitled to get share in the properties allotted to their father. If the notional partition took place between Boregowda and his sons defendants No.2 to 4, just prior to the death of Boregowda as they are the only coparceners and they are entitled to ¼th share each i.e., Boregowda and his sons defendants No.2 to 4 are entitled to 1/4th share each in the suit properties as they are the only coparceners. The defendant No.1 is wife of Boregowda and plaintiffs No.1 & 2 are daughters of Boregowda and defendants No.2 to 4 are sons of Boregowda are entitled to equal share out of the ¼th share allotted to the Boregowda i.e., 1/24th share each. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/24th share each in the suit schedule properties and defendant No.1 wife of Boregowda is entitled to 1/24th share in the suit schedule properties and defendants No.2 to 4 are entitled to 1/4th plus 1/24th share each in the suit schedule properties. To that extent the judgment of the trial court required to be modified. Therefore, the judgment passed by the trial court calls for interference regarding modification of shares as stated above. Under these circumstances, the interference by this court in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is necessary. Hence, I answered point No.5 Partly in the Affirmative.” - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34680 RSA No. 269 of 2022 C/W RSA No. 573 of 2021 39. As could be seen from the reasoning adopted by the First Appellate Court, the same cannot be countenanced in law, in view of the authoritative principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma reported in (2020)9 SCC 1. 40. In fact, learned counsel for defendants Nos.5 and 6 also placed reliance on Vineeta Sharma supra and invited the attention of this Court to paragraph Nos. 135 and 136 of the said judgment. 41. For ready reference, those two paragraphs are culled out hereunder: “135. A special definition of partition has been carved out in the Explanation. The intendment of the provisions is not to jeopardise the interest of the daughter and to take care of sham or frivolous transaction set up in defence unjustly to deprive the daughter of her right as coparcener and prevent nullifying the benefit flowing from the provisions as substituted. The statutory provisions made in Section 6(5) change the entire complexion as to partition. However, under the law that prevailed earlier, an oral partition was recognised. In view of change of provisions of Section 6, the intendment of the legislature is clear and such a plea of oral partition is - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34680 RSA No. 269 of 2022 C/W RSA No. 573 of 2021 not to be readily accepted. The provisions of Section 6(5) are required to be interpreted to cast a heavy burden of proof upon proponent of oral partition before it is accepted such as separate occupation of portions, appropriation of the income, and consequent entry in the revenue records and invariably to be supported by other contemporaneous public documents admissible in evidence, may be accepted most reluctantly while exercising all safeguards. The intendment of Section 6 of the Act is only to accept the genuine partitions that might have taken place under the prevailing law, and are not set up as a false defence and only oral ipse dixit is to be rejected outrightly. The object of preventing, setting up of false or frivolous defence to set at naught the benefit emanating from amended provisions, has to be given full effect. Otherwise, it would become very easy to deprive the daughter of her rights as a coparcener. When such a defence is taken, the court has to be very extremely careful in accepting the same, and only if very cogent, impeccable, and contemporaneous documentary evidence in shape of public documents in support are available, such a plea may be entertained, not otherwise. We reiterate that the plea of an oral partition or memorandum of partition, unregistered one can be manufactured at any point in time, without any contemporaneous public document needs rejection at all costs. We say so for exceptionally good cases where partition is proved conclusively and we caution the courts that the finding is not to be based on the preponderance of probabilities - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34680 RSA No. 269 of 2022 C/W RSA No. 573 of 2021 in view of provisions of gender justice and the rigour of very heavy burden of proof which meets the intendment of Explanation to Section 6(5). It has to be remembered that the courts cannot defeat the object of the beneficial provisions made by the Amendment Act. The exception is carved out by us as earlier execution of a registered document for partition was not necessary, and the court was rarely approached for the sake of family prestige. It was approached as a last resort when parties were not able to settle their family dispute amicably. We take note of the fact that even before 1956, partition in other modes than envisaged under Section 6(5) had taken place. 136. The expression used in the Explanation to Section 6(5) “partition effected by a decree of a court” would mean giving of final effect to actual partition by passing the final decree, only then it can be said that a decree of a court effects partition. A preliminary decree declares share but does not effect the actual partition, that is effected by passing of a final decree; thus, statutory provisions are to be given full effect, whether partition is actually carried out as per the intendment of the Act is to be found out by the court. Even if partition is supported by a registered document it is necessary to prove that it had been given effect to and acted upon and is not otherwise sham or invalid or carried out by a final decree of a court. In case partition, in fact, had been worked out finally in toto as if it would have been carried out in the same manner as if affected (sic effected) by a decree of a court, it can be - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34680 RSA No. 269 of 2022 C/W RSA No. 573 of 2021 recognised, not otherwise. A partition made by execution of deed duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908, also refers to completed event of partition not merely intendment to separate, is to be borne in mind while dealing with the special provisions of Section 6(5) conferring rights on a daughter. There is a clear legislative departure with respect to proof of partition which prevailed earlier; thus, the court may recognise the other mode of partition in exceptional cases based upon continuous evidence for a long time in the shape of public document not mere stray entries then only it would not be in consonance with the spirit of the provisions of Section 6(5) and its Explanation. 42. On careful reading of the above paragraphs, it is crystal clear that the Hon'ble Apex Court has opined that the right of the female coparceners cannot be brushed aside easily. Only in rare circumstances where there are public documents available for a considerable length of time, the Court may consider the oral partition and deny the relief to female coparceners perhaps on doctrine of finality. 43. In the case on hand, as could be seen from the material documents placed on record by the defendant Nos.5 and 6, three RTC extracts are filed which are of the year 2006, 2013 and there is no year mentioned in Ex.D-4. - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34680 RSA No. 269 of 2022 C/W RSA No. 573 of 2021 44. In Ex.D-5, what has been mentioned in the relevant column is that after the death of Kapanigowda, the names of legal heirs of Kapanigowda is mentioned. Admittedly, it is the sons of the Kapanigowda and not the daughters. 45. In view of the fact that the daughters are also entitled for the share equally that of the sons, as per the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma supra, the First Appellate Court modifying the sharing pattern as referred to supra in paragraph-35 needs interference by answering the substantial question of law raised in RSA No.269/2022 in favour of the appellants-plaintiffs. 46. Accordingly, the substantial question of law raised to the effect that the plaintiffs are entitled to share in the suit property as decreed by the Trial Court following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma supra, is to be ordered. 47. In view of the foregoing discussion and the answers recorded by this Court on the substantial questions of law raised in both the appeals, following order is passed. - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34680 RSA No. 269 of 2022 C/W RSA No. 573 of 2021 ORDER (i) RSA No. 269/2022 is hereby allowed. (ii) Order of the First Appellate Court modifying the decree of the Trial Court is hereby set aside and decree of the Trial Court is confirmed. (iii) RSA No.573/2021 is rejected. (iv) During the pendency of the appeal, respondent no. 1 Basamma having died, parties are at liberty to work out their respective shares in the final decree proceedings. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74