- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25313 RSA No. 2697 of 2011 C/W RSA No. 2670 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2697 OF 2011 (PAR) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2670 OF 2011 (PAR) IN RSA No. 2697/2011 BETWEEN: 1. SMT LAKSHMAMMA, D/O LATE KEMPAMMA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT BUDAMANAHALLI ARAKERE POST, VIA DODDABALLAPUR, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 586135. 2. SMT CHIKKAMMA, D/O LATE DODANARASIMHAIAH, R/AT BUDAMANAHALLI ARAKERE POST, VIA DODDABALLAPUR, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 586135. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI T SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI CHIKKANARASIMAHAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 1(a) SMT DODACHIKKAMMA, W/O LATE CHIKKANARASIMAHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS, 1(b) SMT LAKSHMAMMA, Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25313 RSA No. 2697 of 2011 C/W RSA No. 2670 of 2011 W/O LATE CHIKKANARASIMAHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, SL NOS.1(a) AND 1(b) ARE RESIDING AT CHOKKANAHALLI, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 560088. 2. SMT ERAMMA, W/O LATE CHIKKAHANUMNATHAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY LRS. 2(a) SMT RADHAMMA, W/O LATE MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 2(b) SMT PRABHA, D/O LATE MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 2(c) SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY, S/O LATE MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 2(d) SMT PAVITHRA, D/O LATE MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 2(e) SMT VIDYA, D/O LATE MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, AREKERE POST, VIA DODDABALLAPURA, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 586135. 3. SMT NARASAMMA, D/O DODANARASIMHAIAH, W/O MALLIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25313 RSA No. 2697 of 2011 C/W RSA No. 2670 of 2011 R/AT SINGANAYAKANAHALLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561203. 4. SRI CHANDRAPPA, S/O MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, ARAKERE POST, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 586135. 5. SMT RADHAMMA, W/O LATE MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 6. SMT PRABHA, D/O LATE MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 7. SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY, S/O LATE MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 8. SMT PAVITHRA, D/O LATE MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, SL NOS.5 TO 8 ARE R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA, ARAKERE POST, VIA DODABALLAPURA, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 560088. …RESPONDENTS (V/O/DT 10.12.2013, NOTICE TO R1(A), R1(B) IS H/S R3 IS SERVED, SRI NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV FOR R2(A-E) & R5 TO R8 SRI C SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R4) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25313 RSA No. 2697 of 2011 C/W RSA No. 2670 of 2011 THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 15.9.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.94/2009 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND IN CHARGE JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT-I, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 16.4.2009 PASSED IN OS.NO.302/1993 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE. IN RSA NO. 2670/2011 BETWEEN: 1. SRI CHIKKANARASIMHAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 1(a) SMT DODDACHIKKAMMA, AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, W/O LATE CHIKKANARASIMHAIAH, 1(b) LAKSHMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, D/O LATE CHIKKANARASIMHAIAH, BOTH ARE R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. 2. SRI CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O MALAYAPPA, RESIDING AT CHOKKANAHALLI, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI C SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE) - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25313 RSA No. 2697 of 2011 C/W RSA No. 2670 of 2011 AND: 1. SMT LAKSHMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, D/O KEMPAMMA , R/AT BUDDAMAHANALLI, ARAKERE POST, VIA DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 2. SMT CHIKKAMMA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, D/O LATE DODDANARASIMHAIAH, R/AT BUDAMANAHALLI, ARAKERE POST, VIA DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RAURAL DISTRICT. 3. SMT ERAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKHANUMANTHAPPA, SINCE DEAD BYHER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 3(a) SMT RADHAMMA, W/O LATE MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 3(b) SMT PRABHA, D/O LATE MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 3(c) SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY, S/O LATE MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 3(d) SMT PAVITHRA, D/O LATE MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 3(e) SMT VIDYA, D/O LATE MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25313 RSA No. 2697 of 2011 C/W RSA No. 2670 of 2011 3(a) to 3(e) ARE R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. R3 (a) to (e) NAME HAS BEEN DELETED AS RESPONDENT NO.5 TO 9 HAS BEEN TREATED AS LRS OF RESPONDENT NO.3 BY ORDER OF HON'BLE COURT DATED 30.01.2014 4. SMT NARASAMMA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, D/O LATE DODDANARASIMHAIAH, W/O MALAYAPPA, R/AT SINGANAYAKANAHALLI, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK. 5. SMT RADHAMMA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, W/O LATE MUNIRAJU, 6. SMT PRABHA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, D/O LATE MUNIRAJU, 7. SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNIRAJU, 8. SMT PAVITHRA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, D/O LATE MUNIRAJU, 9. MS VIDYA, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, D/O LATE MUNIRAJU, RESPONDENTS 5 TO 9 ARE - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25313 RSA No. 2697 of 2011 C/W RSA No. 2670 of 2011 R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2, V/O/DT 30.01.2014, R3(A-E) ARE DELETED & R5 TO R9 ARE TREATED AS LR'S OF DECEASED R3, R4, R5, R7, R8 ARE SERVED, SRI NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R6 & R9) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W ORDER 42 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.9.2011 PASSED IN R.A.NO.94/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND IN CHARGE JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT-I, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.4.2009 PASSED IN O.S.NO.302/1993 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT These two appeals are arising from the judgment and decree in O.S No.302/1993 on the file of Civil Judge, Rural District, Bengaluru and appeal in R.A.No.94/2009 on the file of Rural District Judge, Bangalore. The suit is one for - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25313 RSA No. 2697 of 2011 C/W RSA No. 2670 of 2011 partition and separate possession. The genealogy pleaded by the plaintiffs is not in dispute. The plaintiffs claimed 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. There are 16 properties. 2. The defendants contested the suit. The defendants took a stand that Item Nos.1 to 6 are the self- acquired properties of defendant No.1 and Item Nos.7 to 15 properties though originally belonged to propositus Muniyappa, was later acquired exclusively by defendant No.1 as the mother of the plaintiffs executed a relinquishment deed accepting ₹10,000/- towards value of her share. Thus, the defendants also claim exclusive ownership over items No.7 to 15. As far as item No.16 property is concerned, it is submitted that he purchased the property under the registered partition deed 1972 in the name of defendant No.1. The Trial Court has decreed the suit in part decreeing the suit in respect of items No.1 to 15 and dismissed the suit in respect of Item No.16. The defendants filed an appeal. The plaintiffs did not question the decree dismissing the suit in respect of Item No.16. The First Appellate Court concluded - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25313 RSA No. 2697 of 2011 C/W RSA No. 2670 of 2011 that the Items No.1 to 15 properties are the joint family properties and the First Appellate Court also held the parties are governed by the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1933 and awarded 1/12th share. Agreed by the aforementioned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, the plaintiffs are in appeal in RSA No.2697/2011 and defendants are in appeal in RSA No.2670/2011. RSA No.2670/2011 was admitted on 27.05.2019 to answer the following substantial questions of law. "Whether the first Appellate Court was right in fixing 1/12th share together in whole to the children of Dodda Narasimhaiah?" 3. This Court after considering the submissions made by the parties is also of the view that following substantial questions of law are required to be framed:- "1. Whether the Items No.1 to 6 properties are the joint family properties?" 2. Whether defendants established that items No. 7 to 15 properties are their exclusive - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25313 RSA No. 2697 of 2011 C/W RSA No. 2670 of 2011 properties in view of the unregistered settlement deed executed by the mother of the plaintiffs." 4. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/appellants would contend that the daughter of defendant No.1 who was examined as DW-1 has admitted that defendant No.1 was the joint family manager and he was managing the affairs of the joint family and was in possession and control of items No.7 to 15 properties which are admittedly the properties owned and possessed by the propositus Muniyappa. That being the admission, the First Appellate Court is justified in granting the decree for partition in respect of items No.1 to 15 properties. However, it is his contention that while computing his share by referring to the provisions of the Act of 1933, the First Appellate Court has misdirected itself in awarding only 1/12th share and it should have been 1/6th share for the branch of the plaintiffs as the plaintiffs have inherited the share of the mother. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25313 RSA No. 2697 of 2011 C/W RSA No. 2670 of 2011 5. Learned counsel for the defendants on the other hand would submit that items No.1 and 2 properties are the residential houses which are located in gomala land and no records are produced by the plaintiff to show that the property was once possessed by the propositus Muniyappa and the Government has regularized the unauthorized occupation by defendant No.1 during the pendency of the suit and as such, the suit could not have been decreed in respect of items No.1 and 2 properties. As far as items No.3 to 6 properties it is his submission that defendant No.1 has purchased the property under a registered sale deed. 6. It is urged by defendant No.1 that he had independent source of income and PW-2. has admitted that since independent income is pleaded and established, the Court should not have granted a decree for partition in respect of items No.3 to 6 properties on the premise that the properties are acquired from the joint family nucleus. 7. Elaborating his submission further he would submit that there is no pleading in the plaint to the effect - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25313 RSA No. 2697 of 2011 C/W RSA No. 2670 of 2011 that items No.3 to 6 properties are purchased from the income derived from the ancestral properties. In the absence of any pleading, any amount of evidence cannot be accepted to hold that items No.3 to 6 properties are self-acquired properties. 8. On behalf of defendants it is urged that item No.16 property was purchased under the registered sale deed of 1972 in the name of defendant No.1 and the suit is dismissed in respect of said property holding that the said property is the self-acquired property of first defendant and this decree is not questioned by the plaintiffs. Applying the same analogy, the sale deed in the name of defendant No.1 in respect of items No.3 to 6 properties would establish the fact that the properties are the self acquired properties of the defendant No.1. 9. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 10. The position of Hindu Law relating to the self acquisition is well settled. The Court would start with the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25313 RSA No. 2697 of 2011 C/W RSA No. 2670 of 2011 presumption that the properties standing in the name of an individual are his self acquired properties. The burden is on the person who asserts that the properties are joint family properties. 11. As it can be noticed from paragraph No.2 of the plaint, the plaintiff contends that all the properties are inherited from the propositus Muniyappa. However, records would reveal that all the properties are not inherited from the propositus Muniyappa. Only item Nos.7 to 15 properties are inherited from the propositus Muniyappa. 12. As far as items No.1 to 6 properties are concerned, the plaintiff was required to plead and establish that these properties are purchased by defendant No.1 from the income derived from the properties derived from Muniyappa. There is no pleading to this effect. 13. The law in this regard is also well settled. The person who asserts that the properties are acquired from the joint family source must plead and establish that the family - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25313 RSA No. 2697 of 2011 C/W RSA No. 2670 of 2011 had a sufficient nucleus and surplus income to purchase the property in the name of an individual. 14. Merely because DW-1 has admitted that her father was the joint family manager by necessary implication, one cannot conclude that the properties standing in the name of the joint family manager is self-acquired property. Of course, the onus is also on the defendants to establish that the property is indeed the self-acquired property, for which the defendants have produced the sale deeds. 15. In addition to that, the witness examined on behalf of the plaintiff namely, PW-2, who claims to be acquainted with the affairs of the plaintiffs' family has admitted that defendant No.1 was doing cattle business and had a good income. 16. Considering the fact that there is no pleading on the part of the plaintiff to raise a contention that the properties are the joint family properties acquired out of the joint family income and considering the fact that there is a - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25313 RSA No. 2697 of 2011 C/W RSA No. 2670 of 2011 sale deed in the name of defendant No.1 and there is an admission by the plaintiff's witness who has admitted that the defendant No.1 had independent source of income. 17. This Court is of the view that the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court as well as the trial Court that items No.1 to 6 properties are the joint family properties have to be set aside. 18. Learned counsel for the defendants referring to the unregistered relinquishment deed would submit that the plaintiffs' mother has taken ₹10,000/- from the defendants somewhere in 1961 and has purchased properties from that ₹10,000/- and he would urge that the appeal has to be allowed by dismissing the suit in respect of items No.7 to 15 properties. 19. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs on the other hand would submit that the unregistered relinquishment deed does not extinguish the title of the plaintiffs and those properties are admittedly the ancestral properties and the relinquishment deed cannot be accepted to record a finding - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25313 RSA No. 2697 of 2011 C/W RSA No. 2670 of 2011 that plaintiffs' mother had received ₹10,000/- and has relinquished her right over the said property. 20. There is force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants that the unregistered relinquishment deed cannot be considered to record a finding that the plaintiffs’ right over items No.7 to 15 properties are extinguished. This being the position, this Court cannot find any error in the finding recorded by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court insofar as items No.7 to 15 properties are concerned. 21. As far as item No.16 property is concerned though the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants would contend that the omission on the part of the plaintiffs in not challenging the decree dismissing the suit in respect of item No.16 property is not fatal to make a claim in this second appeal, in view of the power conferred on the Court under Order XXXI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, what is required to be noticed is the item No.16 property stands in the name of defendant No.1 pursuant to sale deed of the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25313 RSA No. 2697 of 2011 C/W RSA No. 2670 of 2011 year 1972. As already noticed there is no pleading in the plaint that item No.16 property is purchased out of income from items No. 7 to 15 properties. This being the position, the prayer for partition in respect of item No.16 property cannot be accepted. 22. Next question is on the quantum of share. The propositus died in the year 1950. The parties were governed by the provisions of Mysore Women's Right to Property Act, 1933. Sections 4 and 8 of the said Act of 1933 would govern the succession. In Section 4, the order of succession is provided. Order of succession under Section 4 gives preference as to who among the heirs would inherit the property to the exclusion of whom. The first in the preference are the male issues up to the third generation. The second in the preference is the widow. The third in the preference are the daughters. 23. In the instant case, when the propositus died, he was survived by a widow. Section 8(2)(a) provides that the - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25313 RSA No. 2697 of 2011 C/W RSA No. 2670 of 2011 widow will inherit one half of what her husband if alive would have received as his share. 24. There is no dispute that the husband of Lakkamma would have received 1/3rd share had there been a partition immediately before his death. Thus, Lakkamma would inherit 1/6th share. 25. The plaintiffs No.1 & 2 are the daughters of Lakkamma and defendant No.3 is also the daughter. Thus, plaintiffs No.1 & 2 and defendant No.3 together will inherit 1/6th share of their mother and not 1/12th share as held by the First Appellate Court. 26. For the aforementioned reasons, both appeals are allowed in part. 27. Hence, the following:- ORDER (i) The appeals are allowed in part. (ii) The R.S.A. No.2697/2011 & R.S.A. No.2670/2011 are modified. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25313 RSA No. 2697 of 2011 C/W RSA No. 2670 of 2011 (iii) The suit of the plaintiffs is decreed holding that each of the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 is having 1/18th share in respect of items No.7 to 15 properties. (iv) The suit in respect of items No.1 to 6 properties is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40