- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26983 RFA No. 1842 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1847 of 2024 RFA No. 1866 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1842 OF 2024 (PAR/INJ) C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1847 OF 2024 (PAR/INJ) REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1866 OF 2024 (PAR/POS) REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1872 OF 2024 (PAR/INJ) IN RFA NO.1842/2024 BETWEEN: 1. SMT.SUMITHRA W/O LATE R WILLIAM AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 2. SRI.HARISH S/O LATE R WILLIAM AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 3. SRI.PRATHAP S/O LATE R WILLIAM AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS ALL RESIDENTS OF NO.15, OLD KHATHA NO.110/1 WARD NO.68, 2ND CROSS GUNDAPPA GARDEN EJIPURA BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK …APPELLANTS (BY SRI.B.V.SHANKAR NARAYAN RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.BALARAJ A C, ADVOCATE FOR A.1 AND A3; SRI.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR A.2) Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26983 RFA No. 1842 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1847 of 2024 RFA No. 1866 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER AND: 1. SRI.W.SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE WILLIAM AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS 2. SRI.W.MAHESH KUMAR S/O LATE WILLIAM AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.271, 2ND C MAIN 2ND CROSS, ADI PARASHAKTHI STREET A.K.COLONY, KORAMANGALA 8TH BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 095 3. SMT.VENI PALANI W/O PALANI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDENT OF NO.665, 2ND MAIN 9TH CROSS, RAJENDRA NAGAR VIVEKNAGARA POST BENGALURU - 560047 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SHIVASHANKAR K, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 AND R.2; SRI.GIREESH KODGI, ADVOCATE FOR R.3; SRI.SURESH S LOKRE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.SHRAVAN S LOKRE, ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED IMPLEADING RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 5) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.02.2022 PASSED IN OS NO.9695/2015 ON THE FILE OF LVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-59), BENGALURU CITY., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26983 RFA No. 1842 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1847 of 2024 RFA No. 1866 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION AND TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AND ETC. IN RFA NO. 1847/2024 BETWEEN: 1. SMT.SUMITHRA W/O LATE R WILLIAM AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 2. SRI.HARISH S/O LATE R WILLIAM AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 3. SRI.PRATHAP S/O LATE R WILLIAM AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS ALL RESIDENTS OF NO.15, OLD KHATHA NO.110/1 WARD NO.68, 2ND CROSS GUNDAPPA GARDEN EJIPURA BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK - 560047 ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI.B.V.SHANKAR NARAYAN RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.BALARAJ A C, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI W SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE WILLIAM AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS 2. SRI W MAHESH KUMAR S/O LATE WILLIAM AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26983 RFA No. 1842 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1847 of 2024 RFA No. 1866 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.271, 2ND C MAIN 2ND CROSS, ADI PARASHAKTHI STREET A.K.COLONY, KORAMANGALA 8TH BLOCK BENGALURU - 560 095 3. SMT.VENI PALANI W/O PALANI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDENT OF NO.665, 2ND MAIN 9TH CROSS, RAJENDRA NAGAR VIVEKANAGARA POST BENGALURU -560 047 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SHIVASHANKAR K, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 AND R.2; SRI.GIREESHA KODGI, ADVOCATE FOR R.3) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.10.2023 IN FDP NO.64/2022 PASSED BY LVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY. IN RFA NO.1866/2024 BETWEEN: SMT.VENI PALANI W/O PALANI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS NO.665, 2ND MAIN 9TH CROSS, RAJENDRA NAGAR VIVEKNAGAR POST BENGALURU-560047 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. GIREESHA KODGI, ADVOCATE) - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26983 RFA No. 1842 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1847 of 2024 RFA No. 1866 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER AND: 1. LAKSHMI SINCE DEAD BY LRS ALREDAY ON RECORD SMT.SUMITHRA W/O LATE WILLIAM R AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 2. SRI.HARISH S/O LATE WILLIAM R AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 3. SRI.PRATHAP S/O LATE WILLIAM R AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT NO.15, OLD KATHA NO.110/1 WARD NO.68 SITUATED AT II CROSS GUNDAPPA GARDEN EJIPURA BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 047 4. SRI.SHIVAKUMAR W S/O LATE WILLIAM R AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS 5. SRI.MAHESH KUMAR W S/O LATE WILLIAM R AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 5 ARE RESIDING AT NO.271, 2ND "C" MAIN 2ND CROSS, ADI PARASHAKTHI STREET A K COLONY, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26983 RFA No. 1842 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1847 of 2024 RFA No. 1866 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER KORAMANGALA 8TH BLOCK BENGALURU-560 095 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.V.SHANKAR NARAYAN RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.BALARAJ A.C, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 TO R.3; SRI.SHIVASHANKAR K, ADVOCATE FOR R.4 AND R.5) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.02.2022 PASSED IN OS NO.9695/2015 ON THE FILE OF LVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-59), BENGALURU CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION AND ETC. IN RFA NO.1872/2024 BETWEEN: SMT.VENI PALANI W/O PALANI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT FIRST FLOOR, NO.728 1ST MAIN ROAD, 7TH CROSS 12TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA 2ND STAGE RAJENDRANAGAR SLUM BENGALURU - 560 057 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI.GIREESHA KODGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.SUMITHRA W/O LATE WILLIAM R AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 2. SRI.HARISH S/O LATE WILLIAM R AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26983 RFA No. 1842 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1847 of 2024 RFA No. 1866 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER 3. SRI.PRATHAP S/O LATE WILLIAM R AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT NO.15 OLD KATHA NO.110/1 WARD NO.68, SITUATED AT II CROSS, GUNDAPPA GARDEN EJIPURA, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 047 4. SRI.SHIVAKUMAR W S/O LATE WILLIAM R AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 5. SRI.MAHESH KUMAR W S/O LATE WILLIAM.R AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 5 ARE RESIDING AT NO.271, 2ND 'C' MAIN, 2ND CROSS, ADI PARASHAKTHI STREET A.K.COLONY, KORAMANGALA 8TH BLOCK BENGALURU - 560 095 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.V.SHANKAR NARAYAN RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.BALARAJ A.C, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 TO R.3; SRI.SHIVASHANKAR K, ADVOCATE FOR R.4 AND R.5) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.10.2023 IN FDP NO. 64/2022 PASSED BY LVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26983 RFA No. 1842 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1847 of 2024 RFA No. 1866 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL JUDGMENT RFA No.1842/2024 and RFA No.1866/2024 are filed by defendant Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 challenging the preliminary decree drawn in O.S.No.9695/2015 on the file of the LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-59), while RFA No.1847/2024 and RFA No.1872/2024 are filed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 and defendant No.5 questioning the final decree drawn in FDP No.64/2022 on the file of LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH No.59). 2. For the sake of brevity, the ranks of the parties are referred as they are ranked in OS.No.9695/2015. 3. The genealogical tree of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 reads as under; - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26983 RFA No. 1842 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1847 of 2024 RFA No. 1866 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER Mr.R.Williams (deceased) _____________________|_____________________ | | Mrs.Sumithra (D.2) Mrs.Lakshmi (D.1) (Appellant No.1) | | | ______________ ______|_______ | | | | Harish Prathap Williams W.Shivashankar Mahesh Kumar (D.3) (D.4) (P.1) (P.2) 4. The children of late R.Williams i.e., W.Shivashankar and W.Mahesh Kumar, who are the plaintiffs, have filed a suit in O.S.No.9695/2015 admitting that their mother Lakshmi - second wife of R.Williams and that all the suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of their father - R.Williams. The plaintiffs also specifically pleaded that item No.3 though purchased in the name of defendant No.2 is the absolute property of their father R.Williams and hence, they have filed a partition suit alleging that despite repeated request to the defendant Nos.1 to 3 and though panchayath was conveyed with the aid of the elders and relatives and well- wishers on 23.06.2015, the defendants, however, were - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26983 RFA No. 1842 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1847 of 2024 RFA No. 1866 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER reluctant in giving the plaintiffs' legitimate share in the suit schedule properties. Therefore, the present suit for partition is filed by the plaintiffs alleging that their father - R.William died intestate leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 to 4 as his legal heirs and hence, prayed to allot their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties. 5. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 tendered appearance and filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. The defendants, on the contrary, seriously disputed the plaintiffs relationship with R.Williams. While specifically denying the averments made in para Nos.2 to 12 of the plaint, the defendants claimed that plaintiffs are totally strangers to the defendants' family and therefore, they are not entitled for the relief sought in the partition suit. 6. Per contra, the defendants have claimed that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26983 RFA No. 1842 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1847 of 2024 RFA No. 1866 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER properties and they have inherited the property after the demise of R.Williams. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 contended that they are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and plaintiffs have no right and title over the suit schedule properties and sought for dismissal of the suit. 7. The plaintiffs to substantiate that their mother - defendant No.1 was married to R.Williams have led in oral and documentary evidence. Plaintiff No.1 is examined as P.W.1 and in all 61 documents are produced by the plaintiffs to substantiate their relationship with R.Williams and also to demonstrate that all the suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of R.Williams. 8. The defendants examined defendant No.3 as D.W.1 and defendant No.2 as D.W.2 and defendants in all relied on 14 documents, which are marked as Exs.D.1 to D.14. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26983 RFA No. 1842 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1847 of 2024 RFA No. 1866 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER 9. The learned Judge on appraisal of oral and documentary evidence answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the Affirmative and held that the plaintiffs have succeeded in establishing their relationship with the deceased R.Williams. While answering issue Nos.2 and 3 in the Affirmative, the Trial Court held that the plaintiffs have succeeded in proving that they along with defendant Nos.2 to 4 constitute a joint family and therefore, they are entitled for their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties. 10. The learned Trial Judge, having answered the core issues in the affirmative in favour of the plaintiffs, proceeded to draw a preliminary decree. However, while doing so, the Trial Court treated the two branches, one representing Mrs.Sumithra and the other representing Mrs.Lakshmi as independent, and accordingly, divided the estate by allotting half share to each branch. The said preliminary decree passed in O.S. No.9695/2025 has been challenged by defendant Nos.2 to 4 in RFA No. 1842/2024, - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26983 RFA No. 1842 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1847 of 2024 RFA No. 1866 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER whereas defendant No.5, the purchaser of item No.3, has filed a separate appeal in RFA No.1866/2024 assailing the preliminary decree. 11. Subsequent to the drawing of the preliminary decree, the plaintiffs instituted final decree proceedings in FDP No. 64/2022. A final decree has since been passed. Aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos. 2 to 4 have filed RFA No. 1847/2024, and defendant No. 5 has filed RFA No. 1872/2024, specifically challenging the final decree insofar as it relates to item No. 3 of the suit schedule. 12. The Court has heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for defendant Nos. 2 and 4, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs, and the learned Senior Counsel representing the impleading applicants. 13. The following points arise for the consideration of this Court: i) Whether the delay of 196 days in RFA No.1872/2025, 782 days in RFA No. 1866/2024, - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26983 RFA No. 1842 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1847 of 2024 RFA No. 1866 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER 194 days in RFA No. 1847/2024, and 782 days in RFA No. 1842/2024 in preferring the respective appeals can be condoned by allowing I.A. No. 1/2024 filed in each of the said appeals? ii) Whether defendant No.2, in the absence of any specific pleadings in her written statement with respect to item No.3 being her self-acquired property, is estopped from asserting such a claim contrary to the admission made at paragraph No.26 of her written statement? iii) Whether the quantification of shares and division effected by the Trial Court is legally unsustainable, arbitrary, or perverse so as to warrant interference by this Court? iv) Whether the final decree drawn in FDP No. 64/2022 is liable to be set aside or modified in the facts and circumstances of the case? v) whether the application for impleadment in I.A. No.3/2024 filed in RFA No. 1842/2024 deserves to be allowed? Findings on point No.1 14. The captioned appeal in RFA No.1842/2024 is filed by defendant Nos.2 and 4, assailing the preliminary - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26983 RFA No. 1842 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1847 of 2024 RFA No. 1866 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER decree drawn in O.S. No.9695/2020. There is a delay of 782 days in filing the said appeal. Similarly, there is a delay of 196 days in RFA No.1872/2025, 782 days in RFA No.1866/2024, and 194 days in RFA No.1847/2024. All these appeals question the preliminary decree passed in a suit for partition and separate possession of joint family properties. Though the delays are undoubtedly inordinate, this Court is of the considered view that such delay, in the context of partition suits involving inheritance rights, cannot be viewed through a rigid technical lens. 15. It is a well-settled principle of law that the right to seek partition in respect of joint family properties is not a discretionary or contractual right but a statutory and inheritable right flowing from succession. The right to claim a share in joint family property is a recurring and continuing cause of action until the property is divided by metes and bounds, either amicably or through the intervention of the Court. The nature of such a right is such that it does not get defeated by efflux of time alone, - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26983 RFA No. 1842 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1847 of 2024 RFA No. 1866 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER especially when the partition is yet to be conclusively and finally effected. 16. The plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 and 4 are members of the same family and have acquired their right to the suit schedule properties upon the demise of R.Williams, who died intestate. Though this right does not accrue by birth, it arises by virtue of inheritance as recognized under the Hindu Succession Act. The right to a share in the estate devolved upon the legal heirs the moment succession opened. Defendant Nos.2 and 4, as well as the plaintiffs, stand on equal footing in terms of their inheritable interest in the estate of the deceased. Such a substantive right cannot be nullified or scuttled solely on the ground of delay, particularly when the nature of the suit is one for partition where equity, fairness, and family settlement are dominant considerations. 17. Further, it is pertinent to note that defendant No.5, the purchaser of item No.3, is a pendente lite - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26983 RFA No. 1842 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1847 of 2024 RFA No. 1866 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER purchaser and his rights are subordinate to the outcome of the suit and the rights of the co-sharers. His appeal too deserves to be heard on merits so as to ensure that adjudication is comprehensive and inclusive of all interested stakeholders. 18. This Court also takes note that though the affidavits filed in support of the applications seeking condonation of delay do not inspire complete confidence in terms of the reasons assigned, the larger question of doing substantial justice must prevail. A rigid and hyper- technical approach in a case involving partition of ancestral property among closely related parties would defeat the very object of ensuring equitable distribution of property among legal heirs. 19. In this background, the Court is of the firm opinion that indulgence is warranted and the delay in filing the above appeals deserves to be condoned. Dismissing the appeals on the ground of limitation would amount to - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26983 RFA No. 1842 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1847 of 2024 RFA No. 1866 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER denying a rightful heir the opportunity to agitate their lawful share in the joint family property, thereby resulting in a manifest miscarriage of justice. 20. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative. I.A. No.1/2024 filed in RFA Nos. 1842/2024, 1847/2024, 1866/2024 and 1872/2025 are allowed. The delay in filing the respective appeals is hereby condoned. Findings on Point No.2 21. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, for the first time before this Court, made a persuasive submission urging this Court to examine the nature and character of Item No.3 of the suit schedule properties. Drawing the Court’s attention to the contents of the sale deed, the learned Senior Counsel contended that the said property was admittedly purchased in the name of defendant No.2 and, therefore, could not have been treated by the Trial Court as part of the joint family property. It was further argued that under the settled - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26983 RFA No. 1842 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1847 of 2024 RFA No. 1866 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER principles of Hindu law, a property standing in the name of a Hindu female is presumed to be her self-acquired property, unless the party alleging it to be joint family property discharges the burden of proof by leading cogent, reliable, and convincing evidence to that effect. 22. Though, on the face of it, this Court finds some substance in the legal position canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel, particularly with reference to the presumption in favour of self-acquisition when a property is held by a Hindu female, this argument is liable to be rejected in the present case for a foundational reason namely, the binding nature of the pleadings as set out by the party herself. 23. A careful reading of the written statement filed by defendant No.2 reveals that no such plea was taken in respect of Item No.3 being her self-acquired property. In fact, the stand taken by her in the pleadings contradicts the argument now advanced. The parties are bound by - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26983 RFA No. 1842 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1847 of 2024 RFA No. 1866 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER their pleadings, and no party can be permitted to take a stand contrary to what is admitted in their own pleadings unless the same is specifically amended and justified. It is settled law that no amount of oral argument or legal acumen can substitute or override clear and unambiguous pleadings. 24. In this background, this Court finds it apposite to extract paragraph No.26 of the written statement filed by defendant No.2, which puts the controversy to rest and conclusively establishes that even defendant No.2 did not claim Item No.3 as her exclusive property in the course of trial. The relevant paragraph reads thus: "26. It is submitted that these defendants are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property after the death of the R.Williams and these defendants are successors of the estate of R.William. It is submitted that these defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is submitted that the plaintiffs have no right, title interest over the property." - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26983 RFA No. 1842 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1847 of 2024 RFA No. 1866 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER 25. Upon a meticulous examination of the pleadings, particularly the averments made in paragraph No. 26 of the written statement filed by defendant No.2, it becomes abundantly clear that defendant No.2, along with her children, has unequivocally admitted that all the suit schedule properties including Item No.3 are the self- acquired properties of the deceased R. Williams. The said paragraph specifically states that these properties were acquired by R. Williams during his lifetime, and after his demise, the same devolved upon the parties by way of inheritance. This categorical admission made on oath in the pleadings constitutes a judicial admission and is binding on the defendants. It is settled law that parties are bound by the pleadings in a suit, and no party is permitted to approbate and reprobate or take a stand contrary to their own admissions without amending the pleadings and offering justifiable explanation. 26. In the present case, defendant No.2, having admitted in no uncertain terms that all suit schedule - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26983 RFA No. 1842 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1847 of 2024 RFA No. 1866 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER properties, including Item No.3, are the self-acquired properties of the deceased, cannot now be permitted at the appellate stage to take a diametrically opposite stand and contend that Item No.3 is her exclusive self-acquired property. Such an attempt to resile from a solemn admission made before the Trial Court is not only impermissible in law but also undermines the sanctity of the judicial process. 27. Even otherwise, this Court finds no merit in the claim now advanced on behalf of defendant No.2. The plaintiffs have placed on record unimpeachable documentary evidence to substantiate that the consideration for the purchase of Item No.3 was paid by R. Williams himself, though the property was registered in the name of defendant No.2. This assertion is supported by clinching evidence in the form of Exhibits P.60 and P.61, which establish the source of funds for the said transaction. In the absence of any rebuttal or contrary evidence from the defendants, and in light of the plaintiffs’ - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26983 RFA No. 1842 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1847 of 2024 RFA No. 1866 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER credible and cogent evidence, the presumption of ownership based merely on the name in the sale deed stands clearly rebutted. 28. Hence, both on the basis of binding admissions in the pleadings as well as on the strength of the documentary evidence brought on record, the contention that Item No.3 is the self-acquired property of defendant No.2 is wholly unsustainable and is liable to be rejected. 29. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered in the affirmative, holding that defendant No.2, in the absence of appropriate pleadings and in view of the admissions and evidence on record, cannot assert Item No.3 as her self-acquired property. Findings on point No.3. 30. On a careful scrutiny of the pleadings, this Court finds that the plaintiffs themselves have admitted that Lakshmi, their mother, was the second wife of late - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26983 RFA No. 1842 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1847 of 2024 RFA No. 1866 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER R.Williams, and that the said marriage was solemnized during the subsistence of R.Williams’ valid marriage with defendant No.2, Sumitra. It is not in dispute that R.Williams died intestate and all the suit schedule properties are his self-acquired properties. Both the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 to 4 uniformly admit this position. In light of these admitted facts, this Court is of the considered view that the quantification of shares undertaken by the learned Trial Judge in the preliminary decree is manifestly erroneous and legally unsustainable. 31. The learned Trial Judge, despite there being no dispute regarding the nature of the properties or the relationships between the parties, has adopted a fundamentally flawed methodology by dividing the estate into two equal halves, treating the wives of R. Williams as two independent branches and allocating half share to each branch. This approach, with respect, suffers from a patent legal infirmity and is contrary to the statutory - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26983 RFA No. 1842 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1847 of 2024 RFA No. 1866 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER scheme laid down under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 32. It is now well settled that under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, the devolution of property of a Hindu male dying intestate occurs upon his Class-I heirs as enumerated in the Schedule. In the present case, the marriage between R.Williams and Lakshmi being void under law (as it was contracted during the subsistence of the first marriage with Sumitra), Lakshmi herself cannot claim any share in the estate. However, the children born out of this void marriage , namely, the plaintiffs are entitled to succeed as legal heirs under Section 16(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. 33. Therefore, upon the demise of R. Williams, the estate devolves upon his surviving Class-I heirs, namely: Defendant No.2 (Sumitra, his legally wedded wife), Defendant Nos.3 and 4 (sons born to Sumitra), Plaintiff - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26983 RFA No. 1842 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1847 of 2024 RFA No. 1866 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER Nos.1 and 2 (children born to Lakshmi from the void marriage). Accordingly, the estate of R. Williams must be divided into five equal shares, one each to defendant Nos.2 to 4 and plaintiff Nos.1 and 2. The approach adopted by the Trial Court, in treating the wives as two separate branches and dividing the estate on that basis, is perverse and contrary to the governing statutory provisions. It fails to recognize that the claim is not based on any notional partition or branch-wise entitlement, but rather on individual shares devolving under intestate succession. 34. In view of the above reasoning, this Court is compelled to interfere with the quantification arrived at in the preliminary decree. The same is accordingly modified. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 and plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 shall each be entitled to 1/5th share in the estate of R. Williams. 35. This Court also finds it necessary to deal with an interesting and important development that occurred - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26983 RFA No. 1842 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1847 of 2024 RFA No. 1866 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER during the pendency of this appeal. Defendant No.3 — Harish, who was arrayed as the second appellant in RFA No.1842/2024 has filed an affidavit expressing his intention to withdraw from the appeal. However, the fact that Harish has opted to abandon the appeal does not, in any manner, dilute or extinguish his substantive right in the joint family property. 36. It is a cardinal principle in partition suits that every co-sharer is considered a plaintiff and is entitled to his legitimate share, irrespective of whether he actively contests the proceedings or not. Partition is an exercise to crystallize pre-existing rights, and the withdrawal of an appeal by one party cannot result in forfeiture or waiver of his share unless such waiver is express, informed, and unequivocal, which is not the case here. 37. Therefore, despite the withdrawal of the appeal by defendant No.3, this Court is duty-bound to recognize and declare his share in the estate, as determined in law. - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26983 RFA No. 1842 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1847 of 2024 RFA No. 1866 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER 38. Accordingly, defendant Nos.2, 3, and 4 shall each be entitled to 1/5th share along with plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, who shall also be entitled to 1/5th share each. 39. In view of the above findings and legal position, point No.3 is answered in the Affirmative. The quantification of shares in the preliminary decree is hereby set aside and modified in terms stated above. Findings on point No.4 40. In light of the modification of the preliminary decree effected by this Court, wherein the shares of the parties have been redefined and quantified afresh allocating 1/5th share each to defendant Nos.2 to 4 and plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, the final decree passed in FDP No.64/2022 cannot be sustained in law. The final decree proceedings are intrinsically dependent upon the framework set out in the preliminary decree, and any alteration in the latter necessarily renders the former inoperative and void. Since the preliminary decree has - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26983 RFA No. 1842 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1847 of 2024 RFA No. 1866 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER now been modified by this Court, the very foundation of the final decree stands altered, and hence, the final decree drawn in FDP No.64/2022 is liable to be set aside. 41. The matter, therefore, requires to be remitted to the Final Decree Court for fresh consideration. The FDP Court shall be directed to undertake a fresh exercise of working out the feasibility of partition in accordance with the modified preliminary decree. In doing so, the FDP Court shall appoint a fresh Commissioner who shall, after conducting due inspection and inquiry, submit a revised feasibility report reflecting the modified shares of the parties. The Commissioner shall take into account the allocation of 1/5th share each to plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and defendant Nos.2 to 4, and the final decree shall thereafter be drawn based on this revised framework, in strict compliance with law. 42. It is further submitted by the both learned counsels fairly agree that the Final Decree passed in FDP - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26983 RFA No. 1842 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1847 of 2024 RFA No. 1866 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER No.64/2022 was executed only in respect of Item No.2 of the suit schedule property. Possession of a specific portion under Item No.2 is stated to have been delivered to the plaintiffs and defendants in accordance with the now set-aside final decree. In order to preserve the status and character of possession and to avoid multiplicity of litigation or further complications, it is directed that there shall be status-quo in respect of all the suit schedule properties, both in terms of their nature, character, and possession, until a fresh final decree is drawn by the FDP Court based on the modified preliminary decree passed by this Court. 43. Accordingly, the Point No.4 is answered in the Affirmative. The appeals filed in RFA No.1847/2024 and RFA No.1872/2024 challenging the final decree in FDP No.64/2022 are allowed, the final decree is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the Final Decree Court for fresh proceedings in accordance with the observations made hereinabove. - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26983 RFA No. 1842 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1847 of 2024 RFA No. 1866 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER Findings on Point No.5 44. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the application for impleadment in I.A.No.3/2024 filed in RFA No.1842/2024 deserves to be allowed. The applicants seek to come on record as party respondents in the appeal, claiming that they are tenants who were allegedly inducted into possession of certain portions of the suit schedule properties by defendant Nos.1 to 3 during the pendency of the original suit proceedings. 45. This Court has already held that the final decree drawn in FDP No. 64/2022 is liable to be set aside, and the matter is being remanded to the Final Decree Court for fresh partition proceedings in accordance with the modified preliminary decree. In that view of the matter, and having regard to the nature of rights claimed by the impleading applicants, this Court is of the opinion that the impleadment of such persons in the appellate proceedings does not arise at this stage, particularly when the appeal - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26983 RFA No. 1842 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1847 of 2024 RFA No. 1866 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER pertains to a preliminary decree concerning division of property among co-sharers. 46. The rights, if any, of the applicants claiming to be tenants inducted by some of the defendants would be subject to the final outcome of the partition proceedings, and more particularly, subject to the division of the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds. Therefore, at this stage, their presence in the appeal proceedings is neither necessary nor appropriate. 47. However, this Court deems it just and proper to reserve liberty to the impleading applicants to approach the Final Decree Court and seek appropriate relief in accordance with law. They are at liberty to file an application before the FDP Court upon remand, asserting their alleged rights as tenants, and the same shall be considered by the FDP Court on its own merits, without being influenced by the dismissal of the present impleading application. - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26983 RFA No. 1842 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1847 of 2024 RFA No. 1866 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER 48. Insofar as the applicants’ claim regarding refund of security deposit, if any, said to have been paid to the original defendants, this Court is of the view that such claim cannot be adjudicated within the limited scope of partition proceedings. The remedy for recovery of such amounts, if legally sustainable, lies in independent civil proceedings initiated before a competent forum. 49. Accordingly, point No.5 is answered in the Negative. I.A.No.3/2024 filed in RFA No.1842/2024 is dismissed, while reserving liberty to the applicants to assert their rights, if any, in the remanded FDP proceedings or through independent legal proceedings as may be advised. 50. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The Appeals are allowed in part. - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26983 RFA No. 1842 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1847 of 2024 RFA No. 1866 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER (ii) RFA Nos.1842/2024 and 1866/2024 are allowed and the preliminary decree drawn in O.S.No.9695/2025 stands modified. (ii) In terms of the modified preliminary decree, plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for 1/5th share and similarly, defendant Nos.2 to 4 are entitled for 1/5th share each. In view of modification of the preliminary decree, RFA Nos.1847/2024 and 1872/2024 are allowed and the Final Decree drawn in FDP No.64/2022 is hereby set-aside. (iii) Since the parties are represented by their respective counsel, without expecting any further notice, plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 to 4 are hereby directed to appear before the FDP Court on 11.08.2025. (iv) The impleading application - I.A.No.3/2024 filed by the impleading applicants in RFA No.1842/2024 stand dismissed reserving liberty to pursue remedy in the manner known to law. - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26983 RFA No. 1842 of 2024 C/W RFA No. 1847 of 2024 RFA No. 1866 of 2024 AND 1 OTHER (v) Registry shall ensure that the records are forthwith remitted to the Trial Court. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17