- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27395 WP No. 15891 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 15891 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. B.R. SWAMYNATHAN, S/O LATE B.M. RAJASHEKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O SOMASHETTIHALLI VILLAGE, LINGADHALLI POST, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 557. 2. B.R. NATARAJ, S/O LATE B.M. RAJASHEKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NO.504, 4TH MAIN, MEENAKSHI RESIDENCY LAYOUT, KEMBATHALLI MAIN ROAD, GOTTIKERE POST, BANGALORE - 560 083. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HARISH KUMAR M.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. B.R. ANITHA, W/O M.G. SOMASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O NO.1948/13, VIDYANAGAR MAIN ROAD, TARALABALU BADAVANE, DAVANAGERE – 577 005. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27395 WP No. 15891 of 2025 2. SMT. INDRAMMA, D/O LATE B.M.RAJASHEKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O SOMASHETTIHALLI VILLAGE, LINGADHALLI POST, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 557. 3. SMT. B.R.SAVITHA, W/O M. JAGADISH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1/9, THANGANNA NILAYA, 8TH CROSS, VIDYANAGAR, DAVANAGERE – 577 005. 4. H.E. CHANDRAPPA, S/O H. ESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/O OF D.NO.566/5, ADARSHA NILAYA 2ND CROSS, NITUVALLI, DAVANGERE – 577 004. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.A. DEVANAND, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRADEEPA S.B., ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10-03-2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.3 AND THE ORDER PASSED ON 04-04-2025 ON I.A.NO.2 IN F.D.P. NO.3/2016 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI VIDE ANNEXURE-N, DIRECT TO THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAGIRI TO HOLD AN ENQUIRY AS TO MAINATAINABILITY OF FDP NO.3/2016 IN VIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT ARRIVED BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS PER THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP NO.46023/2018 DATED 10-12-2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-K. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27395 WP No. 15891 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this court calling in question an order dated 10.03.2025 passed on I.A.No.3 and order dated 04.04.2025 on I.A.No.2 in F.D.P.No.3/2016. 2. Heard Sri.Harish Kumar M.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.R.A.Devanand, learned counsel for Sri.Pradeepa S.B., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record. 3. The parties to the lis were before this Court in W.P.No.46023/2018 which comes to be disposed on 10.12.2024. In the light of the parties being the same, I deem it appropriate to paraphrase the observations of the Court to the subject order: "The petitioner in FDP No.3/2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chennagiri has filed this - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27395 WP No. 15891 of 2025 petition challenging the correctness of an order dated 01.10.2018, by which it modified the shares declared under the preliminary decree passed in O.S No.38/2011. 2. (i) The petitioner was the plaintiff in O.S No.38/2011, which was for partition and separate possession of her share in the suit schedule properties. The petitioner claimed that she, her brothers and sisters were entitled to an equal share in the suit schedule properties, after the death of their father Sri B. M. Rajashekarappa. (ii) The said suit, after contest, was decreed and it was declared that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties. Following this preliminary decree, the petitioner filed FDP No.3/2016 for drawing up of a final decree to demarcate her share and to handover possession of her share in the suit properties. (iii) In the said final decree proceedings, the petitioner filed an application for appointment of a revenue officer to bifurcate and divide the agricultural properties and a Engineer of the Public Works Department to divide the residential properties as per the preliminary decree. While considering this application, the Final Decree Court held that in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangammal and Thulasi and others Vs. T.B. Raju and others [(2018) 15 SCC 662] and judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prakash and others Vs. Phulavati and others [(2016) 2 SCC 36] and in the case of Danamma alias Suman Surpur Vs. Amar and others [(2018) 3 SCC 343] a notional partition had to be effected after the death of propositus namely Sri B. M. Rajashekarappa. Consequent to this, it was held that the petitioner would be entitled to 1/15th share in the suit properties. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Trial Court had passed a preliminary decree declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties. She contends that the Final Decree Court could not have relied upon the judgment in the case of Mangammal and Thulasi and others Vs. T.B. Raju and others [(2018) 15 SCC 662] and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27395 WP No. 15891 of 2025 Danamma alias Suman Surpur Vs. Amar and others [(2018) 3 SCC 343] to reduce the share from 1/5th to 1/15th. She contends that the Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and others [AIR 2020 SC 3717] had categorically held that the daughter would be entitled to an equal share along with the sons subject to exceptions contained in Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. She therefore contends that the Final Decree Court committed an error in reducing the share. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended that after the preliminary decree was passed, various attempts were made at conciliation which ultimately culminated in a partition dated 24.02.2014 in terms of which, the petitioner was given away 2 ½ acres of arecanut plantation in Sy No.23/P2 of Somashettihalli, Siddapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Channagiri Taluk. He contends that after the said partition, another agreement was entered in to on 13.08.2019 in terms of which she relinquished her claim in respect of the other properties. Subsequent to this, another settlement was entered into on 17.07.2024 in terms of which, the petitioner was given away 20 guntas of wet land in Sy No.10/1 of Somashettihalli and sum of Rs.6,00,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of a registration of the partition deed. He therefore contends that, the petitioner has accepted to receive 3 acre of land and also sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards her share and therefore, the dispute between the parties is fully and finally settled. Therefore, he contends that there is no need for any proceedings to draw up a final decree. He also contends that the respondents had challenged the preliminary decree in O.S No.38/2011 before this Court in RFA No.1000/2023 and in view of the settlement arrived at as stated above, the appeal was dismissed for default and no steps were taken to restore it. The learned counsel therefore, contends that even if the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma (supra) is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the settlement arrived between the parties there is no need for a final decree to be drawn. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27395 WP No. 15891 of 2025 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. The Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma (supra), elaborately discussed the right of daughters in view of the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and held as follows: (i) The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after amendment in the same manner as son with same rights and liabilities (ii) The rights can be claimed by the daughter born earlier with effect from 9.9.2005 with savings as provided in Section 6(1) as to the disposition or alienation, partition or testamentary disposition which had taken place before 20th day of December, 2004 (iii) Since the right in coparcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that father coparcener should be living as on 9.9.2005. (iv) The statutory fiction of partition created by proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as originally enacted did not bring about the actual partition or disruption of coparcenary. The fiction was only for the purpose of ascertaining share of deceased coparcener when he was survived by a female heir, of Class-I as specified in the Schedule to the Act of 1956 or male relative of such female. The provisions of the substituted Section 6 are required to be given full effect. Notwithstanding that a preliminary decree has been passed the daughters are to be given share in coparcenary equal to that of a son in pending proceedings for final decree or in an appeal. v) In view of the rigor of provisions of Explanation to Section 6(5) of the Act of 1956, a plea of oral partition cannot be accepted as the statutory recognised mode of partition effected by a deed of partition duly registered - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27395 WP No. 15891 of 2025 under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 or effected by a decree of a court. However, in exceptional cases where plea of oral partition is supported by public documents and partition is finally evinced in the same manner as if it had been affected by a decree of a court, it may be accepted. A plea of partition based on oral evidence alone cannot be accepted and to be rejected outrightly. 7. It also overruled the judgment in the case of Prakash and others Vs. Phulavati (Supra), Mangammal and Thulasi and others (Supra) and Danamma alias Suman Surpur (Supra) to the extent it was contrary to the view taken by it in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma (supra). In so far as cases where the final decree was not drawn, the Apex Court held that it is open for the Final Decree Court to consider the position of law and modify the preliminary decree accordingly. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order of the final decree court modifying the share of the petitioner from 1/5th to 1/15th is improper and calls for interference. 9. However, it is to be noticed that the parties had purportedly entered into a settlement in terms of which the petitioner had agreed to receive three acres of land and a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-towards her share in the suit schedule property. A document in writing is purportedly executed between the petitioner and the respondent to the above effect. Therefore, the question whether there was a need to draw up a final decree in view of the settlement arrived between the parties or not, has to be now considered by the final decree Court before it takes any other steps to demarcate and hand over 1/5th share of the petitioner in the suit schedule properties. For all practical progresses, the document referred above could be treated as settlement which does not require compulsory registration in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kale and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others [1976 SC 807]. Therefore, the final decree court is bound to verify whether the parties have settled the dispute fully and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27395 WP No. 15891 of 2025 finally and whether there is a need to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree. 10. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed in part and the impugned order passed by the Final Decree Court is set aside. The case is remitted back to the Final Decree Court, which shall consider whether the parties have settled the dispute putting an end to the enforceability of a preliminary decree. If it is of the opinion that the parties have not settled the dispute, then the final decree court shall take steps to appoint a commissioner to demarcate the share of the petitioners in the properties in accordance with the preliminary decree drawn." 4. The respondents in the said Writ Petition is back to the doors of this Court on the score that there has been violation of the order passed by this court with particular reference to paragraphs 9 and 10. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the concerned Court has not acted pursuance or in furtherance of the order passed by this Court and no enquiry has been conducted as was directed. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that detailed enquiry is conducted and the observations of the enquiry forms the fulcrum of the impugned order. The order dated 10.03.2025 reads as follows. "POINT No.1: When the matter was posted for hearing on IA No.2, the respondent No.1 came up with - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27395 WP No. 15891 of 2025 present application seeking permission to produce the consent deed dated 13-06-2019 stating that, the petitioner executed the said consent deed and took 2 acre 20 guntas land in item no.5 petition schedule property and also cash of Rs.6 Lakh in lieu of her share in the suit schedule properties which the petitioner denied at her objections statement. On perusal of the records, this court noticed that, the petitioner came up with present petition seeking demarcation of 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties as per preliminary decree passed in OS No.38/2011 dated 21-03-2013. During pendency of this petition, vide order dated 01-10-2018, this court modified the share of petitioner from 1/5th share to 1/15th share aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached Hon'ble HCK vide WP No.46023/2018. Wherein the Hon'ble HCK vide order dated 10-12-2024, set aside the order passed by this court on 01-10-2018 and further declare that, the petitioner is entitled for 1/5th share as declared in the preliminary decree. Further, the Hon'ble HCK at para No.9 observed that, the parties have purportedly entered a settlement and the petitioner aggrieved to receive 3 acres of land and cash of Rs.6 Lakh towards her share in the suit schedule properties and a document being also executed between the parties. Thereby the Hon'ble HCK directed to this court to consider the issue of settlement arrived at between the parties and is there any necessity of drawing final decree. On the observations made by the Hon'ble HCK, the respondent No.1 came up with present application seeking permission to produce the consent deed dated 13-06-2019 by way of objections, the petitioner denied the very execution of the consent deed dated 13-06-2019. Further, the petitioner also on oral enquiry, stated that, no settlement is arrived at between the parties and she had not executed any consent deed dated 13-06-2019. In the objection statement also, the petitioner denied the execution of the settlement deed. Having considered the submissions made by the both parties, this court is of the considered view that, the parties have not agreed to between themselves by way of consent deed dated 13-06-2019. The respondent No.1 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27395 WP No. 15891 of 2025 claims that, the petitioner took 2 acre 20 guntas land in item No.5 petition schedule property as well as cash of Rs.6 Lakh. Whereas the petitioner disputes taking possession of 2 acre 20 guntas land in item no.5 petition schedule property as well as cash of Rs.6 Lakh. When the petitioner disputes the very execution of the consent deed dated 13-06-2019 as well as having taken the landed property as well as cash as framed by the respondent No.1 by way of objections as well as oral statement made before the court, this court is of the considered view that, no settlement is arrived at between the parties by virtue of consent deed dated 13-06-2019. On the other hand the respondent No.1 not placed any materials before the court to show that, he gave 2 acre 20 guntas land in item No.5 petition schedule property as well as cash of Rs.6 Lakh as recited in the consent deed. Accordingly. the respondent No.1 not made out any grounds for permitting him to produce the document ie.. the consent deed dated 13-06-2019. Accordingly this point is answered in the Negative. POINT No.2: In view of foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following ORDER The IA No.3 so filed by the respondent No.1 U/o 8 R 1(A) of CPC dated 07-02-2025 is hereby rejected. Call on for hear on IA No.2 from the respondent No.1 side by 17-03-2025. Sd/- 10.3.2025 Sr.C.J. and JMFC. Cng." 6. The concerned Court observes that on a enquiry being conducted about the proceedings as directed by the Court, passes a reasoned order. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27395 WP No. 15891 of 2025 7. In the light of the only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order is not in pursuance of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench, quoted supra, and this Court finding no error in the order to interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petition stands rejected. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 58