- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34193 RSA No. 1021 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1021 OF 2015 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. LOKESHA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O RAMAKRISHNEGOWDA, 2. SMT. LEELAVATHY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, D/O RAMAKRISHNEGOWDA, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT THIRUMALAPURA VILLAGE, CHINAKURALI HOBLI, SANABA POST, PANDAVAPURA POST, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 435. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAMAKRISHNEGOWDA AGED BOUT 57 YEARS, S/O LATE JAVARAGE GOWDA, RESIDENT OF THIRUMALAPURA VILLAGE, CHINAKURALI HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 435. 2. SMT. NARASAMMA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, D/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA, Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34193 RSA No. 1021 of 2015 W/O MARI GOWDA, (DIED ON 12.05.2025) 3. SMT. THULASAMMA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, D/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA, RESPONDENT NOS. 2 AND 3 ARE RESIDING AT DODDABEGANAHALLI VILLAGE, SANABA POST, CHINAKURALI HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 435. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LOKESH MALAVALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 16.01.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.73/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., PANDAVAPURA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.06.2009 PASSED IN O.S.NO. 163/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) AND J.M.F.C., PANDAVAPURA. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by defendant Nos.2 and 3 assailing the judgment and decree dated 16.01.2014 in R.A.No.73/2009 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Pandavapura (hereinafter termed as 'First Appellate - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34193 RSA No. 1021 of 2015 Court'), allowing the appeal and modifying the judgment and decree dated 22.06.2009 in O.S.No.163/2005 on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Pandavapura (hereinafter termed as 'Trial Court'), dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the plaintiffs are the children of defendant No.1 through his second wife - Smt. Parvathamma. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the children of defendant No.1 through his first wife - Smt. Nagamma. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 are the sisters of defendant No.1 and plaintiff No.3 is also the sister of defendant Nos.1, 4 and 5. 4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the suit schedule properties are belonging to the grand father of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 - Sri. Javaregowda and therefore, the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34193 RSA No. 1021 of 2015 plaintiffs are entitled for share in the suit schedule properties being members of the joint family. 5. After service of notice, the defendants entered appearance and filed written statement. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 have taken specific contention that, the plaintiffs are not the children of defendant No.1 - Sri. Ramakrishnegowda. It is also the contention of defendant Nos.2 and 3 disputing the relationship of defendant No.1 with Smt. Parvathamma (claiming to be the mother of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2). Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed written statement admitting that, one Smt. Nagamma daughter of Sri.Krishnegowda is the wife of defendant No.1 and through her, defendant No.2 and 3 were born. It is also stated in the written statement that, the plaintiffs are not the co-parceners of the joint family of late Sri. Javaregowda and therefore sought for dismissal of the suit. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34193 RSA No. 1021 of 2015 6. The Trial Court based on pleadings on record has formulated the issues for its consideration. 7. In order to establish their case, the plaintiffs have examined one witness as P.W.1 and got marked 13 documents and same were marked as Exs.P1 to P13. Defendant No.2 was examined as D.W.1 and no documents were produced by the defendants. 8. The Trial Court after considering the material on record by judgment and decree dated 22.06.2009 dismissed the suit. However, reserving liberty to defendant Nos.1 and 2 to file a separate suit seeking share in the suit schedule properties of defendant No.1. Feeling aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.2 and 3 have preferred R.A.No.73/2009 before the First Appellate Court and same was resisted by the respondents herein. The First Appellate Court after considering the material on record allowed the appeal consequently after modifying the shares of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34193 RSA No. 1021 of 2015 parties. Feeling aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.2 and 3 have preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 9. This Court vide order dated 01.02.2023 has formulated the following substantial question of law: "Whether Appellate Court was justified in awarding 2/9th share to the plaintiffs without assigning any reasons as to how they are entitled for 2/9th share?" 10. Heard Sri. H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri. Lokesh Malavalli, learned counsel appearing for respondents. 11. Sri. H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that, the plaintiffs claim to be the children of defendant No.1 and second wife - Smt.Parvathamma and the said fact has not been proved before the Trial Court and that apart, plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 have no right to claim share in the suit schedule properties and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34193 RSA No. 1021 of 2015 12. It is also contended by Sri. H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants herein that, defendant No.4 - Narasamma died without leaving behind any issues and accordingly, sought for equitable share in respect of defendant Nos.1, 5 and plaintiff No.3. 13. Per contra, Sri. Lokesh Malavalli, learned counsel appearing for respondents herein submitted that, the children of late Sri. Javaregowda i.e., Sri. Ramakrishnegowda - Defendant No.1, Smt. Narasamma - defendant No.4, Smt. Tulasamma - defendant No.5 and Smt. Jayalakshmamma - plaintiff No.3 are entitled for equal share in the suit schedule properties. It is also submitted by Sri. Lokesh Malavalli, learned counsel appearing for respondents herein that, defendant No.4 is no more and her share has to be divided amongst the other children of late Sri. Javaregowda. 14. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for parties, in order to understand the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34193 RSA No. 1021 of 2015 relationship between the parties, it is relevant to extract the Genealogical Tree of the parties which is as under: JAVAREGOWDA (DEAD) Bettamma (Wife - Dead) Ramakrishnegowda(D1) Narasamma(D4) Tulasamma(D5) Jayalakshmamma(P3) 1st wife 2nd Wife - - - - - - - - - - - Nagamma Parvathamma ---------- ---------------- Lokesha Leelavathi Javaregowda Chaluvaraju (D2) (D3) (P1) (P2) 15. Perusal of the Genealogical Tree would indicate that, the original propositus i.e., late Sri. Javaregowda died leaving behind four children namely Sri. Ramakrishnegowda - Defendant No.1, Smt. Narasamma - defendant No.4, Smt. Tulasamma - defendant No.5 and Smt. Jayalakshmamma - plaintiff No.3. It is to be noted that, Smt. Narasamma - defendant No.4 died during the pendency of the proceedings leaving behind no issues. Accordingly, the entire suit schedule properties have to be divided equally between defendant Nos.1, 5 and plaintiff No.3. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34193 RSA No. 1021 of 2015 16. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the finding recorded by the Trial Court would indicate that, plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2 are claiming right over the suit schedule properties as the children of Smt. Parvathamma (second wife of Sri. Ramakrishnegowda) and defendant No.1 - Sri.Ramakrishnegowda and therefore, I am of the view that, plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 claim to be the illegitimate children of Sri. Ramakrishnegowda and therefore, they have no right over the suit schedule properties during the lifetime of defendant No.1. 17. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that, the Trial Court has properly dismissed the suit of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and the First Appellate Court wrongly interfered with the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court by modifying the share of the parties. In that view of the matter, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants herein. Hence, the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34193 RSA No. 1021 of 2015 Court in R.A. No.73/2009 requires to be interfered with in this appeal. 18. Taking into consideration, defendant Nos.1, 4, 5 and plaintiff No.3 are the children of late Sri. Javaregowda and as such, defendant No.4 died leaving behind no issues, defendant Nos.1, 5 and plaintiff No.3 are entitle for equal share in respect of the suit schedule properties belonging to late Sri. Javaregowda i.e., 1/3rd share each in the suit schedule properties. 19. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) This Regular Second Appeal is allowed. ii) Judgment and decree dated 16.01.2014 in R.A.No.73/2009 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Pandavapura is hereby set aside. iii) Judgment and decree dated 22.06.2009 in O.S.No.163/2005 on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Pandavapura is hereby - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34193 RSA No. 1021 of 2015 modified holding that defendant Nos.1 and 5 are entitled for 1/2 share each in the suit schedule properties, since defendant No.4 and plaintiff No.3 are no more. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE KLV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42 CT-BHK * Page No.11 retyped and replaced vide Court order dated 17.12.2025