- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30564 RFA No. 1453 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1453 OF 2016 (PAR) BETWEEN: SMT. DEVAKI ACHARTHI, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, W/O SRI LAXMANA ACHARY, RESIDING NEAR MICRO STATION, SANTHOOR KOPLA, POST: BELMAN - 576 111 SANTHOOR VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI K. CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. DIVYA ACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, W/O LATE SRI HARISH ACHARYA, D/O LATE SHIVARAMA ACHARYA, DEVAPPA THOTA, BEHIND NEW MARI GUDI, KAPU, PADU VILLAGE - 574 106 UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT - SERVED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.08.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.9/2015 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ACJM., KARKALA, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.A., THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30564 RFA No. 1453 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT Though matter is listed for consideration of I.A.no.1/2017, appeal was admitted on 12.11.2019, sole respondent has remained served and unrepresented. Since matter is of year 2016, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. Challenging judgment and decree dated 03.08.2016 passed by Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Karkala, in O.S.no.9/2015, this appeal is filed. 3. Sri K. Chandranath Ariga, learned counsel submitted that appeal was by plaintiff in suit for partition etc. In plaint it was stated that plaintiff was mother of Harish Acharya, who had died on 12.08.2014, leaving behind plaintiff and defendant - wife. At that time, Harish Acharya had certain amounts in deposit in various Banks and Life Insurance Corporation of India enlisted in Schedule-A as follows: 1. Fixed deposit No.KCC/1/140621 held with Corporation Bank, Belman Branch. (Now drawn by the defendant as nominee) Rs.7,04,564-00 2. Fixed deposit No.KCC/1/130564 held with Corporation Bank, Belman Branch. (Now drawn by the defendant as nominee) Rs.9,57,749-00 3. Current Account No.CBCA/01/42 held with Corporation Bank, Belman Branch. (Now drawn by the defendant as nominee) Rs.14,664-00 4. Savings Account No.208100101000726 with Corporation Bank, Belman Branch. Rs.90,207-00 5. Savings Account No.102801011000451 with Vijaya Bank, Belman Branch. Rs.80,072-00 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30564 RFA No. 1453 of 2016 6. LIC Bheema Bhajath Policy No.626463986. Rs.2,25,000-00 Total Rs.20,72,256-00 4. It was stated that on death, deceased was succeeded to by his mother and wife, who were both Class-I heirs. Since there were no other legal heirs, plaintiff was entitled for 50% share in Schedule-A. Since defendant had denied share to plaintiff, suit was filed. 5. On service of summons, defendant entered appearance and filed written statement admitting relationship of plaintiff and defendant with Harish Acharya and about amounts in deposit as per Schedule-A. Death of Harish Acharya on 12.08.2014 due to illness was also not disputed. It was stated that after his death, plaintiff and brothers of deceased had quarrelled with defendant demanding amount left behind by deceased. It was stated that Harish Acharya was a timber merchant and had earned money from business which was kept in his locker at home. Though defendant had requested plaintiff and her children to hand over contents of locker, they had not heeded to same, therefore she had filed Police complaint. On said grounds sought for dismissal of suit. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30564 RFA No. 1453 of 2016 6. Based on pleadings, trial Court framed following issues and recorded evidence. 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that plaint 'A' schedule amount belonged to Late Harish Acharya and she along with defendant succeeded to the plaint 'A' schedule amount? 2. Whether the defendant proves that the plaint 'A' schedule amount is the self-acquire amount of her husband Late Harish Acharya and she alone is entitled for the plaint 'A' schedule amount? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed? 4. What Order or Decree? 7. To prove her case, GPA Holder of plaintiff was examined as PW-1 and Exs.P1 to P10 were got marked. Defendant did not lead evidence. 8. On consideration, trial Court answered issues no.1 and 3 partly in affirmative, issue no. 2 in negative and issue no.4 by allowing suit in part holding plaintiff entitled for 1/4th share in plaint 'A' schedule deposits. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is filed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30564 RFA No. 1453 of 2016 9. It was submitted fact that deceased had left behind two Class-I heirs, namely plaintiff and defendant was not in dispute. Schedule-A was also not disputed. Though defendant had alleged other amounts/assets left behind by deceased, there was no material placed on record. Under such circumstances, trial Court was not justified in decreeing suit by holding plaintiff entitled for 1/4th share in plaint Schedule-A. 10. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment and decree and record. 11. From above and since plaintiff is in appeal challenging judgment and decree passed by trial Court granting partial relief, only point that would arises for consideration is: "Whether trial Court was justified in holding plaintiff entitled for 1/4th share instead of half share?" 12. Relationship between parties with deceased, amounts in deposit as stated in Schedule-A of plaint and death of Harish Acharya on 12.08.2014 are not in dispute. Only dispute that arose between parties was over sharing. From pleadings it would appear that amounts were earned by deceased himself. As such, claims of parties would be under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Since there are two - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30564 RFA No. 1453 of 2016 Class-I heirs, they would be entitled to succeed equally i.e. half share each. Under such circumstances, finding of trial court about plaintiff being entitled for 1/4th share would be contrary to law and therefore calls for interference. Hence, point for consideration is answered in negative. 13. Consequently, following: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed. ii. Judgment and decree dated 03.08.2016 passed by Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Karkala, in O.S.no.9/2015, stands modified. iii. Plaintiff is held entitled for half share in plaint Schedule-A and defendant for remaining share. iv. Parties would be at liberty to approach respective banks with this decree for amount release with accrued interest if any. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16