- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52499 RFA No. 1730 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1730 OF 2017 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI RAJENDRA BABU S/O LATE SAMPANGI NAIDU, AGED 53 YEARS, NO.109, 1ST STAGE, 4TH MAIN, 1ST PHASE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MANJUNATH NAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010. …APPELLANT (BY SRI K.V. NARASIMHAN AND SRI K.N. NITISH, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SMT. SHARADA W/O LATE SAMPANGI NAIDU, AGED 73 YEARS, NO.109, 1ST STAGE, 4TH MAIN, 1ST PHASE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MANJUNATH NAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010. 2. SMT. LAKSHMI D/O LATE SAMPANGI NAIDU, W/O P.C. NAGARAJ, AGED 46 YEARS, NO.109/A, 1ST STAGE, 4TH MAIN, 1ST PHASE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MANJUNATH NAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010. 3. SMT. S. RENUKA D/O LATE SAMPANGI NAIDU, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52499 RFA No. 1730 of 2017 W/O RAVI, AGED 50 YEARS, NO.109/, 1ST STAGE, 4TH MAIN, 1ST PHASE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MANJUNATH NAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010. 4. SMT. S. VASANTHI D/O LATE SAMPANGI NAIDU, W/O B. VENKATESH, AGED 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.11/58, VELLORE MAIN ROAD, NORTH ARCOT, KUTTAKRI STREET, CHENNAI. 5. SRI VISVESHWARAIAH S/O VARADARAJULU NAIDU, AGED 54 YEARS, NO.9/A, 8TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010. 6. SRI RAKESH S/O VISVESHWARAIAH, AGED 28 YEARS NO.9/A, 8TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI AMARESH A. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-3 TO R-6; SRI SRIKANTH M.P. ADVOCATE FOR SRI B. RAVINDRAPRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.07.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1865/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH NO.3), DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52499 RFA No. 1730 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT This regular first appeal is filed by defendant No.2 challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2017 passed in O.S. No.1865/2010 by the Court of XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-3) (‘Trial Court’ for short) where under suit for partition filed by the plaintiff has been decreed, holding that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/6th share in ‘A’ schedule property and by further holding that the gift deed dated 13.08.2007 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is not binding on the share of plaintiff. Plaint averments: 2. The plaintiff contends that late K. Sampangi Naidu purchased ‘A’ schedule property in 1972 in the name of defendant No.1 and died intestate on 31.12.2003, leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants as class -I heirs. After his death, all heirs succeeded jointly and remained in joint possession. The ‘B’ schedule property purchased in the name of defendant No.1-mother was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52499 RFA No. 1730 of 2017 gifted by her to her four daughters including plaintiff. It is averred that defendant No.1 assured that ‘A’ schedule property would also be partitioned subsequently. It is further alleged that defendant No.2, ‘managed’ to obtain a gift deed in his favour in respect of entire ‘A’ schedule property without their knowledge and the plaintiff claims that she later discovered it and seeks that it is to be declared as not binding on her share. Written statement averments of defendant No.2/appellant: 3. The said defendant admits the relationship, states that defendant No.1 validly executed a registered gift deed dated 13.08.2007 in his favour, conveying ‘A’ scheduled property. He contends that all daughters, including the plaintiff, signed the gift deed as a consenting witnesses and further claims to have obtained khata, paid taxes and constructed a house by raising a loan. Further alleges that the plaintiff encroached upon a portion of ‘A’ - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52499 RFA No. 1730 of 2017 schedule property and filed the suit only when she was asked to vacate. Written statement of defendant Nos.5 and 6: 4. They support the plaintiff. They contend that defendant No.1 had no absolute right to gift ‘A’ schedule property and it being the self-acquired property of the father, in which all the heirs have equal rights. 5. The Trial Court, upon considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that ‘A’ schedule property was the self-acquired property of late Sampangi Naidu and defendant No.1 inherited only a limited share and could not have gifted the entire property. The execution of Ex.P5 is not binding on the plaintiff's share and that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/6th share in ‘A’ schedule property and the gift in favour of defendant No.2 was held invalid to the extent of plaintiff's share and the suit was decreed accordingly. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52499 RFA No. 1730 of 2017 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the execution of the gift deed stands admitted. Plaintiff and other daughters signed the gift as consenting parties. Ex.P5 bears their signature. A consenting signatures imports affirmation of their transaction not mere witnessing and the plaintiff never pleaded fraud, particularly as mandated under Order VI Rule 4 CPC. It is contended that no plea of undue influence, fraud or coercion was proved. A consenting heir cannot later claim a share unless she expressly proves absence of knowledge or prohibited circumstances. It is further contended that the mother was competent to gift her own share and the daughters, by their signature recognized her right to convey and the plaintiff enjoyed benefits under ‘B’ schedule gift and she cannot selectively question the gift relating to ‘A’ schedule, that the Trial Court misdirected itself in reading the gift deed and acted contrary to its - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52499 RFA No. 1730 of 2017 clear recitals. The possession, tax payments, construction, loan, rents all show an interrupted ownership of the appellant since 2007. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is an heir entitled for 1/6th share. Mere signature as a consenting witness ‘cannot amount to a relinquishment’. Defendant No.1 had no authority to gift the entire property. Ex.P5 does not contain any clause showing that the plaintiff or sister gave up their share. Further, the Trial Court's reasoning is sound and does not require any interference. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the judgment and decree of the Trial Court warrants any interference in the present case?” 10. Gift must be made voluntarily without consideration by a person competent to gift, as enumerated under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52499 RFA No. 1730 of 2017 Act, 1882 (‘TP Act’ for short). The proof of execution requires that the donor understood the nature of the document, the document was executed voluntarily and that the attesting witnesses can prove execution. Attesting witnesses only certify that they saw the execution. A consenting witness / consenting party signifies agreement to the transaction, indicating awareness and non- objection. But, a consenting signature does not amount to relinquishment unless there is an express clause giving up share. Relinquishment / release must be explicit, unequivocal, and registered if immovable property is involved. After considering the entire record, the following conclusions arise: i. The signature of the plaintiff and her sister appear on the gift deed. They do not dispute the signature. Their presence at execution negates the allegation of total ignorance. ii. The Trial Court failed to appreciate this significant circumstance. The plaint does not satisfy the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52499 RFA No. 1730 of 2017 strict requirements of Order VI Rule 4 CPC. No specific pleadings of fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence are set out with the particulars. Mere assertion ‘managed to obtain’ does not amount to pleading fraud. The plaintiff never examined any attesting witnesses of the gift deed. 11. She admitted in cross-examination that the mother executed a gift and the documents bears their signature. Defendant No.1 inherited 1/6th share after the death of her husband. She was competent to gift her share, but the daughters, by signing as ‘consenting parties’, clearly expressed no objection to such conveyance. The plaintiff/respondent is right in contending that there is no express clause relinquishing their shares. However, the suit was not framed as a recovery of share, but as a challenge to the validity of the gift deed, which fails due to lack of pleadings and proof. 12. The trial Court erred in ignoring consenting signature on Ex.P5, treating the mother as incompetent to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52499 RFA No. 1730 of 2017 convey her own share and assuming fraud in the absence of pleadings of proof, the gift was executed in 2007, katha was changed, constructions made, rents collected, and the suit was filed only in 2010, conduct that is inconsistent with a person aware of the gift. 13. The challenge by the plaintiff to Ex.P5 fails, as the plaintiff has failed to prove fraud, coercion, misrepresentation, or want of knowledge. Defendant No.1 was competent to gift her share and the plaintiff, being consenting signatory not to the share of defendant No.1 but to their own share, cannot maintain a suit to invalidate Ex.P5 in the absence of any specific pleadings under Order VI Rule 4 CPC. The Trial Court's finding that the ‘gift deed is not binding is legally unsustainable’. Consequently, the decree granting partition on that basis cannot stand and the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The regular first appeal is allowed. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52499 RFA No. 1730 of 2017 ii. The judgment and decree dated 31.07.2017 in O.S. No.1865/2010 passed by the XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore is hereby set aside. Suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 95