- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8811 RSA No. 100781 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100781/2015 (PAR) BETWEEN: SMT.RATNAWA W/O. PARAPPA BELAGALI, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS. 1. SHRI. PARAPPA KADAPPA BELAGALI, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BANAHATTI – 587 311, TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 2. SHRI. BASAVARAJ PARAPPA BELAGALI, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BANAHATTI – 587 311, TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 3. SHRI. SHANKAR PARAPPA BELAGALI, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BANAHATTI – 587 311, TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 4. SHRI. SHRISHAIL PARAPPA BELAGALI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BANAHATTI – 587 311, TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 5. SMT. MAHANANDA W/O. PANDIT RADDERHATTI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BUDNI – 587 121, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. 6. SMT. SUNANDA W/O. SURESH BURLI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: SHEDBAL – 591 315, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8811 RSA No. 100781 of 2015 7. SMT. DHANAWWA W/O. IRAPPA DHARIGOUDAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: SANKONATTI – 591 304, TQ:ATHANI, DIST:BELAGAVI. 8. SMT. INDRAWWA W/O. MAHADEV ISAPURE, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD, R/O: ISAPURE GALLI, MIRAJ - 416 410, DIST:SANGLI, MAHARASHTRA STATE. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. D.V.PATTAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. RAOSAHEB SANGAPPA BURALATTI, AGE:58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O:SIDDAPUR – 591 317, TQ:RAIBAG, DIST:BELAGAVI. 2. SHRI. PARAMANAND SANGAPPA BURALATTI, AGE:64 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O:SANKRATTI – 591 220, TQ:ATHANI, DIST:BELAGAVI. 3. SMT. MAHADEVI S/O. SANGAPPA BASARAGI, AGE:48 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD, R/O: KHEMLAPUR – 591 311, TQ:RAIBAG, DIST:BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRIYANKA H. PAWAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANTOSH B RAWOOT, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI M.M.KHANNUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R3 IS SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLII RULE 1 R/W SECTION 100 CPC, 1908 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.09.2015 PASSED BY THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI SITTING AT CHIKODI IN R.A.NO.263/2012; SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.07.2012 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ATHANI IN O.S.NO.123/1998 INSOFAR AS REJECTING THE CLAIM OF APPELLANTS INSOFAR AS ITEM NO.2 AND 3 GIVING LESSOR SHARE IN ITEM NO.1 IS CONCERNED; ALLOW THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT BY DECREEING THE SUIT IN O.S.NO.123/1998 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ATHANI BY AWARDING EQUAL SHARE TO THEM AND ETC., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8811 RSA No. 100781 of 2015 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) 1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 25th July 2012 passed in O.S. No.123/1998 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Athani (for short, “the trial Court”), which is confirmed by the judgment and decree dated 1st September 2015, passed in R.A. No.263/2014 by the VII-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Chikkodi (for short, “the First Appellate Court”) 2. The above suit in O.S.No.123/1998 was filed by the appellants / plaintiffs seeking partition and separate possession of the following immovable properties: Village Sy. Nos. Area A-Gs. Asstt. Rs.Ps. Market Value Sankrati Tq: Athani 173/2B+1B+2A 5-28 9-97 1,00,000/- Siddapur Tq: Raibag 34/1 5-03 13-30 2,00,000/- -do- 33/2 2-32 7-39 40,000/- (Only 1-20 Gs of western side) 3,40,000/- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8811 RSA No. 100781 of 2015 3. The case of the plaintiffs is that one Sangappa Chanabasappa Buralatti was the owner of the suit properties and he passed away on 15.07.1998, leaving behind his four daughters, namely, plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and defendant No.3 as well as two sons, namely, defendant Nos.1 and 2 as his legal heirs. His wife, Siddalingawwa, the mother of plaintiffs and defendants, had passed away in the year 1992. 4. The said Sangappa Chanabasappa Buralatti had purchased the land bearing Sy.No.173/2B+1B+2A on 13.02.1978, and similarly, he had purchased an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.33/2 on 18.12.1989. The land in Sy.No.34/1 was ancestral property, inherited by the said Sangappa Chanabasappa Buralatti. 5. That after the demise of Sangappa Chanabasappa Buralatti, the plaintiffs and the defendants being his legal heirs, became entitled to shares in the suit properties. The name of defendant No.3 had been mutated in respect of 15 guntas of land in Sy.No.33/2 and 25 guntas - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8811 RSA No. 100781 of 2015 of land in Sy.No.34/1. However, the suit properties remained in the joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and defendants as joint family properties. Since the request of the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession of the suit properties was rejected, they filed the suit seeking partition and their rightful 3/18th share in the suit properties. 6. Defendant No.1 filed written statement admitting the relationship between the parties and also admitting that Sangappa Chanabasappa Buralatti had purchased properties bearing Sy.No.173/2B+1B+2A and Sy.No.33/2. However, it was contended that the said purchases were made from and out of the income derived from the joint family property, namely the land in Sy.No.34/1. It was further contended that during the lifetime of the said Sangappa Chanabasappa Buralatti, there was a family arrangement between him and his sons, defendant Nos.1 and 2. In terms of which the suit properties have been divided and separated and they have been residing and cultivating in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8811 RSA No. 100781 of 2015 their respective shares. That the plaintiffs, who are given in marriage affluent families prior to the year 1994 by spending huge amounts, by the family, had thereby lost their claim to any share in the suit properties. 7. That pursuant to this family arrangement, defendant Nos.1 and 2 were stated to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. On these grounds, the defendant sought dismissal of the suit. 8. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the followings issues for its consideration: 1. Whether the Plaintiffs proves that themselves and defendants are the joint family members? 2. Whether the plaintiffs further proves that, suit schedule properties are their joint family properties? 3. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that, they are in possession of their respective shares, as per family arrangement held in the year 1996? 4. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that, they are absolute owners of their respective strips allotted to their share in the family arrangement? 5. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that, this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit? - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8811 RSA No. 100781 of 2015 6. Whether the plaintiffs is entitle for the relief of partition as sought for? 7. What order or decree? 9. Plaintiff No.2 examined herself as PW1 and also examined two other witnesses as PW2 and PW3. Six documents were exhibited on behalf of the plaitniffs, marked as Exs.P1 to P6. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defendants. 10. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial Court answered issue Nos.1 to 4 in the affirmative, issue No.6 partly in the affirmative, and issue No.5 in the negative. Consequently, the trial Court decreed the suit holding that plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 are entitled to partition and separate possession of 1/18th share each in the land bearing Sy.No.173/2B+1B+2A, measuring 5 acres 28 guntas. However, their prayer for partition in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.34/1, measuring 5 acres 3 guntas consisting of a house, and Sy.No.33/1 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas of Siddapur Village, was rejected. It was further held that - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8811 RSA No. 100781 of 2015 defendant No.3 is also entitled to partition and separate possession of a 1/18th share, while defendant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to 7/18th share each. 11. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal in R.A. No.263/14 before the First Appellate Court. 12. The First Appellate Court, framed the following points for its consideration. 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove the impugned judgment and decree of the learned trial judge is illegal, perverse and capricious? 2. What order? 13. On re-appreciation of the evidence, the First Appellate Court answered the point No.1 in the negative and, by its judgment and order, dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 14. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, the plaintiffs have filed this Regular Second Appeal before this Court. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8811 RSA No. 100781 of 2015 15. This Court, by order dated 19.06.2017 framed the following substantial question of law for its consideration: “Whether the judgment of the Courts below upholding the family arrangements made by the father before filing of the suit is in conflict with explanation so Section 6(5) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?” 16. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs, while reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal, submitted that both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court erred in partly decreeing the suit by wrongly applying the law as which prevail even at the relevant time. It was contended that, however in the light of the law now settled by the Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma1, the plaintiffs, being daughters, are entitled to equal shares in the suit properties. Accordingly, he submits that substantial question of law be answered in favour of the appellants and the appeal be allowed by decreeing the suit in its entirity. 1 AIR 2020 SC 3717 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8811 RSA No. 100781 of 2015 17. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are based on proper appreciation of facts. It was contended that the plaintiffs, being the daughters, who were married prior to 1994, are not entitled to an equal share in the suit properties. The trial Court has rightly decreed the suit by applying the concept of notional partition in respect of item No.1 of the properties and rejected the suit in respect of other properties as there was a oral partition. As such the findings do not warrant any interference. 18. It was also submitted that there was a family arrangement during the lifetime of the father of the parties, pursuant to which defendant Nos.1 and 2 have been in possession of the suit properties. Therefore, it is contended that the provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act are not applicable, and no partition can be claimed under the said provision. Accordingly, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the appeal. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8811 RSA No. 100781 of 2015 19. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the records. 20. It is necessary at the outset to note that the properties bearing Sy.No.173/2B+1B+2A and Sy. No.33/2 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas being item Nos.1 and 3 of the suit properties, were admittedly purchased by Sangappa Chanabasappa Buralatti under registered deeds of sale dated 13.02.1978 and 18.12.1989, respectively. Though, defendant No.1 in his written statement contended that these properties were acquired from and out of the income generated from the joint family properties, and from the contribution made by them nothing further either pleaded nor proved as such the manner and mode of acquisition of the said items of the suit properties from the purported joint family funds. Nothing is brought on record as to whether there was sufficient joint family nucleus or the source / income available sufficient enough to acquire the suit properties. It is trite law that a presumption of family being joint cannot be extended to hold that all the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8811 RSA No. 100781 of 2015 properties are the joint family properties. In the instant case, in the light of admitted position of the aforesaid two items of the properties having been purchased by the father of the parties, in the absence of any contra material, it cannot be held that the said two properties were acquired from and out of the joint family funds. The trail Court and the First Appellate Court have not adverted to this aspect of the matter. 21. The trial Court while answering issue No.3, which pertains to the alleged family arrangement in respect of the suit properties, at paragraph No.15 of its judgment, though observed that the burden of proving the family arrangement was on the defendants, however it has opined that defendant Nos.1 and 2 despite not adducing any evidence in their defence, had successfully proved their case by eliciting the admissions during the cross-examination of PW1, whereby PW1 admitted that she and other daughters of Sangappa Channabasappa Buralatti had been married prior to 1994 and were residing separately and that during - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8811 RSA No. 100781 of 2015 his lifetime, the sons, defendant Nos.1 and 2 were residing separately cultivating certain portions of the land purportedly given to them by their father. The trial Court referring to this part of the deposition has held that the factum of family arrangement having taken place during the lifetime of their father as proved. 22. Further, the trial Court concluded that the said prior partition is saved in terms of sub-section (5) of Section 6 of Amended Hindu Succession Act. That apart, in terms of the provisions of Section 6A of the Karnataka Amendment Act, 1994 to the Hindu Succession Act, daughters married prior to the commencement of the amendment were not entitled to a share in the joint family property. 23. The entire discussion and reasoning assigned by the Trial Court is based on the aforesaid premise. What the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have not noticed and appreciated is that admittedly properties in Sy.No.173/2B+1B+2A and Survey No.33/2 were the self- - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8811 RSA No. 100781 of 2015 acquired properties of the Sangappa Chanabasappa Buralatti and in the absence of any evidence with regard to the said properties having been acquired from and out of the joint family income or out of the joint family proceeds, the same could not have been considered / held as forming part of the joint family properties as sought to be done in the instant case. 24. As already noted above, defendants have not entered the witness box, no evidence is led on their behalf. The plea of oral partition cannot be accepted as statutory recognised mode of partition effected by deed of partition duly registered unless and until, the plea is supported by public document and partition evinced in same manner as effected by a decree of Court (Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma). Exs.P1 to P3, RTC extracts produced by the plaintiffs in respect of the suit properties reflect the name of their father till the date of filing of the suit and there is no reference to any family arrangement or partition. Though, the name of defendant No.3 is reflected in respect of - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8811 RSA No. 100781 of 2015 Sy.Nos.33/2 and 34/1, the same cannot be read to hold that there was a partition or the family arrangement as contemplated under law. 25. The plaintiffs and defendant No.3 being the daughters and defendants No.1 and 2 being the sons and they forming part of class-I heirs would in normal circumstances be entitled for equal shares in terms of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act in respect of the self acquired properties. 26. The application of provisions of Section 6A of the Karnataka Amendment Act by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court was erroneous and uncalled for. The only other property which is admittedly inherited by the Sangappa Chanabasappa Buralatti is land in Survey No.34/1 measuring 5 acres 3 guntas. In the absence of any evidence with regard to there being a family partition which is saved under sub-section (5) of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, the plaintiff and the defendants are entitled for equal share even in the said property in terms of the law - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8811 RSA No. 100781 of 2015 declared by the Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma (supra). The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 27. The plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 3 are thus held entitled for equal share in all the suit properties. 28. Hence, the following: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed. ii. Judgment and decree dated 25th July 2012, passed in O.S. No.123/1998 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Athani and the judgment and decree dated 1st September 2015, passed in R.A. No.263/2014 by the VII-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi sitting at Chikkodi are modified. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8811 RSA No. 100781 of 2015 iii. Plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 3 are held entitled for equal share in all the suit properties. iv. Draw decree accordingly. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE VNP & SH / CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13