- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100279 OF 2018 (DEC/INJ) C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100440 OF 2018 (DEC/INJ) IN RFA NO.100279/2018: BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SUNAND W/O MALLESHAPPA SOLARAKOPPA AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: VINAYAK CHOWK, NEKAR NAGAR, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580024. DIST: DHARWAD. 2. VIJAYALAKSHMI D/O MALLESHAPPA SOLARAKOPPA AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/O: VINAYAK CHOWK, NEKAR NAGAR, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI DIST: DHARWAD-580024. 3. VENODA D/O MALLESHAPPA SOLARAKOPPA AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: VINAYAK CHOWK, NEKAR NAGAR, Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI DIST: DHARWAD-580024. 4. JAGADHEESH S/O MALLESHAPPA SOLARAKOPPA AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: VINAYAK CHOWK, NEKAR NAGAR, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI DIST: DHARWAD-580024. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.L.PATIL, SRI. S.S.BELURMATH, SRI. S.A.SONDUR AND SRI. P.S.TADA PATRI, ADVOCATES) AND: YALLAPPA S/O JANGALEPPA SOLARAKOPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 1. NAGAVVA W/O YALLAPPA SOLARKOPPA, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: NEAR BASAVANNA GUDI, JANGLI PETH, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580024. DIST: DHARWAD. 2. BASAVARAJ S/O YALLAPPA SOLARKOPPA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: PVT WORK, R/O: NEAR BASAVANNA GUDI, JANGLI PETH, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580024. DIST: DHARWAD. 3. MANTESH S/O YALLAPPA SOLARKOPPA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: PVT WORK, R/O: NEAR BASAVANNA GUDI, JANGLI PETH, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580024. DIST: DHARWAD. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 4. PREMA W/O AJJAPPA VADAGANNAVAR AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: INCHANGI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591102. 5. SAVITA W/O SURESH KANDARE AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: NEAR BASAVANNA GUDI, JANGLI PETH, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580024. DIST: DHARWAD. 6. SMT. CHANNAVVA W/O CHANNAPPA YARAGUPPI AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: GOVANAKOPPA, DHARWAD-580112. 7. SMT. BASAVVA W/O GURUSHIDDAPPA YAMANOOR AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: SHIRHATTIMATH BUILDING, MARUTI CIRCLE, NEKAR NAGAR, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI. DHARWAD-580024. 8. SATISH S/O BALAPPA KALABURGI AGE ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: DALIMBER PETE, ARAVIND NAGAR, HUBBALLI, DHARWAD-580024. 9. SMT. YALLAVVA W/O MALLESHAPPA SOLARKOPPA AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI, DHARWAD-580112. …RESPONDENTS - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 (BY SRI. V.M.SHEELAVANT, SRI. VINAY S. KOUJALAGI, ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT NO.8; VIDE ORDER DATED 02.02.2021, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.1, 2 AND 5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; VIDE ORDER DATED 19.03.2025, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.4, 6, 7 AND 9 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.3) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.01.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.67/2014 BY THE 2ND ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUBBALLI AND DECREE THE SUIT AS PRAYED FOR. IN RFA NO.100440/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. SATISH S/O. BALAPPA KALABURGI AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. DALIMBER PETE, ARAVIND NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580029. DHARWAD DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. V.M.SHEELAVANT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SUNAND W/O. MALLESHAPPA SOLARAKOPPA AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. VINAYAKA CHOWK, NEKAR NAGAR, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580029. 2. VIJAYALAKSHMI D/O. MALLESHAPPA SOLARAKOPPA AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. VINAYAKA CHOWK, NEKAR NAGAR, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580029. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 3. VENODA D/O. MALLESHAPPA SOLARAKOPPA AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. VINAYAKA CHOWK, NEKAR NAGAR, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580029. 4. JAGADHEESH S/O. MALLESHAPPA SOLARAKOPPA AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. VINAYAKA CHOWK, NEKAR NAGAR, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580029. YALLAPPA S/O. JANGALEPPA SOLARAKOPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS, 5. NAGAVVA W/O. YALLAPPA SOLARAKOPPA, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. JANGLI PETH, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580029. 6. BASAVARAJ S/O. YALLAPPA SOLARAKOPPA AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: PVT. WORK, R/O. JANGLI PETH, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580029. 7. MANTESH S/O. YALLAPPA SOLARAKOPPA AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: PVT WORK, R/O. JANGLI PETH, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580029. 8. PREMA W/O. AJJAPPA VADAGANNAVAR AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 R/O. INCHAGI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DISTRICT BELAGAVI-591102. 9. SAVITA W/O. SURESH KANDARE AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. NEAR BAAVANNA GUDI, R./O. JANGLI PETH, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580029. 10. SMT. CHANNAVVA W/O. CHANNAPPA YARAGUPPI AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. GOVANAKOPPA, DHARWAD-580025 11. SMT. BASAVVA W/O. GURUSHIDDAPPA YAMANOOR AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSWIFE, R/O. SHRIHATTIMATH BUILDING, MARUTI CIRLCE, NEKAR NAGAR, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580029. 12. SMT. YALLAVVA W/O. MALLESHAPPA SOLARKOPPA AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580029. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.L.PATIL, SRI. S.S.BETURMATH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4; SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 9; VIDE ORDER DATED 12.06.2023, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.10, 11 AND 12 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 96 OF CPC., PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT AT HUBBALLI IN - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 O.S.NO.67/2014 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT AT HUBBALLI IN O.S.NO.67/2014 DATED ON 29.01.2018 ONLY IN SO FAR AS THE FINDING GIVEN ON ISSUE NO.2 AND ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.1 AND ETC. THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 19.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, R. NATARAJ J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ) RFA No.100279/2018 is filed by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2018 passed in O.S.No.67/2014 by II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) by which their suit for the relief of declaration in respect of R.S.No.38/2 measuring 02 acres 08 guntas situate at Agrahar Timmasagar Village, Hubballi Taluk was dismissed. 2. RFA No.100440/2018 is filed by defendant No.4 also challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 3. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as per their ranks before the Trial Court. 4. (i) The suit in O.S.No.67/2014 was filed for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of the property bearing R.S. No.38/2 of Agrahar Timmasagara Village, Hubballi Taluk, and for a declaration that the power of attorney dated 04.08.2011 was created, forged and therefore, void ab intio. They sought a declaration that the consequent sale deed dated 09.08.2011, based on the said power of attorney, is illegal, void ab initio and not binding on them. In addition, they also sought the consequential relief of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. (ii) The plaintiffs claimed that the suit property was purchased by Mr. Malleshappa Solargoppa who is the husband of plaintiff No.1 and the father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 4. He was in possession of the same until his death. The plaintiffs claimed that they succeeded to the suit property and are in possession of the same, and their names are entered in the revenue records. They - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 contend that defendant Nos.1 to 3 were neither the owners nor they had any interest in the property. However, defendant No.4 along with their henchmen brought earth moving equipments to the suit property and started excavation. When the plaintiffs obstructed, defendant No.4 claimed that he had purchased the suit property and was forming a layout. The plaintiffs therefore went to the office of Tahsildar and obtained the records of suit property and came to know that defendant No.1 in collusion with defendant Nos.2 and 3 had forged the signature of plaintiff No.1 on a document to seem as if she representing her minor children namely plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 had executed a power of attorney, based on which, defendant No.1 had sold the suit property to defendant No.4. (iii) The plaintiffs contend that plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 were minors at the time of execution of the alleged sale deed in favour of defendant No.4, but no permission of the competent Court was obtained before selling the shares of plaintiff Nos.2 to 4. Hence, the plaintiffs sought the aforesaid reliefs. (iv) The suit was contested by defendant No.1 who filed a written statement contending that the suit property was owned - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 and possessed by Mr. Malleshappa Solargoppa and that after his death, the plaintiffs have succeeded to it. He claimed that the propositus of his family was Mr. Jangaleppa who had a wife named Mrs. Gurusiddavva and they had five children named, Mr. Yallappa, Mr. Malleshappa, Mr.Gurusiddappa, Mrs.Channavva and Mrs.Basavva. He admitted that the plaintiffs are the wife and children of Mr.Malleshappa. He claimed that the suit property was purchased on 04.03.1986 by defendant No.1, Mr.Malleshappa and Mr.Gurusiddappa out of joint labour and that a sale deed was executed in favour of Mr.Malleshappa and Mr.Gurusiddappa on 11.03.1986. However, since Mr.Gurusiddappa was a minor, his mother Mrs.Gurusiddavva represented him as a guardian. He claimed that the plaintiffs were not the only ones who were entitled to suit property but claimed that all defendant Nos.1 to 3 were entitled to a share. (v) He contended that on 16.01.2006, Mr. Malleshappa had executed a Will in his favour in respect of the suit property, wherein he mentioned that he and others had entered into an agreement of sale dated 08.12.2005 in favour of defendant No.4/Mr. Sathish son of Mr.Balappa Kalaburagi to sell the suit - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 property and that due to health issues he would not contended the transaction. Therefore, he executed a Will in favour of defendant No.1, who was taking care of him and in whom he had faith and confidence. He further stated that since Mr.Malleshappa had received money from Mr.Sathish, he directed defendant No.1 to execute a sale deed and convey the suit property. (vi) He claimed that these facts were within the knowledge of the plaintiffs and that they, with an intent to convey the property to Mr. Sathish also received a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- from Mr.Sathish for their day-to-day needs and necessities. He further claimed that thereafter, he and plaintiff No.1 received a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- on 16.07.2008 and executed a consent deed to extend the term of agreement of sale for which the other defendants and plaintiff No.1 signed as witnesses. He contended that it was shown in the agreement of sale executed in favour of defendant No.4 that a sum Rs.7,25,000/- was received. (vii) Thereafter, on 08.09.2009, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 and 3 decided to execute a power of attorney in favour of Mr. Yallappa/defendant No.1 to conclude the sale - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 transaction. Accordingly, on 04.08.2011, the power of attorney was executed by plaintiff No.1 on behalf of plaintiff Nos.2 to 4. He claimed that in view of the desire of Mr. Maheshappa as mentioned in the Will, he, as a power of attorney executed a sale deed dated 09.08.2011 and convey the suit property to defendant No.4. He therefore contends that the power of attorney and the sale deed were binding upon the plaintiffs. 5. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed a memo adopting the written statement of defendant No.1. 6. (i) The defendant No.4 filed a separate written statement denying the claim of the plaintiffs that the suit property was the self-acquisition of Mr.Malleshappa, that he had got his name entered in the revenue records, and that he was the owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit property until his death, after which the plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of the said property. (ii) He also denied the averments made in paragraph No.4 to 9 of the plaint. He contended that the suit property was owned by the joint family of plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 and that it was acquired out of funds of joint family but was - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 purchased in the name of Mr. Malleshappa and Mr. Gurusiddappa in terms of a sale deed dated 11.03.1986. He claimed that at the time of purchase Mr. Gurusiddappa was a minor and was represented by his mother Smt.Gurusiddavva. He claimed that the suit property did not belong to Mr. Malleshappa alone as contended by the plaintiffs but it is the joint family property of plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3. He claimed that after the purchase of suit property, the name of Mr.Malleshappa and Mr.Gurusiddappa was entered in the revenue records. He claimed Mr.Gurusidappa died on 22.03.1990 and that defendant Nos.1 to 3 and Mr.Malleshappa were his legal representatives. He admitted that Mr.Malleshappa is the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 and the brother of defendant Nos.1 to 3. He claimed that in order to meet the family necessities, Mr.Malleshappa, Smt.Gurusiddavva and the defendant Nos.1 to 3 executed an agreement of sale dated 20.12.2005 in his favour. He claimed that the health of Mr.Malleshappa deteriorated suddenly and therefore he executed a Will dated 16.01.2006 in favour of defendant No.1. He claimed that in the Will there was a reference about the agreement of sale executed in his favour. He claimed that all these - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 transactions were known to the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3. He claimed that plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 had an intent to convey the property to him. Therefore, plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 received a further sum of Rs.1,25,000/- on 20.05.2006 for their domestic necessities. Again on 16.07.2008, they received a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-. He claimed that defendant No.1 renewed the agreement of sale and plaintiff No.1 acknowledged it by signing thereon. Later on 08.09.2009, in order to execute a sale deed in favour of defendant No.4, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 had agreed to execute a general power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1. (iii) He contended that the plaintiff No.1 on her behalf and also on behalf of plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 and defendant Nos.2 and 3 executed a power of attorney dated 04.08.2011 and their respective photographs affixed thereon. He claimed that based on the said power of attorney the defendant No.1 executed a sale deed dated 09.08.2011 in favour of defendant No.4 which was duly registered at the office of Sub-Registrar, Hubballi. He therefore contended that he was a bonafide purchaser of suit property. He claimed that though the plaintiffs knew that he was - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 the lawful owner of suit property, yet with an intent to trouble him they sold the suit property to Mr.Channabasyya Gangadaraiah Samsthana Mutt in terms of an agreement of sale dated 24.01.2014. He claimed that the agreement of sale dated 24.01.2014 was not enforceable in the eye of law. He also alleged that the plaintiffs had committed lot of illegalities with an intent to cause damage to him. He also alleged that the plaintiffs were interfering with his possession and enjoyment of suit property and that the present suit is filed with an oblique intent. 7. The defendant No.5, who was impleaded later, also filed a written statement denying the assertions made by the plaintiff at paragraph Nos.2 to 8. She claimed that there is no cause of action for the suit and the one mentioned in the suit was fabricated for the purpose of the case. She claimed that she was the wife of Mr. Malleshappa and her marriage was solemnized and celebrated on 05.05.1984 at Veerabhadreshwara temple, old Hubballi. She claimed that Mr.Malleshappa married plaintiff No.1 for the second time. She admitted that plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 were their children and claimed that she and plaintiffs were the lawful heirs of Mr.Malleshappa. She claimed that the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 suit property was purchased by Mrs.Gurusiddavva in the name of Mr. Malleshappa and Mr.Gurusiddappa. Therefore, she claimed that the suit property was the joint family property and that from the date of its purchase, Mr.Malleshappa, his brothers and sisters were all enjoying it. She claimed that herself and defendant Nos.1 to 3 were all entitled to a share therein. She contended that the plaintiffs falsely claimed that it was only they, who were the legal representatives and entitled to the suit property. She claimed that no share is given to her in the suit property. She claimed that she had already filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.1025/2012 where the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 were arrayed as parties and that the said suit is pending consideration. She claimed that despite the above, the plaintiffs deliberately did not array her as a party in the suit. Thus, she prayed that the suit be dismissed. 8. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the absolute owners of the suit property? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that power of attorney dated 04.08.2011 illegal and void - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 document and further proves that the sale deed dated 09-08-2011 is illegal and void documents? - - Recasted issue. 3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as on the date of filing of suit? 4. Whether the plaintiffs prove the interference caused by the defendants as alleged in the plaint? 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitle for declaration as prayed in the suit? 6. Whether plaintiffs are entitle for permanent injunction? 7. What decree or order? Addl. Issues 1. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that late Malleshappa executed a Will as contended in the written statement? - Dated: 07-12-2015 2. Whether the defendant No.5 proves that she is the legally wedded wife of late Sri. Malleshappa? - Dated: 06-04-2016. 9. The plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW.1 and Exs.P1 to 10 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, the defendant No.4 was examined as DW.1. The son of defendant No.1 was - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 examined as DW.2. DWs.3 and 4 were purportedly the witnesses who attested the Will dated 16.01.2006 in favour of defendant No.1. DWs.5 and 6 were the witnesses to the sale deed dated 09.08.2011 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.4. The DW.7 the witness to power of attorney dated 04.08.2011. DW.8 is the defendant No.5 while DWs.9 and 10 were the witnesses who purportedly attended the marriage of defendant No.5 with late Mr.Malleshappa. The defendants marked Exs.D1 to D25. 10. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the plaintiffs were unable to prove that they were the absolute owners of the property, as admittedly the property in question stood in the name of Mr.Malleshappa and his younger brother Mr.Gurusdiappa who died intestate and a bachelor. Consequently, his sisters and brother i.e., defendant No.1 were also entitled to a share in the property as the legal representatives of Mr. Gurusiddappa. It therefore held that the plaintiffs were unable to prove that they are absolute owners of the suit property. It also held that DW.2/son of defendant No.1 and defendant No.4 were unable to prove the power of attorney - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 executed in favour of deceased defendant No.1 by the plaintiff No.1 and the sisters of Mr.Malleshappa. Consequently, it held that the sale deed in favour of defendant No.4 was not bonafide. The Trial Court however did not disturb the sale deed dated 05.08.2011 (Ex.P1) executed by deceased defendant No.1. in favour of defendant No.4 as a power of attorney. Consequently, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. 11. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree the plaintiffs are before this Court in RFA No.100279/2018. The defendant No.4 also filed RFA No.100440/2018 challenging the finding on issue No.2 by which it was held that power of attorney was not proved. 12. (i) The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the suit property was purchased in the name of Mr. Malleshappa and his younger brother Mr. Gurusiddappa. He contends that the family did not possess any property when the suit property was purchased. He further submits that the family did not have any known source of income and therefore it was for the defendants Nos.1 to 3 to prove that the family possessed sufficient nucleus to purchase the property in the name of Mr. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 Malleshappa. He contends that in the absence of the same, the Trial Court committed an error in holding that the suit property was nominally purchased in the name of Mr. Malleshppa and Mr. Gurusiddappa. He contended that the Trial Court committed an error in holding that the defendant No.1 and his sisters were also entitled to a share in the suit property. (ii) He contended that the suit property was the self- acquisition of Mr.Malleshappa and the plaintiffs being Class I legal representatives are entitled to succeed to his estate. (iii) He contends that the Trial Court failed to notice that the sale deed in question was executed by defendant No.1 as the power of attorney of plaintiff No.1 as well as the sisters of Mr. Malleshappa. He contends that plaintiff No.1 did not have any right, title or interest in the property and therefore, the said power of attorney even if it was executed by plaintiff No.1 was not binding upon other plaintiffs. He contends that there is nothing mentioned either in power of attorney or in the sale deed that the sale was for the benefit of plaintiff Nos.2 to 4. He therefore, contends that the power of attorney was clearly not binding upon plaintiff Nos.2 to 4. He further contends that the - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 Will dated 16.01.2006 (Ex.D7) allegedly executed by Mr.Malleshppa in favour of defendant No.1 was not proved as the evidence of attesting witnesses was not convincing but suspicious circumstances galore. He contends that assuming that the Will was executed, defendant No.1 disowned it by not acting upon it. He submits that if defendant No.1 was the beneficiary of the Will, then he could have conveyed the property to the defendant No.4 in his capacity as a owner having succeeded to the suit property. (iv) He contended that defendant No.1 passed away during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were brought on record. Defendant No.1(b) was examined as DW.2. He admitted that defendant No.4 accompanied him to the Court on every date of hearing. He admitted that Mr. Malleshappa was working in the house of the defendant No.4 but denied that they had agreed to sell the suit property to him. He deposed that deceased Mr.Malleshappa executed general power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1. He further claimed that the suit property was sold for a total sale consideration of Rs.7,25,000/- and that the plaintiffs were given - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 their share. However, he admitted that there is no document to establish the same. He contends that DW.3 is an attesting witness to the Will (Ex.D7) executed by Mr.Malleshappa in favour of defendant No.1. In the cross-examination, he admitted that Mr. Malleshappa Solargoppa was not keeping well and that he was bedridden. He also admitted that he died due to some ailments. (v) DW.4 was another attesting witness to Ex.D7 who claimed that Mr. Hosur advocate has signed the Will however, when the Will was confronted to him, he admitted that no signature of Mr. Hosur was forthcoming on the Will. He admitted that defendant No.4 belonged to his community while Mr. Mallehsappa was not known to him. He also admitted that Mr. Mallehsappa was unwell and was suffering from Asthma but denied that he was bedridden. He stated that he signed Ex.D7 in the Court premises at Hubbali. He contended that a perusal of evidence of DWs.2 and 3 showed that there were inconsistencies in the evidence regarding execution of Will and hence, he contended that the valid execution of the Will is not proved but is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. He also contended that - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 defendant No.1 has not disclosed how he came to know of the Will and how he came in possession of the same. Thus, he contends that there is a strong circumstance which generates suspicion about the valid execution of the Will. (vi) He referred to the evidence of DW.7 and submitted that he did not mention during his cross-examination that the plaintiff No.1 was present at the time of execution of general power of attorney. On the contrary, he admitted that he knew the defendant No.4 and that he had gone to Sub-Registrar office on 09.08.2011. He deposed that defendant No.1 read the documents and signed it and defendant Nos.2 and 3 were also present. He admitted that apart from the date on which the sale deed was executed on 09.08.2011 he had not seen defendant No.1 and there were no persons with him on the date of execution of the sale deed. Thus, he contends that he had not even met defendant No.1 on 04.08.2011 or any other person. Therefore, he contends that power of attorney was created. He contends that the presence of defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the office of Sub-Registrar on 09.08.2011 shows that the intention was to forge a signature of plaintiff No.1 and in that regard, the - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 defendant Nos.1 to 3 had joined in creating the power of attorney. He claimed that the power of attorney was not registered and therefore, the same could not be utilized for executing the sale deed. (vii) The learned counsel for plaintiffs therefore prayed that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court be set aside and the suit be decreed. 13. (i) Per contra, the learned counsel for defendant No.4 submitted that the plaintiffs were not the absolute owners of suit property, as admittedly the suit property was purchased on 11.03.1986 when Mr.Malleshappa was 22 years old and his brother Mr.Gurusiddappa was a minor. He contends that the Mr.Malleshappa did not have any source of income and hence, it had to be construed that the property belonged to the family of Mr.Malleshappa and his brothers and sisters. He claimed that after the death of Mr.Gurusiddappa, his brothers namely, Mr.Malleshappa, defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 had inherited the share of Mr.Gurusiddappa. Thus, he contends that the defendant Nos.1 to 3 had an undivided share in the suit property and hence, the Trial Court rightly did not decree the suit for - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 declaration of title of the plaintiffs in respect of suit property. He therefore contended that the dismissal of the suit for the relief of declaration of title is just and proper. (ii) He contended that in proof the power of attorney, defendant No.4 examined DW.7 who deposed about the valid execution of the power of attorney. He contends that the plaintiff No.1 admitted that she had learnt to sign only after the suit was filed. He invited the attention of the Court to Ex.D11 and contended that the plaintiff No.1 had filed an affidavit for obtaining a survivors certificate and in that, she affixed her left LTM mark. He therefore contends that the plaintiff who at that point of time did not know to sign had affixed her LTM mark on the power of attorney. He claimed that the Trial Court committed an error in holding that the defendant No.4 could have obtained the LTM mark of plaintiff No.1 and could have referred the thumb impression on the power of attorney to an expert for an opinion as the original of the power of attorney was not marked in evidence. He contended that the Trial Court lightly brushed aside the evidence of DW.7 though his evidence was clinching and corroborated the contention of defendant No.4. - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 (iii) He contended that based on the power of attorney, a sale deed was executed in favour of defendant No.4 and defendant Nos.5 and 6 had deposed about the execution of the sale deed. He also contended that the Will executed in favour of Mr.Malleshappa was valid in all respects and the requirement of Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 was complied. He contended that it was natural for Mr.Malleshappa to execute a Will in favour of defendant No.1, as there was no love lost between him and plaintiff owing to he marrying the defendant No.5. He claimed that Malleshappa was under the care and custody of defendant No.1 and hence, out of natural love and affection he had executed the Will in favour of defendant No.1. He contended that even in the Will, there was a reference that the suit property was agreed to be sold to the defendant No.4. Thus, he contends that Mr.Malleshappa had a definite intention to convey the suit property to defendant No.4 and the plaintiff No.1 being the natural guardian of plaintiff Nos.2 to 4, taking into account the legal necessitates of the family had received further consideration and had executed a power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1. - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 (iv) He therefore, contends that the Trial Court proceeded to ignore all the valuable evidence on record which justified the valid execution of power of attorney by plaintiff No.1, defendant Nos.2 and 3 in favour of defendant No.1 and the consequent sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.4. (v) He contends that the Will executed by Mr. Malleshappa in favour of defendant No.1 was on 16.01.2006 by which time, an agreement of sale was already executed in favour of defendant No.4. He submitted that since Mr. Malleshappa was unwell, he felt it appropriate to execute a Will in favour of defendant No.1 so as to conclude the transaction in favour of defendant No.4. He contends that the plaintiff No.1 and defendant Nos.3 and 4 accepted the said fact and lawfully executed the power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1 who then conveyed the property to defendant No.4. He therefore contends that the transaction in question is lawful and is binding upon the plaintiffs, as the sale was for lawful consideration. He therefore prayed that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court be set aside in so far as it relates to the finding on issue No.2. - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 14. In reply, the learned counsel for plaintiffs contended that defendant No.4 cannot challenge the finding on an issue. 15. The learned counsel for respondent No.5 to 9 adopted the submission of learned counsel for respondent no.4. 16. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs as well as the learned counsel for the defendant No.4. We have perused the records of the Trial Court as well as its judgment and decree. 17. The points that arise for our consideration in these appeals are: "(i) Whether the plaintiffs were the absolute owners of the suit schedule property? (ii) Whether there were any suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will which were not purged by the defendant Nos. 1 & 4 ? - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 (iii) Whether the execution of the Will dated 16.01.2006 by the deceased Mr.Malleshappa was proved? (iv) Whether the legal representatives of defendant No.1 and defendant No.4 proved the lawful execution of power of attorney dated 04.08.2011? (v) Whether the sale deed executed by the defendants No.1 to 3, in favour of defendant No.4 was valid and enforceable? (vi) If the plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief of declaration and injunction, whether the Court must have moulded the relief under Order VII Rule 7 of Civil Procedure Code and grant the relief of partition." 18. Before we answer the points for consideration, it is necessary to record a few facts which are not in dispute. The land in question is R.S.No.38/2 measuring 02 acres 08 guntas situated at Agrahar Thimmasagara Village, Hubballi Taluk. The suit property was undisputedly purchased by Mr.Malleshappa - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 Solargoppa and Mr. Gurusiddappa from Malleshappa S/o. Shiddalingappa Mutt (Ex.D5) in terms of a sale deed dated 11.03.1986. When it was so purchased, by Mr.Malleshappa they were represented by their mother Smt. Gurusidavva. Amongst the two, Mr.Gurusiddappa predeceased Mr.Malleshappa on 22.03.1990 (Ex.P3). The defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 are the brothers and sisters of Mr.Gursiddappa. Mr.Malleshapa died on 04.03.2006 (Ex.P2), while Mrs.Gurusiddavva, the mother died on 26.02.2006 (Ex.P4). The plaintiffs are the wife and children of Mr.Malleshappa. The family did not possess any other property from which they could generate income to purchase the suit property. Therefore, either it could be that the suit property was purchased in the name of Mr.Malleshappa and Mr.Gurusiddappa by someone known to the family or Mrs.Gurusiddavva could have purchased the property in the names of Mr.Malleshappa and Mr.Gurusiddappa. It needs to be noted that Mr.Malleshappa was not having any source of income in the year 1986. 19. Keeping the above in mind, we will now consider the first point for consideration: - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 (i) The plaintiffs though claimed that the suit property was owned absolutely by Mr.Malleshappa, the fact remains that the suit property was purchased in the joint names of Mr.Malleshappa and Mr.Gurusiddappa and they were represented by their mother – Smt. Gursiddavva. It can therefore safely be held that the family did not possess any nucleus and Mr.Malleshappa did not have any avocation at such young age. It may be that the mother had purchased the property in the names of Mr.Malleshappa and Mr.Gurusiddappa. However, the fact remains that the family owned and possessed the aforesaid land and soon after the death of Mr.Gurusiddappa, his share in the suit property devolved upon Mr.Malleshappa and defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3. Therefore, the Trial Court was in a way right in holding that the plaintiffs were not the absolute owners of the suit property and at the most they were tenants in common along with the defendant Nos.1 to 3. In that view of the matter, it is held that the plaintiff No.2 to 4 together and defendant Nos.1 to 3 were tenants in common and were entitled to an equal share in the property. - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 (ii) As regards, the second and third points for consideration is concerned, Mr.Malleshappa was not educated but was illiterate. This is proved beyond doubt by the fact that his LTM is purportedly found on the will dated 16.01.2006. Therefore even as per the case of defendant No.1, Mr.Malleshappa was not literate. A perusal of the contents of the Will shows that Mr.Malleshappa had allegedly entered into an agreement of sale dated 08.12.2005 in favour of defendant No.4 and had received a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. However, in view of his ill-health, he could not conclude the transaction and therefore he had executed the Will in favour of defendant No.1 which was not registered. There is no direction by Mr. Malleshappa in the Will that it was executed only for the purpose of concluding the transaction in favour of defendant No.4. Furthermore the Will in question was executed on 16.01.2006 and Mr.Malleshappa died shortly thereafter on 04.03.2006. (iii) In the Will, it is specifically mentioned that Mr.Malleshappa was unwell and was not in a position to conclude the transaction in favour of defendant No.4. DW.3 who is the attesting witness to the Will deposed that it was Mr. Malleshappa - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 who bought the stamp paper from the Bank. He also deposed that it is Mr. Malleshappa who gave instructions to prepare the Will. However, he could not disclose as to who drew up the Will. He in another breath admitted that Mr.Malleshappa was not in a position to walk and was restricted to bed. He also admitted that Mr. Malleshappa died due to the illness he suffered. It appears from Ex.D7 that the stamp paper was purchased in the name of someone else and the name of that person was masked by applying ink. (iv). DW.4 was another witness to the Will. He in his cross-examination deposed that the Will was drawn up by Mr. Hosur an advocate in the Court premises. He deposed that Mr. Hosur had signed Ex.D7. But when he was shown Ex.D-7, he deposed that Mr. Hosur did not sign it. He admitted that on the stamp paper used for drawing the Will, some portion was masked using ink. He admitted that he did not know Mr. Malleshappa. He also admitted that at the time of preparing Ex.D7, Mr. Malleshappa was unwell. He also admitted he died due to the illness. He also admitted that Mr. Malleshappa died in his house at Nekar Nagar. He also admitted that he did not know - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 who had identified the LTM of Mr. Malleshappa on Ex.D7. He deposed that he signed Ex.D7 in the Court premises. (v) The above evidence generates many suspicious circumstances which the defendants have failed to remove namely: (a) Mr. Malleshappa was not literate; and He was bedridden and was restricted to bed; and there is no evidence as to who brought the stamp papers, how the Will was prepared and who brought the attesting witnesses; (b) that Mr. Malleshappa died soon after the alleged execution of the Will; (c) DW.4 claimed that he had signed the Will in the Court premises but it was unnatural for a person who was restricted to the bed to go over to the Court to execute the Will; (d) DW.4 did not know Mr. Malleshappa; (e) The defendant No.1 who was the beneficiary of the Will did not chose to convey the property to the defendant No.4 but chose to execute the conveyance as a power of attorney of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 and 3; (f) that there was masking of the name of the person in the stamp paper used for the execution of the Will; (g) that none of the plaintiffs were involved in the execution of the Will and there is no reason why the plaintiffs were excluded. - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 (vi) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma - AIR 1959 SC 443 has laid down the guidelines for proving the lawful execution of the Will. In the instance case, unfortunately the defendants have not been able to prove the lawful execution of Will and also remove the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will. (vii) In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation to hold that the defendants have failed to prove the lawful execution of the Will. (viii) Coming to the fourth point for consideration, the defendant No.4 did not produce the original of the power of attorney allegedly executed by plaintiff No.1 in favour of defendant No.1. DW.7 who purportedly was a witness to power of attorney admitted that he knew the defendant No.4. He deposed that on 09.08.2011, he had gone to the office of Sub- Registrar, Hubballi where he saw defendant Nos.2 and 3 signing the document. He deposed that he did not see defendant No.1 and that there was no one else. No attempt was made by defendant No.4 to establish that he was not in possession of the - 36 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 power of attorney. On the contrary, he claimed that only a photocopy of the power of attorney was furnished to him by defendant No.1. Plaintiff No.1 had disputed that she had executed the power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1. She had also disputed the thumb impression found on the photocopy of power of attorney. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that defendant No.4 had failed to prove the lawful execution of the power of attorney by plaintiff No.1 in favour of defendant No.1. (ix) The presumption about the lawful execution of power of attorney as provided under Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is only applicable to an original document and not to a photocopy. Assuming that plaintiff No.1 had executed a power of attorney, she as the natural guardian of the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 could not have executed the power of attorney authorizing defendant No.1 to sell the suit property, that too when there was no corresponding benefit to the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4. Furthermore, as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Nangali Amma Bhavani Amma V. Gopalkrishnan Nair [(2004) 8 SCC 785], sale entered into by the natural guardian - 37 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 of a minor without obtaining the prior permission of the Court under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 is voidable. The plaintiffs by filing the suit for declaration that the power of attorney dated 04.08.2011 and the sale deed dated 09.08.2011 are void and nothing binding upon them, had exercised their right to avoid the said documents, which is just and proper. (x) DW.2 in his deposition specifically stated that it was defendant No.1 who collected the entire sale consideration of Rs.7,25,000/- but claimed that part of the same paid to the plaintiff No.1. However, he admitted that there was no document to establish the same. Therefore, it appears that the defendant No.1 in order to convey the property to defendant No.4 had fabricated a power of attorney of plaintiff No.1 and had executed the sale deed dated 05.08.2011 (Ex.D1) in favour of defendant No.4. Since the power of attorney was not lawfully executed by plaintiff No.1 the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 as the power of attorney of plaintiff No.1 was not binding upon plaintiffs. Hence, the point No.3 is answered accordingly. - 38 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 (xi) Now coming to the most important question as to what relief should be granted to the plaintiffs, it is necessary to note that the predecessor of the plaintiffs namely Mr. Malleshappa had a brother (defendant No.1 now deceased) and defendant Nos.2 and 3 who are his sisters. As this Court has already answered that the plaintiffs were not only the absolute owners of suit property but they were tenants in common along with defendant Nos.1 to 3, this Court considers that this is a fit case to mould the relief under Order VII Rule 7 of Civil Procedure Code and grant a decree of partition declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/4th share in suit property. In this regard, it is profitable to refer to a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rangappa Vs. Jayamma - ILR 1987 KAR 2889 where the Division bench of this Court held as follows: 8.1. “The provisions of Order VII Rule 7 of the C.P.Code. are so widely worded that they do enable the Court to pass a decree for partition in a suit for declaration of title to immovable property and possession thereof where it turns out that the plaintiff is not entitled to all the interest claimed by him in the suit property. In such a situation there is nothing unusual in giving relief to the parties by directing partition of the suit property according to the shares of the parties established in the suit. The normal - 39 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 rule that relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted is not without an exception. Where substantial matters constituting the title of all the parties are touched in the issues and have been fully put in evidence, the case does not fall within the aforesaid rule. The Court has to look into the substance of the claim in determining the nature of the relief to be granted. Of course, the Court, while moulding the relief, must take care to see that relief it grants is not inconsistent with the plaintiff’s claim, and is based on the same cause of action on which the relief claimed in the suit, that it occasions no prejudice or causes embarrassment to the other side; that it is not larger than the one claimed in the suit, even if, the plaintiff is really entitled to it, unless he amends the plaint; that it had not been barred by time on the date of presentation of the plaint. 8.2. No doubt the plaintiff has sought for exclusive title and he has not been able to prove his exclusive title; but has been able to prove that he is entitled to a half share in the suit properties. When a party claims exclusive title to the suit property and is able to establish that he is entitled to half of the suit property, it will not be unusual for the Court to pass a decree for partition and possession of his half share. In fact such a relief flows from the relief prayed for in the plaint that he is the exclusive owner of the entire property. When a larger relief is claimed and what is established is not the entire relief claimed in the suit but a part of it, as whole includes a part, larger relief includes smaller relief, and it also arises out of the same cause of action. Therefore, in the instant case, nothing prevented the Court to pass a - 40 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 decree for partition, in order to avoid another suit for partition and to give relief to the party in conformity with the right he had established. …… Thus, apart from the fact that the view taken by us is quite in conformity with the provisions contained in Order VII Rule 7 of C.P.C. which are in very wide terms, it also receives support from the several authorities referred to above. For the reasons stated above, we hold that the Trial Court is not justified in refusing to pass a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs' half share in the suit property.” 20. In view of the above, RFA No.100279/2018 filed by the plaintiffs is allowed in part. The judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.67/2014 by II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi dated 29.01.2018 is set aside. It is held that the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are entitled to 1/4th share in the suit schedule property. If defendant No.5 is declared to be entitled to a share in O.S.No.1025/2012, this decree will enure to her benefit. 21. Consequently, the appeal filed by the defendant No.4 in RFA No.100440/2018 is dismissed. 22. Office is directed to draw a decree. - 41 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18754-DB RFA No. 100279 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 100440 of 2018 23. The plaintiffs are at liberty to initiate proceedings for drawing up of final decree either in the same suit or by filing a fresh petition. The defendant No.4 is restrained from alienating encumbering or transferring the suit schedule property until conclusion of the final decree proceedings. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HJ List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1