- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36204 RSA No. 625 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.625 OF 2021 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI THIMMAPPA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT B H PALYA, MAJRE, HENCHINAPALYA, DIBBUR, KASABA HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK-572 101 …APPELLANT (BY SRI NAGARAJA S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI SRINIVASA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT B H PALYA, MAJRE HENCHINAPALYA, DIBBUR KASABA HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK-572 101 2. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O JAGADISHWARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT 376/1, 4TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD, GAYATHRINAGAR, SRIRAMPURA POST, BANGALORE-560 003 3. SMT. PADMA W/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36204 RSA No. 625 of 2021 R/AT CHIKKANAHALLIPALYA GUBBI KASABA GUBBI TALUK-572 101 4. SMT JAYAMMA W/O JAYARAMAIAH D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT GANGAGONDANAHALLI LAKSHMIPURA POST DASANAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE -560 004 5. SMT. SIDDAMMA W/O RANGASWAMAIAH D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED 65 YEARS R/AT DIBBUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI TUMAKUR TALUK-572 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI C.R.GOPALASWAMY, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONGWITH SRI CHANDRASHEKAR.N FOR SRI SAJJAD AHMED.G, ADVOCATE FOR R1,R3 AND R5; SRI T.M.VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R4) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.03.2021 PASSED IN R.A.NO.25/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.01.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.117/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR REPORTING SETTLEMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36204 RSA No. 625 of 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the parties could not see eye to eye and therefore, amicable settlement is impermissible. Hence, the matter is taken up for hearing. 2. Heard Sri Nagaraja S, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri C.R. Gopala Swamy, learned Senior Advocate along with Sri Chandrashekar N, counsel for Sri Sajjad Ahmed G, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 5, and Sri T.M.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 4. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 4. Present Appeal is filed by the defendant No.2 challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.117/2003 dated 20.01.2017 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru, confirmed in R.A.No.25/2017 c/w R.A.No.37/2017 dated 29.03.2021 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Tumakuru. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36204 RSA No. 625 of 2021 5. Since defendant No.1-Narayanappa died, defendant No.2- Thimmappa who is appellant herein, filed R.A.No.25/2017 in his capacity as the legal representative of deceased defendant No.1-Narayanappa. Defendant No.3-Lakshmamma filed R.A.No.37/2017. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court by common judgment dated 29.03.2021, dismissed both the appeals confirming the judgment passed by the Trial Court. 6. Parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants for the sake of convenience. 7. The present appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the findings of the Courts below that item No.13 is also joint family ancestral property is perverse, palpably erroneous and contrary to the clinching rebuttal evidence vide Ex.D.29, which is a registered mortgage deed executed by the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 and in the said mortgage deed, it is clearly indicated that item No.13 is the self acquired property of defendant No.2? 8. Facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36204 RSA No. 625 of 2021 9. Plaintiff-Srinivasa who is the son of defendant No.1- Narayanappa filed suit for partition and separate possession in respect of following properties, hereinafter referred to as ‘suit properties’: SCHEDULE 1) S.No.41/6, bagayath, out of this 0-19 guntas. 2) S.No.42/1, dry, out of this 2-25 guntas. 3) S.No.53/2, dry, 0-04 guntas. 4) S.No.53/2,dry, 0-03 guntas with red tiled house. 5) S.No.53/1A, out of this 3-37 guntas. 6) S.No.54/1, of this, 2-09 guntas. All the above properties situated in Dibbur grama of Tumakuru Kasaba, Tumakuru. 7) S.No.268, out of this site measuring 21 x 46. 8) S.No.268, out of this 0-16 guntas of dry land. 9) S.No.256, wet, out of this 0-11 guntas of land. 10) S.No.254, wet, out of this 0-18 guntas of land. 11) S.No.46/1A, wet, out of this 0-08 guntas of land. 12) S.No.46/2, out of this 0-36 guntas of land, All the item Sl.No.7 to 12 are situated in Tumakuru Amanikere Grama, Kasaba, Tumakuru. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36204 RSA No. 625 of 2021 13. S.No.41/2, dry, out of which 1-23 guntas situated Dibbur grama, Kasba Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk, bounded by: East by: Land of Ramaiah, West by: Land of Puttamma, North by: Land of Chanel of Kharab, South by: Remaining land of Narayanappa. 14. S.No.267, wet, out of this 0-06 guntas land situated at Tumakuru Amanikere, Kasba Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk, bounded by: East by: Land of Karinarasaiah, West by: Land of Chikkashimaiah, North by: Land Lokesh, South by: Remaining land Narayanappa. 10. Plaintiff contended that he is the son of defendant No.1, and defendant No.2 is his brother, defendant Nos.3 to 6 are his sisters who constituted a Hindu joint family. Defendant No.1 was the kartha of the joint family who was managing and looking after the joint family properties. 11. However, when defendant No.1 made an unsuccessful attempt to alienate some of the suit properties, same was resisted by the plaintiff by demanding his legitimate share. When defendant No.1 failed to grant the share, plaintiff filed - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36204 RSA No. 625 of 2021 O.S.No.5/1991 against the defendants on the file of the Civil Judge, Tumakuru. During pendency of the said suit, in the year 1994, defendant Nos.1 and 2 assured that they would give necessary share to the plaintiff and therefore, plaintiff got the suit dismissed. 12. However, when the defendants did not give the share to the plaintiff as agreed, plaintiff came to know that he has been cheated. He also learnt that defendant No.1 executed a registered gift deed in favour of sister of the plaintiff by name Lakshmamma who is defendant No.3 in the suit. Therefore, plaintiff demanded his legitimate share. When the same was denied, plaintiff filed the present suit in O.S.No.117/2003. 13. On receipt of suit summons, defendant Nos.1 to 3 appeared and filed their written statement. Suit was dismissed and the matter was carried in appeal. 14. The First Appellate Court remanded the suit to the Trial Court. At that juncture, defendant Nos.4 to 6 also appeared before the Trial Court. Defendant Nos.1 to 3, 4 and 5 filed their written statement. Defendant No.3 contended in the written - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36204 RSA No. 625 of 2021 statement that there was a previous partition between plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2, and as per the previous partition, parties are in peaceful possession of their respective shares and therefore, suit of the plaintiff is to be dismissed. 15. Defendant No.2 further contended that among the suit properties, item No.13 which is property in Sy.No.41/2 measuring 1 acre 23 guntas and land in Sy.No.267 which is item No.14 measuring 06 guntas are his self acquired properties. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the said properties. 16. It is also contended that land in Sy.No.48/2B1 measuring 0.20 guntas situated at Dibbur village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumakuru District has been purchased in the name of wife of plaintiff by name Gangamma out of joint family funds. Therefore, for non inclusion of said property by the plaintiff, suit is bad for non joinder of all properties and sought to dismiss the suit. 17. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 also filed counter claim to declare that they are the owners of written statement schedule properties which were acquired during oral partition and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36204 RSA No. 625 of 2021 defendant No.3 has acquired the same through the Gift Deed executed by defendant No.1. 18. In the written statement filed by defendant Nos.4 and 5, it has been contended that item No.6 is self acquired property of defendant No.1. Defendant No.3 is their elder sister who looked after them and performed their marriages and also the marriage of defendant No.2. As such, defendant No.1 has given item No.6 which is his self acquired property by way of gift to defendant No.3. 19. Further, they contended that apart from item No.6, other properties mentioned in the plaint are all joint family ancestral properties and thereby, they are also entitled for share along with defendants and plaintiff. Hence, they prayed to allot their 1/6th share in the suit properties. 20. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, learned Trial Judge framed the following issues and additional issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff proves that suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of himself and defendants No.1 and 2 and they are in joint possession of the suit schedule properties? - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36204 RSA No. 625 of 2021 (ii) Whether the 3rd defendant proves 1st defendant purchased suit item No.6 out of his own earnings and the same has been gifted in her favour under Section 17 of the Registration Act ? (iii)Whether plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd Share in the suit schedule properties ? (iv) What decree or order ?” Additional Issues 1. Whether the defendant No.2 proves that the property bearing Sy.No.41/2 measuring about 1 acre 23 guntas and land in Sy.No.267 are his self acquired properties? 2. Whether the defendant No.2 proves that the property bearing Sy.No.48/2B1 measuring 0.20 guntas situated at Dibbur village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk is joint family property which is liable for partition ?” 21. In support of the case of the parties, plaintiff-Srinivas got examined himself as P.W.1 and three witnesses viz., Doddabasavaiah, Gangamma and Bhadramma were examined as P.Ws.2, 3 and 4. On behalf of the plaintiff as many as 30 documents were placed on record which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.30. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36204 RSA No. 625 of 2021 22. As against the evidence placed on record by the plaintiff, Lakshmamma who is third defendant got examined herself as D.W.1 and four more witnesses by name K.C.Kantharaju, Narayanappa, Jayamma, Thimmappa were examined as D.Ws.2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively. Defendants placed on record 12 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.D.1 to D.12. 23. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under: “The suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed. The plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of his 1/7th share out of the suit schedule properties. However, the defendants No.1 to 6 are also entitled to an extent of 1/7th share each in the suit schedule properties and they are also entitled for partition and separate possession of their share. However, the defendants No.1 to 6 are hereby directed to pay the necessary court fee in respect of their shares. Office is directed to draw preliminary decree accordingly.” - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36204 RSA No. 625 of 2021 24. Being aggrieved by the same, it is the first defendant Narayanappa who filed R.A.No.25/2017 and third defendant- Lakshmamma filed R.A.No.37/2017 challenging the decreeing of the suit in respect of item No.6 of the suit property which was subject matter of gift deed executed by defendant No.1 in her favour. 25. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, re-appreciated the factual and legal aspects involved in the case and dismissed both the appeals by judgment dated 29.03.2021. 26. Being further aggrieved by the same, it is defendant No.2 who has filed the present appeal on the following grounds, who did not file any independent appeal before the Trial Court and came on record as one of the legal representative of deceased Narayanappa in R.A.No.25/2017.  It is submitted that the Judgment and Decree passed by the Courts below is against to the facts and circumstances and the law. Hence the Judgment and - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36204 RSA No. 625 of 2021 Decree passed by the Courts below is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside.  It is submitted that the courts below failed to appreciate the material evidence available on record in the proper perspective.  It is submitted that the courts below failed to consider the evidence available on record which establishes that the Joint family consisting of the plaintiff and the defendants have been severed long back and the Joint family property are not in existence at all.  It is submitted that the Courts below erred in decreeing the suit without considering the material available on record that the plaintiff is in the habit of filing the cases repeatedly against the other Joint family members with an intention to make unlawful gain.  It is submitted that the Courts below erred in decreeing the suit without considering the Material evidence which establishes that the plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.5/1991 in which case the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 have contested and filed the written statement, and when the matter came for the Evidence of Plaintiff the matter has been settled between the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 Accordingly the plaintiff herein had filed a memo stating that the matter has been settled between the parties and requested the court to dismiss the suit has settled outside the court. Accordingly the said suit was dismissed. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36204 RSA No. 625 of 2021  It is submitted that the Courts below failed to consider the evidence that the dispute in respect of the Joint family partition between the plaintiff defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 has been settled then only the plaintiff in said suit filed a memo and the suit came to be withdrawn and the said crucial evidence has not been considered by the Courts below.  It is submitted that the Courts below erred in coming to the conclusion that the suit in O.S.No.5/1991 has been dismissed as settled outside the court on 8/6/1994 as per Exhibit D.6. The plaintiff has filed the present suit again seeking relief of partition after lapse of 9 years contending that the partition has not been effected. It is clear from the conduct of the plaintiff that the evidence of the plaintiff is untrustworthy.  It is submitted that the Courts below failed to consider and appreciate the evidence of PW.1, that they are residing separately from the year 1991.  It is submitted that the Courts below to consider and appreciate the evidence of DW.1, DW.3 and DW.5 have categorically stated that the partition have been effected long back and Joint family is not in existence has not been considered.  It is submitted that the Courts below failed consider and appreciate the evidence of DW.5 who has deposed that subsequent to the partition of the joint family that too after filing the suit by the plaintiff in O.S.No.5/1991 which was filed on 19/2/1991, subsequently on 24/9/1992 he has purchased the land bearing Sy.41/4, - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36204 RSA No. 625 of 2021 totally measuring 1 acre 23 guntas out of his own income.  It is submitted that the Courts below failed consider and appreciate the evidence available on record which establishes that item No.13 and item No.14 of the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired property of the defendant No.2.  It is submitted that the Courts below erred in not considering and appreciating the documentary evidence as per Ex.P.29 in the proper perspective. It is clear from the recital in the said document that the item No.2 in the said document Sy.No.41/2 is the self-acquired property of the defendant No.2 wherein the plaintiff, the Defendant No.1 and the Defendant No.2 are the parties to the said documents.  It is submitted that the Courts below erred in not considering and appreciating the Ex.P.29 in the proper perspective which establishes that the item No.13 of the suit schedule properties is the self-acquired property of the defendant No.2.  It is submitted that the Courts below erred in misinterpreting the Ex.P.29 the said document has been misinterpreted by the court below without considering and appreciating the said document.” 27. As referred to supra, appeal came to be admitted only in respect of item No.13 of the suit property especially in view of registered mortgage deed marked at Ex.P.29 (Though it - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36204 RSA No. 625 of 2021 has been mentioned as Ex.D.29 in the substantial question of law). Suit item No.13 is as under: S.No.41/2, dry, out of which 1-23 guntas situated Dibbur grama, Kasba Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk, bounded by: East by: Land of Ramaiah, West by: Land of Puttamma, North by: Land of Chanel of Kharab, South by: Remaining land of Narayanappa. 28. There is discrepancy as to sub number of the suit item No.13 and therefore, a joint memo came to be filed before this Court wherein, in has been clarified that suit item No.13 is having Sy.No.41/2 though it has been mentioned as 41/4. 29. According to the appellant/defendant No.2, he purchased suit item No.13 by virtue of registered sale deed dated 20.04.1992. It is pertinent to note that said sale deed is not placed on record before the Trial Court or before the First Appellate Court or atleast before this Court. 30. Computing the age of the defendant No.2 as on the date of sale, it can be safely said that he was in the age group of 21 - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36204 RSA No. 625 of 2021 to 23 years at the time of purchase of suit item No.13 wherein sale consideration is to the tune of Rs.31,000/-. 31. Admittedly, second defendant has not placed on record any documentary evidence to establish that he was doing vegetable, coconut and milk vending business as contended by him. 32. Except the self serving testimony of second defendant in the form of examination-in-chief, no other material documents are placed on record to substantiate that he had independent income, though he was member of the joint family as on the said date of purchase of the suit property. 33. To overcome such a factual situation, second defendant tried to impress upon the Court that there was a previous partition in the year 1991 itself. 34. Trend of cross-examination to P.W.1 would indicate that plaintiff was ousted from the joint family as he has not attended any functions of the joint family for a period of more than 23 years. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36204 RSA No. 625 of 2021 35. These two pleas at a time would not go hand in hand and each one is contrary to each other. Lakshmamma/defendant No.3 and other defendant Nos.4 and 5 have maintained that suit properties are joint family properties. Lakshmamma was only concerned with suit item No.6 which she acquired through gift deed executed by defendant No.1. 36. Further, defendant Nos.4 and 5 specifically mentioned that the suit properties are joint family properties and therefore, they are also entitled for 1/6th share in the suit properties by filing a counter claim. 37. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 also laid a claim stating that whatever the properties that has been allotted to them in the oral partition are to be declared as in the ownership of the defendant Nos.1 to 3. 38. The properties as per written statement schedule are as under: Schedule to Written Statement filed by defendant No.1- Narayanappa. Sy.No.254 and 256 measuring 0-10 gts, - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36204 RSA No. 625 of 2021 Sy.No.42/1 measuring 0-35 gts, Sy.No.53/1a measuring 1-00 acre, Sy.No.46/2 and 46/1a measuring 0-16 gts, Sy.No.52/2 measuring 0-10 gts, 1/3rd share in the house. Schedule to Written Statement filed by defendant No.2- Thimmappa. Sy.No.42/1 measuring 0-35 sts, Sy.No.53/1A measuring 1-00 acre, Sy.No.46/2 and 46/1A measuring 0-16 gts, Sy.No.254 and 256 measuring 0-10 gts, And 1/3rd share in the house. Schedule to Written Statement filed by defendant No.3- Lakshmamma. All the piece and parcel of the agricultural garden land and dry land bearing Sy.No.54, resurve No.54/1, measuring total11 acres 17 guntas assessed that Rs.12.55 ps. Out of which land measuring 2 acres 08 guntas bounded on: East by: Land of Beheemaiah in the same Sy.No., West by: Land of Rangamma, North by: Land of Kariyanna, S/o Sanjeevaiah,, South by: Land of Rangahanumahiah, - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36204 RSA No. 625 of 2021 Situated at Dibbur village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk. 39. Admittedly, when there was decree granted by the Trial Court, except defendant Nos.1 and 3, no appeal came to be filed by any other defendants. In other words, when counter claim is dismissed, defendant Nos.1 and 3 did not challenge the rejection of the counter claim, but they attacked the decreeing of the suit by filing single appeal each. 40. Pertinently, defendant No.2 did not file any independent appeal in respect of item No.13 of the suit property. 41. However, during pendency of the appeal before the First Appellate Court, defendant No.1 died who was appellant in R.A.No.25/2017 and an application came to be filed to bring the legal representatives of deceased defendant No.1-Narayanappa on record. 42. Pertinently, for Narayanappa, plaintiff and other defendants are also legal representatives along with defendant No.2. But it is the defendant No.2 who alone succeeded to the interest of Narayanappa in R.A.No.25/2017. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36204 RSA No. 625 of 2021 43. Therefore, there is no independent challenge to the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court insofar as item No.13 by the defendant No.2 before the First Appellate Court itself in his individual capacity. 44. When such is the factual aspect of the matter, how can the defendant No.2 can maintain the Second Appeal only with regard to item No.13 is a question that remains unanswered. 45. Therefore, very admitting of the appeal on the aforesaid substantial question of law itself is incorrect. 46. Be that what it may, since the appeal is admitted and this Court is required to answer the substantial question of law framed while admitting the appeal. The discussion made supra would make it clear that defendant No.2 failed to establish independent income by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record. To earn the suit item No.13 by way of registered sale deed dated 20.04.1992, it should be presumed that defendant No.2 purchased the property in his name by utilizing the joint family funds. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36204 RSA No. 625 of 2021 47. The substantial question of law also deals with probative value of Ex.P.29(though it has been mentioned as Ex.D.29). 48. Ex.P.29 is a mortgage deed. Same has been executed by plaintiff, defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 in favour of Ravishankar, S/o Sansiddaiah, resident of Hanumanthapura Extension, Tumakuru Town. 49. The said mortgage deed contains the left thumb impression of plaintiff, defendant No.1 and defendant No.2. If it is the independent property of defendant No.2, where was the necessity for the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to join the execution of mortgage is a question which again remains unanswered by the appellant. 50. No doubt, in Ex.P.29, there is a mention that suit property is the self acquisition of defendant No.2. 51. Admittedly, defendant No.1 and plaintiff are the persons who did not know how to read and write and their left thumb impression is taken on the mortgage deed. It is also to be noted that mortgage got released after private complaint came to be filed and mortgage got redeemed by payment of money, - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36204 RSA No. 625 of 2021 not by defendant No.2 alone but it is the contribution from the joint family. 52. Under such circumstances, alleged disruption of the joint family and previous partition would lose its significance by virtue of very execution of Ex.P.29 and redemption thereof. 53. Therefore, even if we consider the probative value of Ex.P.29 wherein it has been mentioned that suit item No.13 is self acquisition of defendant No.2, it cannot be held that it is self acquisition of defendant No.2 by utilizing his independent income in the absence of any cogent evidence placed on record by the appellant. 54. Under such circumstances, invariably, substantial question of law raised in the appeal has to be held against the appellant not only for want of evidence, but also on the ground that there was no challenge to the decree of the Trial Court by defendant No.2 independently before the First Appellate Court. 55. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered in the negative, against the appellant. - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36204 RSA No. 625 of 2021 56. In view of the foregoing discussion, the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is meritless and is hereby dismissed. (ii) No order as to costs. (iii) However, in the Final Decree Proceedings, defendant No.2 may plead for equitable partition to allot item No.13 to him and if such a plea is made, learned Judge in the Final Decree Proceedings may consider the same in accordance with law. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 75