IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.666 OF 2025 (PA-DE-IN) BETWEEN: 1 . 1(a). SMT. D. VASANTHA W/O LATE SRI. P. DHANDAPANI AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS (SINCE DECEASED AND REPRESENTED BY HER LRS) SRI. D. SATISH KUMAR S/O LATE SRI. P. DHANDAPANI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 1(b). SMT. D. PRIYA W/O MR. SYED ABDUL RAHIMAN D/O LATE SRI. P. DHANDAPANI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS APPELLANTS No.1(a) & 1(b) ARE RESIDING AT No.306 'RADIANT SILVER BELL', APARTMENT No.1 SY No.23/1, KODIGEHALIL MAIN ROAD NEAR SAKTHI LAYOUT, SADARAMANGALA BENGAULRU-560 067 1(c). SRI. D. RAJASHEKAR S/O LATE SRI. P. DHANDAPANI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT No.271 THIYAGARAYA NEW STREET No.2, COIMBATORE-641 001 TAMILNADU STATE - 2 2 . SRI. D. SATISH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O LATE SRI. P. DHANDAPANI 3 . SMT. D. PRIYA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS W/O MR. SYED ABDUL RAHIMAN S/O LATE SRI. P. DHANDAPANI APPELLANTS No.2 & 3 ARE RESIDING AT No.306 'RADIANT SILVER BELL', APARTMENT No.1 SY No.23/1, KODIGEHALIL MAIN ROAD NEAR SAKTHI LAYOUT, SADARAMANGALA BENGAULRU-560 067 ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA PRASAD M.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SRI. D. RAJASHEKHAR S/O LATE SRI. P. DHANDAPANI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 2 . SMT. R. SUGANTHI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS W/O SRI. D. RAJASHEKHAR BOTH ARE RESIDING AT HOUSE No.271 THIYAGARAYA NEW STREET No.2, COIMBATORE-641 001 TAMILNADU STATE …RESPONDENTS (R1 & R2 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96(1) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.07.2024 PASSED IN O.S.No.784/2018 ON THE FILE OF XXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-30) PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION. - 3 THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 01.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This Regular First Appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 09.07.2024 passed by the XXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-30) ('trial Court' for short) in Original Suit No.784/2018. 2. We have heard Shri. Raghavendra Prasad M.S, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- One P. Dhandapani, husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiffs No.2 and 3 and defendant No.1, had acquired the ‘A’ schedule property, pursuant to a registered Partition Deed dated 12.12.1979. In the said partition, plaint 'A' schedule property was allotted to P. Dhandapani. - 4 P. Dhandapani had purchased the ‘B’ schedule property which is an apartment in Sadarmangala Village, Bangalore East Taluk under a registered Sale Deed dated 08.08.2012. P. Dhandapani died intestate on 13.09.2013, leaving behind his wife and three children who are the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 as sole surviving Class-I heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. After his demise, several serious differences arose among the parties. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 each entitled to 1/4th share in the plaint schedule property. In the trial Court, the plaintiffs have prayed for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share in 'A' and 'B' schedule properties to each plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and to declare that the settlement/gift deed dated 14.11.2016 is not binding on the plaintiffs as the plaintiff claims that the said Will is set up by the defendants. 5. The trial Court having considered the arguments on either side, partly decreed the suit with costs holding that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/16th, plaintiffs No.2, 3 and - 5 defendant No.1 are entitled for 5/16th share each, in the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties and that the gift deed dated 14.11.2016 is not binding on the share of plaintiffs. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the defendants have admitted that the 'A' schedule property was acquired by P. Dhandapani, by a partition deed dated 12.12.1979. In this partition, since 'A' schedule property was allotted to the exclusive share of P. Dhandapani, it became his separate property and partake the characteristics of self-acquired property. 'B' schedule property was purchased by P. Dhandapani and hence was his self-acquired property. The trial Court could not have denied 1/4th share to all the plaintiffs and to defendant No.1. 7. It is also submitted that the trial Court has confused with the applicability of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act (as amended) and Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and that Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act comes into operation only when there is admitted coparcenary / joint family estate. The said Section does not govern the self-acquired property of the individuals - 6 and that the trial Court ought to have declared that the plaintiffs on one hand and defendant No.1 on the other, being Class-I legal heirs are entitled to 1/4th share each. The three plaintiffs are collectively entitled for 3/4th share, while the defendant No.1 is entitled for 1/4th share. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance in the case of Vijayanand v. Parikshith and others (MANU/KA/5085/2022) in which the Court had categorically held that once there is a partition between brothers and sisters and a property fell to the share of defendant No.1, the property would form an individual property of the person who derives the same under partition. In this judgment, several earlier judgments including that of the Apex Court have been examined. 9. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was enacted in the year 1956 and was notified on 17.06.1956. Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act provides by the overriding effect of the Act and provides as follows:- "4. Over-riding effect of Act.- (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act,- - 7 (a) any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu law or any custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in this Act; (b) any other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to apply to Hindus in so far as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act.” 10. Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act provides for the devolution of interest in property. By the amendment of the year 2005, the daughter of a coparcener becomes a coparcener in her own right by birth. However, sub-section (5) of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act provides that the section shall not apply to a partition, which has been effected before the 20th day of December, 2004. It is therefore clear that where partition has not been effected, the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act would apply to the succession to joint family properties. 11. In the instant case, plaintiff No.1 is the wife of P. Dhandapani and plaintiffs No.2, 3 and defendant No.1 are - 8 his children. The property in question was purchased by Smt. Nagammal, paternal grandmother of P. Dhandapani under a registered sale deed dated 12.07.1945. By a partition deed dated 12.12.1979, suit 'A' schedule property fell to the share of P. Dhandapani. P. Dhandapani, purchased suit 'B' schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 08.08.2012. P. Dhandapani, passed away on 13.09.2013. Therefore, going by the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, as on the date of death of P. Dhandapani, the law of succession that was applicable was the Hindu Succession Act and not the Mitakshara Law of Succession. 12. The defendants contention was that they had acquired plaint 'A' schedule property by Will dated 14.03.2013. However, the trial Court found that the defendants had not chosen to examine the witnesses to prove the execution of the Will and the Will is not proved. Further contention that plaintiff No.3 had renounced the Hindu Religion, was also found not proved and the trial Court held that though she married a Muslim, she had continued to be a Hindu. - 9 13. Thereafter, the trial Court proceeded to apply the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and Others reported in 2020 (9) SCC 1, and held that daughters are also coparceners at par with the sons. It was in the said circumstances that the trial Court had held that plaintiff No.1 was entitled to 1/16th share in the property and that plaintiffs No.2, 3 and defendant No.1 are entitled to 5/16th share each. 14. We notice that the relationship between the parties is clearly admitted and that the fact that the title of the properties with P. Dhandapani was also not disputed. It is also not in dispute that there was a partition between the members of the joint family on 12.12.1979. Therefore, after the partition, suit 'A' schedule property also became the sole property of P. Dhandapani. P. Dhandapani passed away on 13.09.2013. Therefore, since the properties are separate self - acquired properties of P. Dhandapani, the law applicable for succession to such properties would be under general rules as provided under Section 8 of the Hindu - 10 Succession Act. The widow and children being Class I heirs, are therefore entitled to succeed to the property in equal shares. The finding of the trial Court that plaintiff No.1 is entitled to 1/16th share and plaintiffs No.2 and 3 and defendant No.1 are entitled to 5/16th share is therefore incorrect. 15. In the result:- (i) The Regular First Appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The judgment and decree dated 09.07.2024 passed by the XXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Original Suit No.784/2018, is modified. (iii) The plaintiffs as well as defendant No.1 are entitled to 1/4th share each in the suit schedule properties. No order as to costs. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE cp*