- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54739-DB RFA No. 1087 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1087 OF 2018 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. MAHADEVAMMA W/O MAHESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, PRASHANTHNAGAR, HARIHARA, HALEBATHI ROAD, HARIHAR-577 601. 2. MRS. LALITHAMMA @ SIDDAMMA D/O MARULASIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, HOLESIRIGERE VILLAGE, K.N. HALLI ROAD, HARIHAR TALUK-577 601. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SANATHKUMAR SHETTY K, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. G. SAVITHRAMMA W/O L.M. REVANASIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, C/O NO.5465, 1ST MAIN, 4TH CROSS, BANASHANKARI LAYOUT, NEAR NH4 ROAD, DAVANGERE-577 004. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI HANUMANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE) - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54739-DB RFA No. 1087 of 2018 THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC, 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.03.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.73/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DAVANAGERE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) 1. The present regular first appeal has been filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 impugning the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2018 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Davanagere, in Original Suit No.73/2016 instituted by the appellants/plaintiffs. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54739-DB RFA No. 1087 of 2018 2. The plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit stating that the parties to the suit are Hindus and governed by the Mitakshara School of Law, and the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended would be applicable to the parties in respect of the succession/partition of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs are the married daughters of one late Marulasiddappa and the defendant is the widow of Revanasiddappa, the son of late Marulasiddappa. 3. The family tree of the parties is given hereunder: Siddappa Hole Basakkala Basappa (son) Marulasiddappa (son) Nagarajappa (son) Muniyappa (son) Mahadevamma (daughter) (plaintiff No.1) Lalithamma (daughter) (plaintiff No.2) Revanasidappa (Son) (died on 28.06.2002) Smt.G.Savithamma (widow and the only surviving legal heir of Revanasiddappa (Defendant) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54739-DB RFA No. 1087 of 2018 4. According to the plaintiffs, their parents, the plaintiffs and their brother Revanasiddappa, the late husband of the defendant, constituted a Hindu Joint Family and they were in joint possession and enjoyment of the properties of agricultural land bearing Survey No.19/1 measuring 2 acres 16 guntas, Survey No.18/3 measuring 6 acres 25 guntas situated at Basapura Village of Davanagere Taluk and Survey No.45/1 measuring 5 acres situated at Putaganahalu Village of Davanagere Taluk. Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties is a joint family property of the plaintiffs and the defendant, which was purchased by the father of the plaintiffs in the name of his only son Revanasiddappa in the year 1979, Item Nos.2 to 8 are the ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and the defendant. The suit schedule properties were in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and the defendant till the filing of the said suit. The plaintiffs stated that they, being the joint family members with the defendant, were having equal share along with the defendant as per the provisions of the amended Hindu Succession Act. The plaintiffs came to know that the defendant was attempting to alienate the suit schedule properties and they were having 3/4th - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54739-DB RFA No. 1087 of 2018 share in the suit schedule properties. Therefore, they filed the suit for partition claiming 3/4th share in the suit schedule properties. 5. The defendant, on the other hand, stated that the plaintiffs got married way back in the year 1979. They were given gold ornaments (10 tolas) and cash of Rs.10,000/- each as per their share in the joint family. After the death of their mother Sankamma, the plaintiffs had received 12 tolas of gold ornaments of the deceased Sankamma. The claim of the plaintiffs that their parents, late Revanasiddappa and they constituted a Hindu Joint Family and they were in joint possession and enjoyment of the agricultural properties mentioned above, was specifically denied. 6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues for determination; "1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the alleged partition and release deed dated 01- 10-2009 executed by them in respect of Item No.1 and 2 is a fraudulent, invalid and inoperative documents? 3. Whether the defendants prove that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54739-DB RFA No. 1087 of 2018 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to 3/4th share in the suit schedule properties? 5. What order or decree?" 7. The registered partition deed dated 15.04.2005 was effected among two brothers namely, Basappa and Marulasiddappa and their respective children. The defendant's late husband and her late son R. Santhosh, who were parties to the partition deed, died on 28.06.2002 and 28.02.2016 respectively. The plaintiffs were not parties to the said partition deed. In the aforesaid partition deed, item Nos.2 and 3 i.e., the agricultural land bearing Survey No.18/3 measuring 6 acres 25 guntas situated at Basapura Village, Davanagere Taluk, and the agricultural land bearing Survey No.45/1 measuring 5 acres situated at Putaganahalu Village, Davanagere Taluk were allotted to the share of Marulasiddappa, the late father of the plaintiffs. Item Nos.4 to 6 were allotted to the defendant and her late son R. Santhosh whereas, item Nos.7 and 8 are said to be the self acquired properties of the defendant. Item No.1 of the suit schedule property was purchased in the name of the defendant's husband viz., Revanasiddappa on 11.09.1979. It was further stated that Survey No.19/1 measuring 2 acres 17 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54739-DB RFA No. 1087 of 2018 guntas and Survey No.18/3 measuring 6 acres 25 guntas were obtained by the defendant by virtue of release deed and partition deed both dated 01.10.2009 executed by the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs had received Rs.50,000/- each in cash as mentioned in the partition deed. 8. On examination of the documentary evidence, the Trial Court has held that item Nos.2 and 3 came to the share of late Marulasiddappa vide registered partition deed dated 15.04.2005 (Ex.P8) and he was the absolute owner in possession of the same, which was effected among his brother and their respective children. Item Nos.4 to 6 were allotted to the defendant and her son whereas, item Nos.7 and 8 are the self acquired properties of the defendant. 9. The plaintiffs are parties to the partition deed dated 01.10.2009 (Ex.D2). This partition was effected between Marulasiddappa-first party, the plaintiffs-second and third parties, and the defendant and her late son-fourth party. The partition deed (Ex.D2) effected between them would disclose that the plaintiffs and late Marulasiddappa had obtained Rs.50,000/- each in cash - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54739-DB RFA No. 1087 of 2018 and relinquished their right to the defendant in respect of item No.2 of the suit schedule properties. They had also executed the Relinquishment Deed-Ex.D1 dated 01.10.2009 in favour of the defendant and relinquished their rights over item No.1 of the suit schedule properties. The defendant had thus obtained the ownership and has been in possession of item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties by virtue of registered partition deed and registered relinquishment deeds. There was no question of the partition deed and the relinquishment deed having been obtained by coercion, fraud or undue influence. These are the registered documents. The plaintiffs did not challenge the said documents within the stipulated time. Further, item Nos.1 to 3 were obtained by Marulasiddappa and the husband of the defendant by virtue of registered documents. The plaintiffs had admitted their signatures on Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 and those documents were not in dispute. The partition deed between Marulasiddappa and Basappa was dated 15.04.2005, the same is undisputed. Though the plaintiffs were not parties to the said document, they had knowledge about the partition deed and they did not challenge the said partition deed ever. Item Nos.7 and 8 were purchased by the defendant under the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54739-DB RFA No. 1087 of 2018 registered sale deeds marked as Ex.D.4 and Ex.D.5. These two properties earlier stood in the name of Basappa and Marulasiddappa and both executed the sale deeds in favour of the defendant and her son Santhosh on 04.08.2004. These documents i.e., Ex.D.4 and Ex.D.5 were also not challenged by the plaintiffs, and they were not seeking any relief to cancel the registered sale deeds dated 04.08.2004 in respect of these properties in favour of the defendant and her son. 10. In view of the aforesaid documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the suit schedule properties were not existing as joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendant. The registered relinquishment deed and the partition deed were executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant in the year 2009. In fact, the plaintiffs had admitted the partition deed-Ex.D1 dated 15.04.2005 and the relinquishment deed and the partition deed dated 01.10.2009. The Trial Court held that the plaintiffs could prove that the suit schedule properties were the ancestral and joint family properties. However, the partition deed and the relinquishment deed executed by them on 01.10.2009 in respect of item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties are not fraudulent, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54739-DB RFA No. 1087 of 2018 invalid and inoperative documents. The Trial Court also recorded the finding that the suit of the plaintiffs was barred by limitation. However, with respect to issue No.4, the Trial Court held that the plaintiffs would be entitled for 1/3rd share each in item No.3 of the suit schedule properties as the said property was the property of late Marulasiddappa and he did execute and gift, relinquishment or sale deed in respect of the said property in favour of the defendant or her late son and the remaining properties would not be available for partition. 11. We have considered the submissions and perused the Trial Court Records. 12. The issue involved in this appeal would be whether the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court suffers from any illegality which requires an interference by this Court? 13. The plaintiffs had executed the relinquishment deed and partition deed through registered instruments in favour of the defendant way back on 01.10.2009. The suit was filed in the year 2016 alleging that the documents were obtained by playing fraud and coercion, whereas the plaintiffs have accepted their signatures - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54739-DB RFA No. 1087 of 2018 on the documents. Therefore, the Trial Court was correct in holding that the said documents, which were executed by the plaintiffs way back on 01.10.2009, could not have been challenged in the year 2016 and the suit in this respect was clearly barred by limitation. Item Nos.4 to 8 of the suit schedule properties were obtained by the defendant through registered sale deeds and no relief was sought for cancellation of the registered sale deeds through which the defendant obtained these items of properties and thus, the Trial Court has rightly held that these properties were not the joint family properties available for partition. In respect of item No.3 of the suit schedule properties, we are in agreement with the Trial Court that the said property was a joint family property and the plaintiffs would be entitled for 1/3rd share each in the said property. 14. Having considered the documentary evidence brought on record, we are of the view that there is no scope for interference by this Court in the present appeal. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is affirmed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, however, without costs. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54739-DB RFA No. 1087 of 2018 In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they stand disposed of. (D K SINGH) JUDGE (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE BKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA Digitally signed by DINESH KUMAR SINGH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA