- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32523 RSA No. 480 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.480 OF 2022(PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT SULOCHANA W/O KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS R/O SAMRUDHI NILAYA BITTOGOWDANAHALLY VILLAGE HASSAN - 573201 2. SMT CHANDRAMMA W/O CHIKKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS NO.163, 4TH CROSS, 4TH STAGE WOC ROAD BANGALORE - 560010 3. SMT DHANALAKSHMI W/O PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/O DOOR NO.393, LAKHMIRANGANATHA NILAYA KHB COLONY SATHYAMANGALA LAYOUT HASSAN PIN – 573201 4. VEDAVATHI W/O JAYARAM V.G AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/O DOOR NO.431, 15TH MAIN 1ST BLOCK, IIIRD STAGE Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32523 RSA No. 480 of 2022 BANGALORE - 560079 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SOMANAGOWDA SHIVANAGOWDA PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SATHYANARAYANA S/O LATE S D ERAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/O EWS 775, KUVEMPU NAGAR HASSAN - 573201 2. SMT D R KAMALAMMA W/O LATE S D ERAPPA SINCE DEAD R1, R3 AND R5 ARE THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF R2 3. SMT DEVIKA RANI W/O LATE S D ERAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O OPP. TO PLANTERS BANK HASSAN - 573201 4. GIDDAMMA W/O LATE HONNEGOWDA SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY LEGAL REPRESETNATIVES 4(a) SRI LAKSHMEESHA.S S/O SATHYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS NO.775, EWS, 19TH CROSS HOUSING BOARD, KUVEMPU NAGAR HASSAN-573 201 4(b) SRI ROOPESH.S S/O SATHYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS NO.775, EWS, 19TH CROSS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32523 RSA No. 480 of 2022 HOUSING BOARD, KUVEMPU NAGAR HASSAN -573 201 5. SMT YAMUNADEVI W/O DHARMARAJ AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/O DOOR NO.136, 8TH MAIN 14TH CROSS NEAR VINAYAKA MEDICAL STORE LAKKASANDRA EXTENSION LAKKASANDRA BANGALOR E- 560030 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VASANTH KUMAR H T, ADVOCATE, FOR C/R1 AND ALSO FOR LR’s OF R4; SRI D.G.CHINNAPPA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R5-SERVED; VIDE ORDER DATED 13.10.2022 R-2 DEAD AND HAS NOT LEFT BEHIND ANY LR’S) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.12.2021 PASSED IN RA.No.95/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.10.2018 PASSED IN O.S.No.203/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HASSAN. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32523 RSA No. 480 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri Somanagowda Shivanagowda Patil, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Vasanth Kumar H.T. and Sri D.G. Chinnappa Gowda, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Defendants’ Second Appeal challenging the granting of decree by the Trial Court in O.S. No.203/2004 dated 12.10.2018 passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Hassan, which was confirmed in R.A No.95/2018 dated 17.12.2021 on the file of the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Hassan. 3. Subject matter of the suit is immoveable properties described hereunder and hereinafter referred to as suit properties. :‘A’ SCHEDULE: 1. The land measuring 2 acres 13 guntas in Sy.No.10/3A situated at Sankenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hassan Taluk bounded by East: land of Thirumalan, West: land of Kalegowda and others, North: land of Manjegowda and South: land of Kenchegowda and others. 2. The land measuring 0.05 guntas in Sy.No.43/1 situated at Sankenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hassan Taluk bounded by East: wet land of Chikkegowda, West: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32523 RSA No. 480 of 2022 Inam land, North: Ramaswamy’s Garden and South: land of Basavaiah. 3. The land measuring 0.08 guntas in Sy.No.47/4 situated at Sankenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hassan Taluk bounded by East: Backyard of Javaregowda, West: Railway road, North: land of Kalegowda and South: land of Kalegowda. 4. The land measuring 0.01 guntas in Sy.No.58/10 situated at Sankenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hassan Taluk bounded by East: land of Govinda Shetty, West: land of Chikkegowda, North: water pond and South: land of Chikkegowda. :‘B’ SCHEDULE: 1. The land measuring 1 acre 15 guntas in Sy.No.61/4 situated at Sankenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hassan Taluk bounded by East: land of Honnegowda, West: road, North: land of Ramaswamy and others and South: land of Basavaiah. 2. The land measuring 23 guntas in Sy.No.91/2 situated at Sankenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hassan Taluk bounded by East: railway track, West: land of Sannegowda and Rajegowda, North: boundary channel and South: land of Kalegowda. :‘C’ SCHEDULE: 1. The land measuring 0.06 guntas in Sy.No.39/1 situated at Sankenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hassan Taluk - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32523 RSA No. 480 of 2022 bounded by East: wet land of Javaregowda, West: water channel, North: wet land of Manjegowda and South: wet land of Devegowda. 2. The land measuring 0.09 guntas in Sy.No.39/7 situated at Sankenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hassan Taluk bounded by East: wet land of Thimma Setty, West: Wet land of Rangaswamy and others North: Wet land of Rangegowda and South: Wet land of Javaregowda. 3. The land measuring 38 guntas in Sy.No.47/2 situated at Sankenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hassan Taluk bounded by East: railway road, West: land of Rangegowda, North: land of Kalegowda and South: Road. 4. The land measuring 3 acres 2 guntas in Sy.No.62/3 situated at Sankenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hassan Taluk bounded by East: passage, West: land of Boovanahalli Gowdaiah, North: land of Rangegowda and others and South: road. 5. The land measuring 0.08½ guntas in Sy.No.22/1 situated at Boovanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hassan Taluk bounded by East: land of Devegowda, West: land of Kengegowda, North: land of Rudraiah and South: land of Bommegowda. 6. The site and house property bearing B.Katihally Grama Panchayath Katha No.87, old country tiled house measuring East-West: 40 feet and SouthNorth: 40 feet and threshing yard, situated at Sankenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hassan Taluk bounded by East: property of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32523 RSA No. 480 of 2022 late Dyavegowda, West: Open well & property of Rajegowda, North: property of Sakamma and South: road. Vacant House measuring 30x40 feet East: property of Ramegowda, West: property of Shamanna, North: road and South: property of Krishnegowda and Rajegowda. :‘D’ SCHEDULE: The Agricultural land measuring 4 acres 19 guntas in Sy.No.10/3B situated at Sankenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hassan Taluk bounded by East: property in Sy.No.10/3A (Suit item No.1 in ‘A’ schedule), West: property of Dyavegowda, North: property of Kenchegowda and South: property of Hanumanthegowda.” 4. As per the plaint, henealogy tree is as under: S.D.Erappa(late) | D.R.Kamalamma (wife) | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (1)Satyanarayana (2)Sulochana(3)Chandramma(4)Dhanalakshmi | (5)Vedavati (6)Yamunadevi (7)Devika | Nagarathna | ------------------------------------------ | | | xxxtha Lakshmeesha Roopesh - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32523 RSA No. 480 of 2022 5. Sri S.D.Erappa had a brother by name Honnegowda which is not depicted in the genealogical tree above and his wife is Giddamma-defendant No.3 in the suit. Defendant No.3 being the wife of Honnegowda was also a joint family member even though name of her husband does not find place in the genealogical tree filed by the plaintiff. 6. In other words, plaintiff-Sathyanaraya had a uncle by name Honnegowda and said Honnegowda having died, his wife Giddamma who is the aunt of the plaintiff is arrayed as defendant No.3 in the suit. 7. The suit for partition and separate possession came to be filed by the plaintiff contending that, he is the only son of S.D. Erappa-common propositus and, defendant No.1-Kamalamma is his mother. 8. Defendant No.2-Devikarani is one of the daughters of late Erappa. His other sisters viz., Sulochana, Chandramma, Dhanalakshmi, Vedavathi and Yamuna Devi are married and they are residing separately with their respective husbands and their marriages having been performed during the lifetime of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32523 RSA No. 480 of 2022 Erapa, prior to the enactment of Hindu Succession Act, they are not the members of the joint family and they do not have right in the ancestral properties. 9. Erappa said to have died on 24.09.2003 and plaintiff was along with the father cultivating the joint family properties. 10. Therefore, the suit properties are to be divided between himself his sister Devikarani-defendant No.2 and the other branch viz., Giddamma-wife of Honnegowda, who is arraigned as defendant No.3. 11. After the service of suit summons, defendants entered appearance and filed written statement denying the plaint averments and claimed that they are also entitled for equal share along with the plaintiff. 12. In the meantime some of the properties were acquired by the competent authority and compensation amount of acquired land got deposited. 13. Devikarani-defendant No.2 filed a separate written statement, admitted the relationship, but denied that marriage - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32523 RSA No. 480 of 2022 of her sisters had taken place during the lifetime of Erapa and therefore, they are not entitled for the share. In other words, she sailed with the other defendants in seeking equal share. 14. Defendant No.3-Giddamma filed separate written statement seeking for her share in the suit properties falling to the share of her husband viz., Honnegowda. 15. Based on the rival contentions, learned Trial Judge raised necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiff in part. 16. Operative portion of the judgment passed by the Trial Court is culled out hereunder for ready reference: “The suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed with cost. It is ordered and decreed that the suit of the plaintiff for partition and separate possession in respect of suit schedule properties. The plaintiff is having 5/16th share in the suit schedule properties. That he is entitle for 5/16th share in the 'A', 'D' and item No.1 to 5 of 'C' schedule properties. The defendant No.1 is entitle for 1/16th share and defendant No.2 is entitle for 1/16th share and defendant No.8 is entitle for 1/16th share in the 'A', 'D' and item No.1 to 5 of ‘C’ schedule properties. The defendant No.3 is entitle for ½ share in the 'A', 'D' and - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32523 RSA No. 480 of 2022 item No.1 to 5 of 'C' schedule properties. The defendants are directed to effect partition and separate possession in the 'A', 'D' and item No.1 to 5 of 'C' schedule properties schedule properties in respect of plaintiff's 5/16th share by metes and bounds and hand over the share of plaintiff in the said properties. In case of default on the part of the defendants, then the plaintiff is at liberty to get his share in the said properties in due procedure of law. Further the plaintiff is entitle for 5/16th share and defendant No.1 is entitle for 1/16th share, defendant No.2 is entitle for 1/16th share and defendant No.3 is entitle for ½ share and defendant No.8 is entitle for 1/16th share in the compensation amount awarded in respect of 'B' schedule properties and defendants No.1 and 2 are directed to give the plaintiff's 5/16th share in the said awarded compensation amount. In case of default on the part of the defendants No.1 and 2, then the plaintiff is at liberty to get recover the said amount from the defendants No.1 and 2 in due procedure of law. Draw preliminary decree accordingly.” 17. Being aggrieved by the same, the wife and daughters of late Erappa i.e., defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 to 8 have filed an appeal in R.A.No.95/2018 on the file of the II Addl. District and - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32523 RSA No. 480 of 2022 Sessions Judge, Hassan, whereas plaintiff filed cross objection in the said appeal seeking for modification of the shares granted to him. 18. Defendant No.3-Giddamma was satisfied with the decree passed by the Trial Court and did not chose to challenge the sharing pattern. Defendant No.3-Giddamma having died during pendency of the suit and her legal representatives were brought on record. 19. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and after following the legal principles enunciated in the decisions relied upon by the parties, dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 to 8 and so also the cross objection filed by the plaintiff and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 20. Being further aggrieved by the same, it is the defendant Nos.4 to 7 who have preferred the present Second Appeal on the following grounds. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32523 RSA No. 480 of 2022  “It is submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the lower courts are illegal arbitrary and capricious and hence liable to be set-aside.  It is submitted that the trial court has came to conclusion that the schedule properties are the joint family properties and wherein the Def No 4 to 7 also the co-parceners of the joint family, wrongly came to conclusion they are not entitle for their share as they were born prior to Enactment of Hindu Succession Act 1956.  It is submitted that the lower appellate court, though relied upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Vineetha Sharma V/s Rakesh Sharma reported in 2020 SAR (Civil) 1030 came to wrong conclusion and erred in confirming in judgment and Decree of the Trial Court.  It is submitted that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the both the lower courts are against the dictum passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vineetha Sharma V/s Rakesh Sharma and others as mentioned supra.  Even otherwise consider the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the lower courts are arbitrary, illegal and against to the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.” - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32523 RSA No. 480 of 2022 21. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent Nos.2 and 4 died and therefore their legal representatives were brought on record. 22. In the appeal, following substantial questions of law are raised. a) Whether the court below were legally justified in not considering the dictum laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vineeth Sharma V/s Rakesh Sharma and others repotted in 2020 SAR (Civil) 1030. b) Whether the courts below legally justified in denying the share of Appellants /D 4 to D7 being a members of coparcener of joint family though they are entitle for the same as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India? c) Whether the courts below justified in passing the impugned judgment and Decree.?” 23. Sri Somanagowda Shivanagowda Patil, learned counsel for the appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum contended that, the case of the defendants were governed by the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma reported in (2020)9 SCC 1 which has not been - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32523 RSA No. 480 of 2022 followed by both the Courts. Therefore, impugned judgments resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the appeal for further consideration. 24. He also contended that both the Courts failed to appreciated that appellants who are defendant Nos.4 to 7 were also members of joint family and as such they were co- parceners and were entitled to equal share that of the plaintiff. 25. He also contended that both the Courts failed to appreciate that mere marriage having been performed by Erappa would not take away the rights of the appellants in the joint family. Therefore, denial of the share to them as co- parceners of the joint family has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the appeal for further consideration. 26. Per contra, counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgment. 27. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32523 RSA No. 480 of 2022 28. On such perusal of the material on record, the learned Trial Judge and the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court have properly assessed the relationship and the share of the present appellants in the impugned judgments. 29. Even though learned Trial Judge has not assigned proper reasons for denial of equal share to the appellants herein by supplying proper reasons, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court while re-appreciating the factual and legal aspects of the matter in Paragraph Nos. 91 to 101 has discussed in detail as to the rights of the appellants in detail. Those paragraphs are extracted hereunder for clarity and ready reference: “91. Here is a case appellants can easily assess the situation wherein the properties are given towards maintenance, but subsequently the properties are utilized by the appellants for their own benefits by receiving the compensation. For all practical purposes the properties given to 3rd defendant are not at all in existence now since the appellants have illegally received compensation even after knowing that it has been given to the life interest of 3rd defendant. It would be unsafe to equate a life interest given for some specific purpose to hold that it bars that person from claiming right over other properties. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32523 RSA No. 480 of 2022 92. The suit for maintenance decided in the year 1957 is not a suit for partition, but it is only suit for maintenance. A maintenance suit cannot be equated with that of suit for partition. It is also pertinent to observe that the 3rd defendant was not given absolute right, but only life interest was given to her towards maintenance. Hence, the argument that she should have restricted her rights only with the properties given to her in lieu of her maintenance is without any merits. The important part that has to be observed is, the property which was given as maintenance was misutilized by the appellants 1 and 2 herein without considering the existing life interest of the 3rd defendant. It is not the case of appellants that they were not aware of life interest created in favour of 3rd defendant by late S.D.Erappa and plaintiff herein. Hence, the citation relied on by the appellants and facts narrated therein are totally different and not applicable to the present case. 93. In a decision reported in 2008(3) KCCR 1465 - Sri N.Hanumantharaya Vs. Smt.Mariyamma and Others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, period of limitation in such a suit is three years from the date of such instrument or decree or from the date of its knowledge. This decision is relied on in order to show that the 3rd defendant has slept over the matter in respect of properties alloted to her in a suit for maintenance and her right is barred by limitation, etc. The question before the Court is a suit for partition and we are not deciding the validity or enforceability of decree of maintenance in this - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32523 RSA No. 480 of 2022 suit. Hence, the citation relied on by the appellants holds no water. 94. Similar decision is relied on by the appellants reported in 1999(5) Kar.L.J. 456 K. Premananda and Another Vs. Syndicate Bank, Millers Road, Bangalore, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that, provision is peremptory and it is duty of Court not to proceed with such suit, irrespective of fact whether plea of limitation has been set up in defence or not. 95. The present case on hand is a suit for partition for which no period of limitation is prescribed and hence, the citation cannot be used for the purpose of present controversy. 96. That another decision reported in AIR 2007 Supreme Court 218 - Appasaheb Peerappa Chandgade v. Devendra Peerappa Chandgade & Others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that. Initial burden is on the plaintiff to show that the entire property was a joint Hindu family property. After initial discharge of the burden, it shifts on the defendants to show that the property claimed by them was not purchased out of the joint family nucleus and it was purchased independent of them. This decision is in relation to point No.1, 2, 6 and 8 and this Court has already observed this fact and held that plaintiff has failed to show his exclusive ownership over 'D' schedule property. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32523 RSA No. 480 of 2022 97. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in another decision reported in 2012 AIAR (Civil) 716 - Ahmedsaheb (Dead) by LRS. & Others Vs. Syed Ismail has held that, evidentiary value in respect of an admission of a party in the pleadings or oral is the best evidence and the same does not need any further corroboration. This principle is well settled and there is no such controversy in the present set of facts. 98. In another decision relied on by the learned counsel Vathsala for the appellants 2013 AIAR (Civil) 749 Manickavasagam & Others Vs. N. Ganesan & Another, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in respect of Section 17 of Evidence Act in respect of admission. Admission constitutes a substantial piece of evidence. Same can be relied upon for proving the veracity of the facts incorporated therein. An admission in order to complete and to have the value and effect referred to therein should be clear, certain and definite, without any ambiguity, vagueness or confusion. 99. The present case on hand is totally rests on different foot and the principle laid down in the decision relied on by the appellants are well settled, but there is no such ambiguity arisen in the present suit since all the parties are clear in their stand. There is absolutely no scope for any confusion on any of the instruments. 100. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on Article 59 to hold that the period for cancellation of instrument is three years. There is no second opinion - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32523 RSA No. 480 of 2022 about this fact, but we are not, after cancellation of any instrument, we are dealing with a case for partition. It is not the case of 3rd defendant that decree should be nullified or any instrument should be annulled, etc. Even it is not the case of plaintiff or defendants for cancellation of any instrument. Hence, Article 59 has no applicability to the present set of facts. 101. In view of the above discussions this Court holds that the 3rd defendant has inherited to the properties which are by virtue of her relationship with Honnegowda. Her rights in respect of suit schedule properties cannot be taken away just because she has filed a suit for maintenance and in the said maintenance suit, there was a compromise. Normally in suit for maintenance, due to urgency and also due to immediate needs, sometimes a destitute woman will accept that certain properties in order to see that her life runs smoothly. In the absence of showing that the properties are given to her as absolute property and she has no right over other properties and she cannot claim partition, etc., her right cannot be subsequently questioned by other family members. No where in the maintenance suit it has been stated that she has no right to claim any partition in future or she cannot claim any ownership right over the property. What the decree mandates is she can have possession of four properties to her lifetime and enjoy usufructs. Except this mandate, this Court cannot see any other mandate in respect of Ex.D.1 to D.3.” - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32523 RSA No. 480 of 2022 30. After so considering the case of the appellants and furnishing appropriate reasons, the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court was thus justified in upholding the order of the judgment of the Trial Court and rightly did not modify the sharing pattern. 31. Admittedly, the reasons assigned by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court in not applying the principles of law enunciated in Vineeta Sharma supra, to the case of the appellants is just and proper having regard to the fact that the present appellants could not be treated as co-parceners in terms of the amended provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, especially taking note of the fact that the date of death of Erapa being 24.09.2003. 32. Insofar as defendant No.3-Giddamma is concerned, Giddamma and her legal representatives were satisfied with the share that has been granted to them, as admittedly, the husband of the defendant No.3 namely Honnegowda being the brother of Erappa, could be treated as a separate co-parcener representing his branch of the co-parceners. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32523 RSA No. 480 of 2022 33. Therefore, viewed from any angle, this Court is of the considered opinion that the substantial questions of law raised in the present appeal do not merit for further consideration. 34. Hence, the following: ORDER Appeal is meritless and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46