- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35994 RSA No. 760 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 760 OF 2013 (DEC) BETWEEN: 1a SRI V.A. GOPALAKRISHNA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS SMT. V.G. USHA D/O V.A. GOPALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 55 YARS RESIDENT OF NO.4401 SUBHASH NAGAR APMC YARD, ARASIDKERE - 573 103. 1b SRI SETHUMADHAVA V.G S/O V.A. GOPALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 55 YARS RESIDENT OF NO.4401 SUBHASH NAGAR APMC YARD, ARASIDKERE - 573 103. 1c SRI PURUSHOTHAMA V.G S/O V.A. GOPALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 55 YARS RESIDENT OF NO.4401 SUBHASH NAGAR APMC YARD, ARASIDKERE - 573 103. 1d SMT. VANI V.G D/O V.A. GOPALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 55 YARS RESIDENT OF NO.4401 SUBHASH NAGAR APMC YARD, ARASIDKERE - 573 103. …APPELLANTS Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35994 RSA No. 760 of 2013 (BY SRI N. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, ADV.) AND: 1. SRI RUDRAIAH S/O LATE ERAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/O VOLAGEREHALLI VILLAGE DUDDA HOBLI, DUDDA PO HASSAN TALUK & DIST - 573 118. 2. SRI KRISHNAIAH S/O LATE ERAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O VOLAGEREHALLI VILLAGE DUDDA HOBLI, DUDDA PO HASSAN TALUK & DIST - 573 118. 3. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O PUTTASWAMY D/O LATE PUTTASWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS H.NO.790, KUVEMPUNAGAR HASSAN, HASSAN TALUK HASSAN DIST. 573 201. 4. SRI DEEPU S/O LATE HONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS MIG - 42, KUVEMPUNAGAR HASSAN, HASSAN TALUK HASSAN DIST - 573 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K. SHRIHARI, ADV., FOR R-1 TO R-4) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 19.1.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.151/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 22.9.2007 PASSED IN OS.NO.256/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., II COURT, HASSAN. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35994 RSA No. 760 of 2013 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is arising from a concurrent finding in a suit for declaration, partition and separation of possession. The suit is decreed granting half share to the plaintiffs. The defendants filed appeal before First Appellate Court and appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Hence, the present second appeal is filed. 2. Certain admitted facts are as under: 2.1 The plaintiffs claim that they jointly inherited two properties at Valagerahally and Anehally in Hassan Taluk, measuring 4 acres 11 guntas and 4 acres 37 guntas respectively. The properties at Valagerahally and Anehally village were divided between the plaintiffs and first defendant orally and based on the oral partition, there was a mutation vide M.R.No.10/1996-97. The property at Anehally measuring 4 acres 37 guntas was also a subject matter of the oral agreement between plaintiffs and defendants and they had - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35994 RSA No. 760 of 2013 agreed to sell the property and to apportion the sale consideration amount equally. 2.2 First defendant disputed the claim of the plaintiffs. Hence, the property bearing survey No.24/1, bearing 4 acres 37 guntas in Anehally Village is the subject matter of the present suit. The relationship of the parties is not in dispute. 3. The defendants contend that the suit property is self acquired property of defendants as it is allotted to their share. In addition urged that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the share as they have converted to Christianity. 4. The trial Court framed issues relating to the nature of the property and also the defence of the previous partition pleaded by the defendants. The Court came to the conclusion that the suit property is joint family property and the plea of the previous partition raised by the defendants is not established. 5. First Appellate Court also framed points for consideration in the appeal filed by the defendant No.1 and while answering the points for consideration relating to the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35994 RSA No. 760 of 2013 nature of the property it has come to the conclusion that the suit property is the ancestral property. First Appellate Court also referred to the contention of the defendants that the plaintiffs are not entitled to share because of conversion to Christianity and has come to the conclusion that there is no such bar to claim partition in case of conversion from the Hinduism to Christianity. 6. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the defendants No.1 is before this Court. Defendant No.1/appellant died during the pendency of the appeal and legal representatives of deceased defendant No.1 are brought on record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the previous partition is very much established and the very fact that the partition in respect of one more property is evidenced in mutation entry would also lead to the conclusion that this property was also partitioned and the property is allotted to the share of the defendants. It is further submitted that the defendants have demonstrated that the plaintiffs have - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35994 RSA No. 760 of 2013 converted to Christianity. As such, they are not entitled to succeed to the property. 8. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 9. The records would indicate that the suit property was the joint family property at one point. The defendants contended that there was already a partition and this property was allotted to the share of the defendants. This plea is not established as there is no documentary evidence to come to the conclusion that the suit property is allotted to the share of the defendants. Both Courts have concurrently held that the suit property is the ancestral property and there is no difficulty in accepting the said findings, as even the defendants raised a defence that there was a partition in the family and in the family partition the suit property is allotted to their share. 10. The burden is on the defendants to establish the partition. The defendants have not produced any materials to accept the plea of partition. Thus, this Court does not find any - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35994 RSA No. 760 of 2013 merit in the contention of the defendants that the suit property is allotted to their share. 11. As far as the contention relating to the bar under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short, the 'Act, 1956') to claim partition under the Act is concerned, learned counsel would refer to Section 26 of Act, 1956. The said provisions reads as under: “26. Convert’s descendants disqualified - Where, before or after the commencement of this Act, a Hindu has ceased or ceases to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion, children born to him or her after such conversion and their descendants shall be disqualified from inheriting the property of any of their Hindu relatives, unless such children or descendants are Hindus at the time when the succession opens.” 12. From the said provision it is apparent that, in case a person has converted to another religion, then the children born to him or her after such conversion and their descendants shall be disqualified from inheriting the property of any of their relatives unless such children or descendants are Hindus at the time when the succession opens. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35994 RSA No. 760 of 2013 13. It is not the case of the defendants that the plaintiffs' father converted to Christianity before his death. It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiffs have converted to Christianity. Thus, the bar under Section 26 of the Act does not apply. 14. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal. No substantial question of law would arise for consideration. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE NMS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1 ...