- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53596-DB RFA No. 45 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 45 OF 2012 (PAR) BETWEEN: G.SATHYANARAYANA, S/O LATE.G.B.GANGADHAR, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.79, DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD, PRAKASH NAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 021. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. YASHWANTH NETHAJI N.T. ADVOCATE FOR SRI.K.V.NARASIMHAN. ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.G.PADMA, D/O LATE G.B.GANGAHAR, W/O SONY NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.187-C, 18TH MAIN, 1ST ‘N’ BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010. 2. SHRI.G.SHIVAKUMAR, S/O LATE G.B.GANGADHAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.79, DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD, PRAKASH NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 021. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H.GIRIDHAR. ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53596-DB RFA No. 45 of 2012 THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96, R/W O-41, RULE-1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.09.2008 PASSED IN O.S.NO.4121/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII-ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR THE PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal has been filed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 17.09.2008 passed in O.S.No.4121/2004 on the file of the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit seeking a decree of partition and separate possession of the plaintiff’s 1/4th respective share together with right, title and interest in the schedule property. Further, a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff’s lawful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property detailed and described in the schedule. Further, claim of mesne profits from the date of the suit till the date of realisation of the plaintiff’s 1/4th respective share was sought. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53596-DB RFA No. 45 of 2012 3. The suit schedule property was described as bearing No.79, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Prakashnagar, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. The case set up in the plaint was that the schedule property was a family property purchased by the father of the plaintiff under a registered sale deed date 15.01.1958 which was a vacant site. His father was working as a booking clerk in Geetha Talkies and was getting a very meager income and thereby it was not possible for him to erect any construction. His father died in the year 1967. At the time of his death the plaintiff and defendants No.2 and 3 were very young and were pursuing their studies. The plaintiff and the defendants were dependent upon one Smt. G. Saraswati, his eldest sister. His eldest sister was a film actress and had income to take care of the plaintiff and defendants. 4. The plaintiff, it is stated being the eldest male member of the family started supporting the entire family. He undertook a job in a furniture shop and made attempts to complete his secondary education. He got employment in M/s. Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Ltd., as a workman and out of the income the plaintiff invested for the purpose of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53596-DB RFA No. 45 of 2012 construction of ground floor and one unit in the first floor and also the education of defendants No.2 and 3. It was stated that out of his income he also performed marriage of his sister Smt. Padma and the marriage of the third defendant. Plaintiff was married in the year 1983. In view of the incompatibility in the family, the fist defendant who is mother of the plaintiff provided a separate premises for the plaintiff within the suit schedule property. Though the sale deed stands in the name of the first defendant, however, she had not made any investments and the property stood as a joint family property only. Defendant No.1 stated that she had exclusively declared that she had gifted the schedule property in favour of defendants No.2 and 3. She had intention to dispossess the plaintiff. Therefore, the suit was filed for partition. 5. A written statement was filed on behalf of defendants No.1, 2 and 3 whereby the allegations made by the plaintiff were denied. It was stated however that defendant No.1 was a stage artist and was earning her own income even before she got married and besides she had her own savings. Even after marriage she continued working as a stage artist - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53596-DB RFA No. 45 of 2012 and also supported the smooth running of the family affairs. The monthly salary on her late husband was admitted. However, the savings and additional income of defendant No.1 supported the family needs. It was stated that defendant No.1 had purchased the suit schedule property on 15.01.1958 for a sum of Rs.200/- out of her savings. On the date of purchase of suit schedule property it was a vacant site. As far as Smt. G. Saraswati is concerned, it was stated that the plaintiff had nowhere mentioned that who is she and how was she related to the family and what reason was there that prompted her to take care of the plaintiff and defendants. It was stated that Smt. G. Saraswati was the niece of defendant No.1 who did not have enough to take care of herself and therefore the question of responsibility of the plaintiff and the defendants is an imagination of the plaintiff which was baseless. The plaintiff had failed in his SSLC examinations many times and finally got through after making attempts for 5 years. The plaintiff was described as cruel, cunning and rude in his behaviour who had stolen gold chain, ear rings and other small jewellery belonging to defendant No.1 to meet his expenses. The plaintiff after his marriage stayed with his in-laws. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53596-DB RFA No. 45 of 2012 6. It was stated in the written statement that the defendant No.1 had obtained a loan of Rs.30,000/- from Veerashaiva Cooperative Bank, Akkipete, Bengaluru by mortgaging the suit schedule property in order to put up a construction on 21.11.1982. It took her 7 long years to pay the loan back to the bank. No due certificate was available. It was stated that earnest money deposit had been taken by defendant No.1 from the tenants in advance to put up construction of one house and 2 shops in the suit schedule property. On the date of construction, the plaintiff was neither in position to invest nor had any job. Participation of the plaintiff in the marriage of defendants No.2 and 3 was denied. The plaintiff was permitted to stay in the suit schedule property by defendant No.1 only because of compassion. Allegations were made that the plaintiff had manhandled his old and sick mother defendant No.1 many times and had even attempted to kill her by assaulting her by a sharp weapon on her head. For which a complaint was also registered with the jurisdictional police station. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53596-DB RFA No. 45 of 2012 7. Accordingly, the following relevant points were framed by the trial Court. 1) Whether plaintiff proves that the suit schedule property is the joint family property as pleaded? 2) Whether defendants prove that the 1st defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property? 3) Whether defendants prove that the 1st defendant constructed the building by borrowing loan and she discharged the loan and also temporary shed in occupation of the plaintiff? 4) Whether plaintiff is entitled to ¼ share in the suit property? 5) To what relief? 8. The defendant examined one witness in support of his case which was himself and got marked 9 documents and closed his side. The defendant No.1 examined herself and the defendant No.2 as witness and got marked 6 documents. 9. The case of the plaintiff was considered by the trial Court. The trial Court noted that under the Hindu Law female member of a Hindu family can acquire immovable property in her name and since she is not coparcener in the joint family, the property acquired by a Hindu female is of her own and other members of the family will have no right over that - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53596-DB RFA No. 45 of 2012 property. The sale deed dated 19.01.1958 which is Ex.P.1 was considered. The contention of the plaintiff was further noted that the first defendant without having any right was trying to gift the suit schedule property in favour of defendants No.2 and 3. The PW-1 stated in his cross –examination that he came to know about his father contributing money for purchase of the suit schedule property in the name of his mother through his relatives, but he did not know the name of the relative who told him so. The fact that the defendant No.1 had leased a portion of the suit schedule property on the ground floor and she was getting rent from the property was admitted. He stated that defendant No.1 had said that she would give a share in the suit schedule property to him. 10. The testimony of DW-1 who was the first defendant in the suit was also considered. Documents Exs.D.4 and D.5 which were the receipt and no objection certificate issued by Veerashaiva Cooperative Bank, were proved by her. The testimony of DW-1 was noted, where she said that she has put up construction on the suit schedule property by raising loan from Veerashaira Cooperative Bank and thereafter she - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53596-DB RFA No. 45 of 2012 discharged the loan and that the plaintiff or other defendants did not contribute any money for construction of building in the suit schedule property. DW-1 testified that she allowed first defendant to reside in the first floor of the building and he is residing there with her permission but the plaintiff has no right over the property. DW-2 was examined who in her affidavit evidence had reiterated the written statement submissions. She had stated that first defendant had gifted the suit schedule property to her and the third defendant. It was stated that the suit schedule property was the absolute property of the first defendant, who has put up construction on the property and the plaintiff has no right over the property. 11. Under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 19561, any property possessed by the female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act, 1956 shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. However, any such property acquisition made by way of gift or under a Will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of the Civil Court or under an award where the terms 1 Act, 1956 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53596-DB RFA No. 45 of 2012 of the gift, Will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribed a restricted estate in such property. Defendant No.1 falls in the category of Sub Section (1) of Section 14 of the Act, 1956 and hence we find that as far as the exposition of the law made by the trial Court in this regard is correct. It is admitted to the plaintiff in his cross-examination that he was aged 15 years at the time of death of his father. The plaintiff’s date of birth is 12.10.1954. Therefore, he was aged hardly about 4 years when the suit schedule property was purchased. The trial Court is right in recording its finding on the basis of the evidence that defendant No.1 was working as a stage artist and therefore she was having independent income of her own. The trial Court has rightly relied upon the oral evidence of defendant No.1 and found it to be a believable one in the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. Further credence can be accorded to the testimony of DW-1 in view of the fact that during cross-examination the plaintiff has specifically stated that his mother constructed a portion of the first floor of the building consisting of a room, hall, kitchen and bathroom in the year 1989 for her residence. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53596-DB RFA No. 45 of 2012 He further stated that he was giving Rs.100/- per month to his mother during the periods from 1984 to 1988; that in the year 1988 itself she had stated to him that the suit schedule property was her self-acquired property and he had no right over the property. In view of the aforesaid, it can be safely concluded that at no point of time, the property was treated as joint family property. We find that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case that the property was joint family property. In view of the aforesaid, we find no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE BVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10