- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1965 RSA No. 200072 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 200072 OF 2018 (PAR) BETWEEN: HANAMANTRAYA ADOPTED S/O AYYAPPA METI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: JANGAMURAL VILALGE, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL, DIST: VIJAYAPURA. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SRINIVAS.B.JOSHI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O ADIVEPPA BIRADAR, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: ALOOR VILLAGE, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL, DISTRICT: VIJAYAPUR. 2. SMT. GURUSIDDAWWA W/O GIRIMALLAPPA ANGADI, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: JANGAMURAL, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL, DIST: VIJAYAPURA. Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1965 RSA No. 200072 of 2018 3. PRAKASH S/O GIRIMALLAPPA ANGADI AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: JANGAMURAL, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL, DIST: VIJAYAPURA. 4. 4a. SMT. CHANNAWWA @ CHANDAWWA ANGADI, (SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS) SMT. KAVITA W/O SHRISHAIL HADALAGERI, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O: C/O: SHRISHAIL H.M. ANJANEYA COLONY, NITAWANI, DIST: DAVANAGERE. 5. SANGAPPA S/O BASAPPA ANGADI AGE: 30 YEARS, R/O: ANJANEYA COLONY, NITAWANI, DIST: DAVANGERE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RATNA N.SHIVAYOGIMATH,ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; V/O DATED 08.02.2023, NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; R4(A) SERVED; V/O DATED 26.11.2024 NOTICE TO R5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VIJAYAPURA, IN R.A.NO.47/2015 DATED 24.11.2017 WHEREBY REVERSING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MUDDEBIHAL, IN O.S.NO.167/2011 DATED 28.02.2015 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1965 RSA No. 200072 of 2018 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) 1. This appeal is arising out a divergent finding in a suit for partition. The said suit is dismissed. Against the same, the plaintiff filed regular appeal. The said appeal is allowed and the decree for partition is granted. The genealogy is as under: Ayyappa (dead) Smt. Mahantawwa Hanamantraya Smt. Laxmibai Gurusiddawwa (Adopted son) w/o. Adiveppa Biradar 2. The propositus was Ayyappa. His wife is Smt. Mahantawwa. The couple had two daughters namely Smt. Laxmibai and Smt. Gurusiddawwa. Since they had no male - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1965 RSA No. 200072 of 2018 issues, they adopted Hanamantraya. The suit is filed by Smt. Laxmibai, after the demise of Ayyappa who died in the year 1984 and also the demise of Smt. Mahantawwa. The date of death of Smt. Mahantawwa is not disclosed. 3. Smt. Laxmibai claimed 1/3rd share alleging that, her sister Smt. Gurusiddawwa has 1/3rd share and their brother Hanamantraya (adopted) is having 1/3rd share. 4. The suit is dismissed on the premise that during the life time of propositus Ayyappa i.e. the father of plaintiff and defendants, there was a mutation wherein the name of Hanumantaraya the adopted son is entered in the property records. The trial Court has held that, the suit is time barred. 5. On an appeal by the first appellate Court the appellate Court concluded that, the mutation effected in the year 1984 during the life time of the father does not create any right in favour of the adopted son as the document is not registered. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and decree, defendant No.1 is in appeal. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1965 RSA No. 200072 of 2018 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that, the suit is time barred and is rightly dismissed by the trial Court, however, the appellate Court erred in allowing the appeal and decreeing the suit. He would contend that, the rights in the properties were relinquished by the father when he was alive and mutation was certified in the name of first defendant. 7. The appellate Court did not accept the plea on the premise that the relinquishment is not registered. No fault can be found with the said finding. Admittedly, there is no registered relinquishment deed. It is also noticed that, defendant No.1 has not taken a plea of ouster in the written statement and there is no issue to this effect also. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant to substantiate his contention relies on the Judgment of this Court in RFA No.1368/2006. This Court has considered the said Judgment and it is noticed that, the said Judgment is rendered in an entirely different factual background where one of the parties is a fostered son. In the instant case, defendant No.1 is not a fostered son, but he is an adopted son. If defendant No.1 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1965 RSA No. 200072 of 2018 contends that, he is a fostered son, then he will not have any share. Hence, the Judgment relied by the learned counsel for the appellant does not apply to the case on hand. 9. Under these circumstances, the trial Court is not justified in dismissing the suit on the premise that, the suit is time barred. As far as the finding of the first appellate Court that, there is no relinquishment in the eye of law for want of registration of alleged relinquishment in favour of the defendant No.1 is in accordance with law. 10. Hence, no substantial question of law would arise in this appeal. 11. It is noticed that the trial Court has granted 8/36th share on the premise that the father died in the year 1984 and the daughter is not entitled to the benefit of amended Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Since the law declared by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and others, reported in (2020) 10 SCR 135 comes to the aid of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled for 1/3rd share. Hence, the following: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1965 RSA No. 200072 of 2018 ORDER The appeal is dismissed, however, the share of the plaintiff is holding that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share. Defendant No.1 is entitled to 1/3rd share and defendant No.2 is entitled to 1/3rd share. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE SVH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33