- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9764 RFA No. 8 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 8 OF 2023 (PAR/DEC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. P.S. SHANKAR S/O P.G. SOMANNA AGED 37 YEARS R/AT NO. 19, 1ST B CROSS 4TH MAIN ROAD BRINDAVAN LAYOUT NEAR KUMARANS COLLEGE SUBRAMANYAPURA POST BENGALURU - 560 061. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. VEENA W/O LATE KESHAVA AGED 34 YEARS R/T NO. 54, 8TH MAIN ROAD 3RD BLOCK, NANDINI LAYOUT BENGALURU-560096. 2. SMT. MAYAMMA W/O LATE H.C. SHIVALINGAIAH AGED 75 YEARS R/AT NO. 91, 1ST CROSS VIVEKANANDANAGAR BENGALURU-560085. Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9764 RFA No. 8 of 2023 3. SMT. S. UMA D/O LATE H.C. SHIVALIGAIAH AGED 39 YEARS NO. 34, 19TH MAIN ROAD ARENAHALLI, AGS LAYOUT BENGALURU-560061. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMAIAH GOWDA .L.M, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUNDARESH .G, AND RAVI KIRAN .T ADVOCATES FOR C/R-1; V/O DATED 20.08.2025 NOTICE TO R-2 AND R-3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.09.2022 PASSED IN OS.NO.3194/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-16), DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND DECLARATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL JUDGMENT The captioned appeal is by defendant No.3 directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.09.2022 passed in O.S.No.3194/2013, whereby the plaintiff's suit seeking relief of partition is decreed granting 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9764 RFA No. 8 of 2023 2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. Family tree is as under: 4. Facts leading to the case are as under: The plaintiff, who is the daughter-in-law of original defendant No.1 and defendant No.1(a), instituted the present suit contending that the suit schedule property, namely a vacant site bearing No.34 formed in Sy.No.6/2, though standing in the name of original defendant No.1, was in fact acquired out of joint family nucleus and with substantial financial assistance rendered by her husband. It is specifically pleaded that at the relevant point of time, the plaintiff’s husband was engaged in business and SHIVALINGAIAH (69 YEARS) MAYAMMA (WIFE) SHOBHA SATISH KESHVA (DIED) UMHA (DIED) (DIED) VEENA (WIFE) (25 YEARS) (34 YEARS) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9764 RFA No. 8 of 2023 earning independently and had contributed towards the purchase consideration, registration charges and allied expenses. According to the plaintiff, a conscious decision was taken by the family members to acquire the property, and defendant No.1(a), being the General Power of Attorney holder of Smt. R. Bhagyamma, executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1. It is further alleged that defendant No.1, being the Kartha of the joint family, was managing the affairs of the family and holding the property for and on behalf of the coparcenary. The plaintiff asserts that after the demise of her husband, the relationship between the parties became strained and upon enquiry she came to know that defendant No.1 had alienated the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.3 without her consent and by suppressing her lawful share. On these pleadings, the plaintiff sought a decree for partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share and for a declaration that the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 is not binding on her share. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9764 RFA No. 8 of 2023 5. Upon service of summons, defendant Nos.1 and 2 entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement denying the plaint averments in toto. It was their specific defence that the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of defendant No.1 and that he had absolute dominion over the same. They contended that her husband had not contributed any portion of the sale consideration. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff and her husband, soon after marriage, were residing separately at her parental house and were leading an independent matrimonial life, thereby disputing the existence of any joint family nucleus or financial contribution by the plaintiff’s husband. Though defendant Nos.1 and 2 admitted that defendant No.1(a)–Mayamma, acting as GPA holder of Smt. Bhagyamma, executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1, they emphatically denied the allegation that the registration expenses or any other incidental charges were borne by the plaintiff’s - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9764 RFA No. 8 of 2023 husband. The plea of joint family character of the property was thus specifically disputed. 6. Both parties, in order to substantiate their respective claims, adduced oral and documentary evidence. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the materials placed on record, recorded a finding that the suit schedule property partook the character of joint family property and consequently held that the plaintiff, being the widow of the pre-deceased son, is entitled to 1/3rd share therein. Accordingly, a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession was passed in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and preliminary decree, defendant No.3, the purchaser under the impugned sale deed, has preferred the present appeal. 7. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for defendant No.3 and the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff. The pleadings, oral and documentary evidence on record, as well as the reasoning - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9764 RFA No. 8 of 2023 assigned by the Trial Court have been independently re- appreciated. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel on both sides have also been carefully considered. On such independent scrutiny, the following points arise for consideration: (i) Whether the finding of the Trial Court that the suit schedule property is a joint family property and that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share therein suffers from perversity or misappreciation of evidence and therefore calls for interference? (ii) Whether the Trial Court has failed to properly consider the rebuttal evidence adduced by defendant No.3, including the statement made by defendant No.1(a) in her chief-examination, and thereby erroneously granted 1/3rd share to the plaintiff, warranting interference? (iii) What order? Finding on Point Nos.(i) and (ii): 8. The plaintiff, being the widow of the pre- deceased son of defendant No.1, has instituted the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9764 RFA No. 8 of 2023 present suit in O.S.No.3194/2013 seeking partition and separate possession. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The crucial issue that falls for consideration is whether the sale deed obtained by defendant No.1 in the year 1991 in respect of the suit schedule property partakes the character of joint family property, thereby conferring upon the plaintiff, as the widow of a pre-deceased son, a right to claim her legitimate share therein. The determination of this question hinges upon the nature of acquisition and the existence or otherwise of a joint family nucleus at the relevant point of time. 9. On meticulous examination of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties, the foundational circumstance that merits close scrutiny is the manner in which the vacant site was acquired. The records disclose that defendant No.1(a)–Mayamma, wife of defendant No.1, obtained a General Power of Attorney dated 02.07.1991 from the erstwhile owner. It is not in - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9764 RFA No. 8 of 2023 dispute that the property in question was a revenue site and, owing to the prevailing restrictions on direct conveyance of such sites at the relevant time, transactions were commonly structured through execution of a General Power of Attorney. The material on record does not disclose any specific pleadings in the plaint asserting that defendant No.1(a) possessed an independent source of income or that she had acquired the property in her own right. 10. Significantly, the rebuttal evidence produced by defendant No.3, namely the voter identity card and driving licence of the plaintiff’s husband marked as Exs.D-1 and D-1(a), reveal that he was born in the year 1978. If the transaction in question took place in 1991, the plaintiff’s husband would have been approximately 13½ years of age at that point of time. This undisputed documentary evidence assumes considerable importance while evaluating the plaintiff’s plea that her husband had - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9764 RFA No. 8 of 2023 financially contributed towards the acquisition of the property in 1991. 11. It is further borne out from the records that the subsequent sale deed executed by defendant No.1(a) in favour of her husband, defendant No.1, was pursuant to the authority conferred under the earlier GPA. The recitals indicate that the consideration had already been paid at the time of execution of the GPA in 1991. There is no material placed before the Court to establish that any part of the consideration was sourced from the plaintiff’s husband. Ultimately, defendant No.1 alienated the property in favour of defendant No.3 under a registered sale deed dated 15.01.2013. 12. It is a settled principle of Hindu law, reiterated time and again by the Hon’ble Apex Court, that while there may be a presumption as to the existence of a joint family, there is no corresponding presumption that property standing in the name of a family member is joint family or - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9764 RFA No. 8 of 2023 ancestral property. The burden squarely lies upon the person asserting the joint family character to establish the existence of a joint family nucleus and that the property was acquired with the aid of such nucleus. In the present case, it is not the plaintiff’s contention that the family possessed any ancestral immovable properties generating income. The absence of pleadings and proof regarding existence of ancestral property or surplus income capable of forming a nucleus is fatal to the plea that the suit property is joint family property. 13. The plaintiff, who has admittedly suffered the loss of her husband at a young age, has made a feeble attempt to contend that her husband was driving an auto- rickshaw and earning sufficient income and that he had contributed towards the purchase consideration and registration expenses in the year 1991. However, apart from such bald and general assertions, there is absolutely no documentary evidence placed on record to substantiate the alleged contribution. No income proof, licence - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9764 RFA No. 8 of 2023 particulars relating to the alleged auto-rickshaw business during the relevant period, or any contemporaneous material has been produced. More importantly, having regard to the documentary evidence showing that the plaintiff’s husband was a minor aged about 13½ years in 1991, the plea of financial contribution towards acquisition of the property in that year appears inherently improbable and wholly unsupported by evidence. 14. At this juncture, it is also necessary to advert to the chief-examination of defendant No.1(a), the mother- in-law of the plaintiff, particularly paragraphs 7 to 9 thereof, wherein she has categorically deposed with regard to the manner in which the property was acquired and the source of funds. The said portion of the evidence assumes relevance while assessing whether the Trial Court has properly appreciated the nature of acquisition and the absence of joint family nucleus. The relevant extract reads as under: - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9764 RFA No. 8 of 2023 "7. I submit that, the Plaintiff married with my second son Mr.Keshava on 01.06.2012 and they were leading separate matrimonial life, they never tried to joint with me and my husband. We never constitute joint family with the Plaintiff and my second son late Mr.Keshava and there was no joint family property. Very interested fact that the plaintiff resided only two months after her marriage with my second son late Mr.Keshava, later she left him and residing in her parent's house. 8. I further submit that, my second son late Mr. Keshava barrowed huge hand loans from varies persons up to 10 lakhs and he quarrelled with the Auto Driver Mr.Deena on 21.08.2012 and the Auto driver poured petrol on my son and set fire to him, immediately me and my husband took my son to Victoria Hospital, but he not cured. For better treatment we shifted to Popular Hospital, Shankarapuram, Bangalore, after admission to the Hospital we not satisfied with treatment of the hospital, the Bill issued by Popular Hospital producing herewith and it may marked as Exbit-D3. Finally we admitted him in Pulse Multi Speciality Hospital, Girinagar. The medicine Drug lists and bills issued by Pulse Multi Speciality Hospital producing herewith and it may marked as Exbit-D4 to Exbit-D7. Although treated, it did not work, I lost my son on - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9764 RFA No. 8 of 2023 18.09.2012, the Death Certificate issued by Pulse Multi Speciality Hospital of my second son late Mr.Keshava it may marked as Exbit-D8. 9. I further submit that, to repay the amount borrowed from varies persons by my second son late Mr.Keshava and to pay the all hospitals bills and other expenses, my husband late Sri.H.C.Shivalingaiah sold his self-acquired property." 15. On a careful and holistic reading of the extracted portion of the chief-examination of DW.1 (defendant No.1(a)), it becomes evident that she has, in a spontaneous and voluntary manner, narrated the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the death of the plaintiff’s husband. She has deposed that disputes had arisen in relation to repayment of hand loans, which ultimately culminated in the tragic incident leading to his death. In paragraph 8 of her chief-examination, DW.1 has further stated that when the plaintiff’s husband sustained severe burn injuries, he was hospitalized and that it was - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9764 RFA No. 8 of 2023 defendant Nos.1 and 1(a), being his parents, who mobilized funds and bore the medical expenses. In paragraph 9, she has categorically stated on oath that the family had borrowed hand loans and that the mounting financial liabilities compelled defendant No.1 to alienate his self-acquired property. This testimony, which speaks to the financial condition of the family, assumes considerable significance while assessing the plea of joint acquisition. 16. Though the learned counsel for the plaintiff has subjected DW.1 to cross-examination, the core aspects of her testimony particularly the fact that the plaintiff’s husband sustained burn injuries, was hospitalized, and that the medical expenses were met by the parents have not been seriously challenged or discredited. There is no effective cross-examination to demolish her assertion that funds were raised by defendant Nos.1 and 1(a) to meet medical exigencies. The absence of a meaningful challenge to these material statements lends credence to the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9764 RFA No. 8 of 2023 defence version and reinforces the financial narrative projected by defendant Nos.1 and 1(a). 17. In the backdrop of these significant circumstances, it is necessary to advert to the settled principles of Hindu law governing the character of property. It is trite that while there is a presumption as to the existence of a Hindu joint family, there is no presumption that any and every property standing in the name of a member of the family is joint family property. Where admittedly the family did not possess any ancestral immovable property or income-yielding assets capable of constituting a joint family nucleus, the burden squarely rests upon the person asserting joint family character to establish, by cogent and satisfactory evidence, that the property was acquired with the aid of joint family funds or by contribution from coparceners. 18. In the present case, the evidence on record unmistakably indicates that the suit site was the first - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9764 RFA No. 8 of 2023 immovable property purchased by defendant No.1 in the year 1991. There is neither pleading nor proof that the family owned any ancestral properties generating surplus income. In such circumstances, the plaintiff, who asserts that her husband had contributed to the purchase consideration, registration charges, and subsequently towards construction of a residential house, was under a heavy evidentiary burden to substantiate such plea. Mere averments in the plaint that the pre-deceased son was earning as an auto driver and had financially assisted in acquisition do not ipso facto elevate the property to the status of joint family property. Bald assertions, unsupported by documentary or reliable oral evidence, cannot displace the legal presumption that property acquired in the name of an individual, in the absence of proof of nucleus, is his separate or self-acquired property. 19. Significantly, not a single document has been produced by the plaintiff to demonstrate that her husband had the financial capacity in 1991 to contribute towards - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9764 RFA No. 8 of 2023 the purchase, or that any portion of the consideration flowed from him. There is no material evidencing payment of registration expenses by him, nor any proof of contribution towards construction. In the absence of such tangible evidence, the plea of joint acquisition remains a mere assertion devoid of evidentiary foundation. 20. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has utterly failed to establish that the suit schedule property was jointly acquired by defendant No.1 and her husband. On the contrary, the defence set up by defendant No.1(a) and supported by defendant No.3 appears more probable and consistent with the documentary evidence on record. The undisputed fact relating to the financial distress of the family and the tragic death of the plaintiff’s husband, coupled with absence of proof of any joint family nucleus, clearly militates against the plaintiff’s claim. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9764 RFA No. 8 of 2023 21. The Trial Court, however, appears to have proceeded primarily on the admitted relationship between the parties and the status of the plaintiff as widow of a pre-deceased son, without rigorously examining whether the essential ingredients to establish joint family property were satisfied. The mere existence of relationship does not automatically confer a right in property unless the property is shown to be joint family or ancestral in character. By overlooking the settled principles governing burden of proof and by not scrutinizing the absence of tangible evidence of contribution, the Trial Court has fallen into error in granting 1/3rd share to the plaintiff. 22. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the Trial Court while answering Issue No.1 in the affirmative suffer from perversity and misapplication of settled principles of Hindu law relating to joint family property. The findings on Issue Nos.2 and 3, recorded in the negative, are equally unsustainable as they run contrary to the rebuttal evidence adduced by defendant No.3 and the - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9764 RFA No. 8 of 2023 uncontroverted testimony of DW.1. The conclusions drawn by the Trial Court are therefore liable to be reversed, as the judgment and preliminary decree are not sustainable in law or on facts. The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff do not advance her case in the absence of proof of nucleus or contribution. 23. In that view of the matter, Point Nos.(i) and (ii) formulated by this Court are answered in the Affirmative, warranting interference with the judgment and decree under appeal. Finding on Point No.(iii): 24. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed; - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9764 RFA No. 8 of 2023 (ii) The judgment decree dated 21.09.2022 rendered in O.S.No.3194/2013 on the file of the XVII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-16) is hereby set aside. Consequently, suit is dismissed; (iii) Draw decree accordingly. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14