- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7056 RFA No. 555 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 555 OF 2011 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. Y.M. LALITHA W/O SRI. S. NAGARAJAPPA AGED 47 YEARS R/AT NO.26/2, DOOKANAHALLI BANGALORE-560008. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. G.B. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 2. SMT. MUNIYELLAMMA W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA URF ABBAIAH SINCE DECEASED HER LRS ARE ALREADY ON RECORD SRI. M. CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS EX-PRESIDENT, TMC 3. SMT YESHODAMMA W/O SRI PULLAPPA DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF LATE MUNIYAPPA URF ABBAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 4. SRI. M. MUNIKRISHNA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7056 RFA No. 555 of 2011 4(A) SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O LATE MUNIKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 4(B) 4(C) ASHOKA KUMAR S/O LATE MUNIKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS MANOHAR S/O LATE MUNIKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.1 KAMAKSHAMMA LAYOUT NEAR BHARATH ENGLISH SCHOOL YELAHANKA TOWN BANGALORE-560 064. 5. SRI. M. RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 6. SRI. M. RAMANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 7. SRI. M. RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 8. SRI. M. PURUSHOTHAMA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 9. 9(A) 9(B) SRI. M. SHANKAR SINCE DEAD BY LRs SMT. VASANTHA W/O LATE SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS SRI. SUNIL KUMAR S/O LATE SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7056 RFA No. 555 of 2011 9(C) 9(D) SRI. MOHAN KUMAR S/O LATE SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS MS. SUNANDA D/O LATE SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT III CROSS KAMAKSHAMMA LAYOUT YELAHANKA BANGALORE-560 064. (2) AND (4) TO (9) ARE S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA URF ABBAIAH ALL ARE R/AT NO.1 KAMAKSHAMMA LAYOUT NEAR BHARATH ENGLISH SCHOOL YELAHANKA TOWN, BANGALORE-560064. …RESPONDENTS (BY R1- DEAD AS PER CAUSE TITLE; R2, R3, R4(A), R4(B), R4(C), R5, R6, R7, R8, R9(A), R(9(B), R9(C) AND R9(D) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.01.2002 PASSED IN O.S.10724/1992 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVIII-ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BANGALORE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR THE DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7056 RFA No. 555 of 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT The captioned appeal is by the plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree rendered by the trial Court, wherein trial Court has rejected the relief of declaration sought by the plaintiff, thereby decreeing the suit in part. 2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. The family tree is as under: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7056 RFA No. 555 of 2011 4. Facts leading to the case are as under: The plaintiff, who is the sister of the defendants, instituted the present suit seeking declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The foundation of the plaintiff’s claim rests on a family partition stated to have been effected on 12.12.1983, under which the suit schedule property measuring 3 acres was allotted to her exclusive share. In the plaint, the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that though a partition was effected on 12.12.1983, the same was neither fair nor equitable and that she was allotted a lesser extent than what she was legitimately entitled to under law. It is further pleaded that with a view to secure her lawful and equitable share, the plaintiff caused issuance of legal notices to all her brothers, which are marked as Exs.P-3 and P-4, calling upon them to reopen the partition and effect a just and proper division. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7056 RFA No. 555 of 2011 5. Despite service of the said notices, none of the defendants, except defendant No.4, chose to issue any reply. Defendant No.4 alone issued a reply notice, which is marked as Ex.P-5, wherein he categorically asserted that the partition dated 12.12.1983 was acted upon, accepted, and acknowledged by all the family members, and that there was a complete severance of status in the joint family, leaving no scope for reopening or seeking a fresh partition. 6. The plaintiff contends that in view of the stand taken by defendant No.4 in Ex.P-5, denying her claim for reopening the partition, she was constrained to institute the present suit seeking declaration of her title to the suit schedule property on the basis of allotment made under the family partition dated 12.12.1983 and for consequential relief of permanent injunction to protect her possession. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7056 RFA No. 555 of 2011 7. Upon service of summons, defendant No.2 entered appearance and filed a written statement disputing the alleged family partition dated 12.12.1983. Defendant Nos.5 and 6, however, filed a separate written statement wherein they unequivocally admitted the partition dated 12.12.1983 and further acknowledged that under the said family arrangement, the suit schedule property measuring 3 acres was allotted to the exclusive share of the plaintiff. Thus, two of the brothers of the plaintiff, namely M. Rajanna and M. Ramanjanappa, have expressly admitted the plaintiff’s title and allotment in terms of the family partition of the year 1983. 8. The legal representatives of defendant No.4 filed their written statement disputing the very existence and validity of the family partition. Though defendant No.4, during his lifetime, had in his reply notice at Ex.P-5 acknowledged the partition effected in the year 1983, his legal heirs have taken a diametrically opposite stand by disputing the partition itself and by contending that the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7056 RFA No. 555 of 2011 plaintiff has no right, title, or interest in the suit schedule property. 9. Defendant Nos.7, 8, and 9, who are also brothers of the plaintiff, did not choose to contest the suit and were placed ex parte. 10. In support of her claim, the plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-6. One of the legal representatives of defendant No.4 was examined as DW.1. No documents were produced or marked on behalf of the defendants. The Trial Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, more particularly the document styled as a partition deed marked as Ex.P-1, recorded a finding that though the plaintiff was in exclusive possession of 3 acres of land, she had failed to establish the family partition said to have been effected on 12.12.1983. The Trial Court declined to place reliance on Ex.P-1 on the ground that it was an unregistered partition deed and, therefore, inadmissible in evidence. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7056 RFA No. 555 of 2011 11. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant–plaintiff. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence on record, the following points arise for consideration: i) Whether the Trial Court was justified in holding that the plaintiff failed to prove the family partition dated 12.12.1983, ignoring the categorical admission of partition made by defendant No.4 in the reply notice marked as Ex.P-5 and the unequivocal admissions made by defendant Nos.5 and 6 in their written statement? ii) Whether the Trial Court, having recorded a clear finding that the plaintiff was in exclusive possession of the suit schedule property, erred in law in refusing to grant the relief of declaration and whether such finding and conclusion suffer from perversity and are contrary to the material evidence on record? iii) What order? - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7056 RFA No. 555 of 2011 Finding on Point Nos.i and ii: 12. Before this Court proceeds to advert to and appreciate the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, it would be apposite and of considerable significance to first examine the two legal notices caused to be issued by the plaintiff and the reply notice issued by defendant No.4. These notices assume relevance, not merely as antecedent correspondence, but as contemporaneous documents throwing substantial light on the conduct of the parties, the existence of the family partition, and the severance of status pleaded by the defendants themselves. 13. It is relevant to note that the plaintiff issued legal notices calling upon all her brothers to reopen the partition and to allot her a just and equitable share. Admittedly, the said notices were duly served on all the defendants. However, except defendant No.4, none of the defendants chose to issue any reply. The silence - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7056 RFA No. 555 of 2011 maintained by the remaining defendants, despite receipt of the legal notices, assumes evidentiary significance, particularly in the backdrop of the specific assertions made therein regarding the partition dated 12.12.1983 and the allotment of 3 acres of land to the plaintiff. 14. Defendant No.4 alone, who is one of the brothers of the plaintiff, issued a reply notice. The reply, far from disputing the partition, proceeds on a categorical assertion that the family partition effected on 12.12.1983 was acted upon and accepted by all the members of the family and that there was a complete severance of status. The stand taken by defendant No.4 in the reply notice thus constitutes a clear admission of the factum of partition and the division of properties under the said family arrangement. 15. In this background, the legal notice dated 24.06.1992 issued by the plaintiff, which is marked as Ex.P-3, assumes critical importance. The relevant portion - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7056 RFA No. 555 of 2011 of the said notice, wherein the plaintiff has asserted the factum of partition, the allotment of the suit schedule property to her share, and her grievance regarding the inequitable nature of the allotment, is extracted hereunder: "2. My client states that the deceased Muniappa Urup Abbaiah acquired several immovable properties mentioned in the unregistered partition dt. 12-12-93. During the life time of Muniappa Urup Abbaiah the said property was not demarcated/partitioned among the children and he died intestate. After his death all of you joined together and settled the matter amicably in order to deceive the equal portion of property of my client and executed a un-registered and incompleted documents giving a invalid small portion of 3 acres in Sy.No.14 at Yelahanka Hobli, Kogilu Village, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore. 3. My client states that she has accepted the said small portion without any other alternative by force and co-ersion. My client is not happy about her share, because her share compared to the share of you people is less and invalid. My client in order to maintain cordiality and good relationship signed the said deed of partition but the said partition deed is not properly executed to transfer the title of the property in the name of my client, you people refused to sign the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7056 RFA No. 555 of 2011 necessary revenue record and applications. Now this is a hard nut to crack to the part of my client to the possession of property. 4. My client states that all of you joined together and trying to denie the legal claim of my client over her father's self acquired property. Now my client intended to file a suit against all of you to make partition the entire property of the father of my client both movable and immovable irrespective of building and land claiming her 1/10th share." 16. Though plaintiff issued a subsequent legal notice on 22.08.1992, it is a reiteration of first legal notice. The reply notice issued by the defendant No.4 assumes greater importance and lends credence to plaintiff's claim and the factual status regarding enjoyment and possession of the properties by plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 9. The relevant portion of reply notice dated 02.09.1992 issued by defendant No.4 is extracted as under: "1. The contents in para 1 of your notice dated 24-6-92 are true. The contents of the para 2 of the notice are true to the extent that after the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7056 RFA No. 555 of 2011 demise of your client's father, your client as well as my client and the other family members entered into an amicable partition wherein 3 acres of land in Sy. No. 14 situated at Kogilu village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, was given as the share of your client. At the time of the execution of the said documents your client has received the same willingly, unfettered and without any force or coercion of any kind exercised on her by anybody since then your client has been put in to possession of her portion of property and she has been enjoying the proceeds of the same. by cutting 3 crops of Euclyptus trees. Hence, the contents of para 3 of the said notice are totally false. 2. It is also denied that your client is entitled to 1/10 share as claimed in para 4 of your notice or that my client has refused to come forward to sign the necessary documents to transfer the said Khatha in her individual name. As a matter of fact, my client has signed the said documents 5 years ago. As such, all the claims against my client are illegal and baseless. 3. Your client appears to be in the habit of giving you instructions to issue false and frivolous notices and taking contradictory stands when she finds that her avarice is not satisfied. Your 2nd notice dated 22-8-92 issued on her subsequent instructions - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7056 RFA No. 555 of 2011 alleging that the compensation received on the acquisition of lands in Sy.No.48 of Yelahanka by K.H.B, has been shared by my client and the other family members without giving your client anything out of the said sum. 4. As a matter of fact your client received her share out of the compensation amount and also 3 acres in Sy.No.14 situated at Kogilu village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North. The contentions in para 3 of your notice dated 22-8-92 that your client had received a smaller share is also denied as false. In the same partition which was effected by your client my client and the other family members my client has been given the following properties. Sy. No. 13- 2 acres 8 guntas, Sy. No. 3/6, 26 guntas, Sy. No. 215/3 2 acres and 10 guntas. and he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. 5. The contentions of both your notices clearly indicate that your client has tried to improve upon her statement by contradicting the statement of seeking possession stating that of being in possession of her share and attributing the same due to oversight and confusion. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7056 RFA No. 555 of 2011 6. From the above mentioned facts and circumstances it is crystal clear that your client has accepted her share by virtue of the partition dated 12-12-83 and hence, she is restrained from claiming 1/10 share of the said property. Apart from that since my client had already signed all the necessary papers and documents enabling her to transfer the khatha of the same in her name about 5 years ago, the question of my client being called upon to do so does not arise. I request you to use your good offices in advising your client to desist from filing false or frivolous cases against my client pertaining to the said property. However, should your client persist in doing so my client will be entitled to 1/8 share out of the entire property at her own risks and costs including the cost of this reply notice Rs.500/- only." (Emphasis supplied) 17. The next crucial admission which needs to be gathered from the written statement filed by defendant No.2 would clinch the entire controversy in regard to whether plaintiff and defendants' family continued to stay joint or there is already disruption post partition under unregistered partition deed evidenced at Ex.P-1. Para 4 of - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7056 RFA No. 555 of 2011 the written statement clinches the entire controversy. The conduct of defendant No.2 regarding status of the property is also found to be grossly unfair. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to extract para 4 which reads as under: "4. This Defendant states that it is true that the plaintiff and defendants constituted Hindu Joint Family. The properties shown there are divided except the Sy.No.14 of Kogilu Village, Yelahanka Hobli." 18. On reading para 4, defendant No.2 unfortunately though admits 1983 partition regarding other properties, however, asserts that suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.14 continued to remain joint and in the subsequent paragraphs of the written statement, defendant No.2 is asserting that he is in possession of the suit schedule property and further places reliance on the record of rights in support of his contention. At the later part i.e., para 5 of the written statement, defendant No.2 - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7056 RFA No. 555 of 2011 asserts that he has looked after and has performed the marriage of plaintiff and has incurred huge expenses. 19. Though the plaintiff has not produced documentary evidence apart from the unregistered partition deed dated 12.12.1983 marked as Ex.P-1, on a holistic re-appreciation of the entire material on record, the reply notice issued by original defendant No.4, who is the brother of the plaintiff and the only defendant who chose to respond to the plaintiff’s legal notices, assumes considerable significance and is crucial for determining whether the family partition dated 12.12.1983 was in fact effected and acted upon by the parties. 20. A careful reading of paragraph No.1 of the reply notice dated 02.09.1992 issued by defendant No.4 reveals a clear, categorical, and unequivocal admission that the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.14 measuring 3 acres was allotted to the share of the plaintiff in the family partition. Defendant No.4 has further acknowledged that - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7056 RFA No. 555 of 2011 the plaintiff voluntarily accepted the said extent of 3 acres and that no force or coercion was exercised by any of the brothers. He has also expressly stated that possession of the said property was delivered to the plaintiff and that she has been enjoying the suit schedule property exclusively. The reply notice further narrates that the plaintiff had enjoyed the proceeds of the land by cutting and selling three crops of eucalyptus trees. Thus, defendant No.4 has, in unambiguous terms, admitted not only the factum of partition but also the allotment of 3 acres in Sy.No.14 to the plaintiff and delivery of possession pursuant thereto. While disputing the grievance of the plaintiff that she was allotted a lesser share, defendant No.4 has nevertheless affirmed the partition and the allotment made there under. 21. It is of relevance to note that during the course of trial, the legal heirs of defendant No.4 have taken a stand diametrically opposite to the admission made by their father in the reply notice. Equally significant is the - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7056 RFA No. 555 of 2011 fact that defendant Nos.5 and 6, who are also brothers of the plaintiff, have filed written statements unequivocally admitting the family partition dated 12.12.1983 and acknowledging the allotment of 3 acres in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, three brothers have expressly admitted the partition. Defendants Nos.7, 8, and 9, though parties to the suit, neither supported nor denied the partition and chose not to contest the proceedings, whereas only defendant No.2 has filed a brief written statement disputing the partition. 22. On deeper scrutiny of the record, though the partition deed dated 12.12.1983 marked as Ex.P-1 is unregistered, the admissions contained in the reply notice issued by defendant No.4 and the written statements filed by defendants Nos.5 and 6 decisively tilt the balance in favour of the plaintiff. It is also not in dispute that in the legal notices issued by the plaintiff herself, she has acknowledged the existence of a partition, albeit asserting that a lesser share was allotted to her. To the said notices, - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7056 RFA No. 555 of 2011 defendant No.4 responded by admitting the partition and the allotment of 3 acres in Sy.No.14 to the plaintiff. In such circumstances, defendant No.2 and the legal heirs of defendant No.4 cannot seek to non-suit the plaintiff solely on the ground that the partition deed is unregistered. 23. The record further discloses that the plaintiff has been litigating since the year 1992, whereas defendant No.2 and the legal heirs of defendant No.4, while continuing to enjoy larger and excess shares pursuant to the very same family arrangement dated 12.12.1983, have chosen to dispute even the lesser share allotted to the plaintiff. If, in fact, there was no partition, nothing prevented the contesting defendants from offering to allot the plaintiff her legitimate share during the pendency of the suit or the appeal. On the contrary, the conduct of the defendants demonstrates an attempt to approbate and reprobate, accepting the partition insofar as it benefits them while disputing it only to defeat the plaintiff’s claim. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7056 RFA No. 555 of 2011 24. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court has misread and misappreciated the evidence on record. Even if Ex.P-1 is eschewed from consideration on account of non-registration, the consistent and categorical admissions made by defendant Nos.5 and 6 in their written statement, coupled with the unequivocal admission contained in the reply notice issued by defendant No.4, sufficiently establish that a family partition was effected on 12.12.1983 and that the suit schedule property measuring 3 acres in Sy.No.14 was allotted to the plaintiff and acted upon. Accordingly, the plaintiff has succeeded in proving the family partition, and the findings recorded by the Trial Court to the contrary cannot be sustained. 25. On a closer examination of the stand taken by the defendant No.2, this Court is of the considered view that the written statement lacks substance and appears to have been filed merely as a formal denial, without any supporting particulars or consistent pleadings. The defence - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7056 RFA No. 555 of 2011 set up by defendant No.2 neither dislodges the admissions on record nor raises any credible challenge to the case of the plaintiff. Such a vague and evasive stand cannot form the basis to deny the relief of partition to the plaintiff. 26. Likewise, the stand taken by the legal heirs of defendant No.4 does not inspire confidence. Their pleadings are in direct conflict with the unequivocal admission made by their father, defendant No.4, in the reply notice, wherein he had categorically acknowledged the family partition and the allotment of 3 acres in Sy.No.14 to the plaintiff. The attempt by the legal heirs to resile from a clear and binding admission made by their predecessor-in-interest appears to be a calculated effort to defeat the legitimate claim of the plaintiff rather than a bona fide dispute based on facts or law. 27. The manner in which the suit has been contested also assumes significance. Though the family consists of seven brothers and one sister, the material on - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7056 RFA No. 555 of 2011 record reveals that the plaintiff was allotted only a meager share, and even that allotment is sought to be disputed after the institution of the suit. Significantly, the defendants have not placed on record any particulars regarding the total extent of joint family properties, the manner of enjoyment, the alienations, if any, effected by them, or the income and sale proceeds derived from other joint family lands. While suppressing material details relating to the corpus and income of the joint family properties, the contesting defendants have made a feeble attempt to deny the plaintiff’s title even in respect of the limited extent admittedly allotted to her. 28. It is also relevant to note that the plaintiff, prior to instituting the suit, caused issuance of legal notices to all her brothers calling upon them to redress her grievance. Except defendant No.4, none of the brothers chose to reply to the said notices or take a clear stand disputing the partition. Had all the defendants consistently asserted that no partition had taken place, the plaintiff - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7056 RFA No. 555 of 2011 would have been in a position to seek appropriate relief by bringing all joint family properties into a common hotchpotch and claiming her lawful share therein. Instead, by their silence and inaction, followed by selective denial after institution of the suit, the defendants have attempted to resile from the admission made by defendant No.4 in his reply notice. 29. These aspects clearly demonstrate that the defence is neither consistent nor bona fide. The conduct of the defendants, viewed in its entirety, indicates an attempt to approbate and reprobate, accepting the benefits of the family arrangement while disputing it only to the extent it enures to the benefit of the plaintiff. In the context of disputes arising within a joint Hindu family, this Court cannot be oblivious to the realities of unequal bargaining power, particularly when a female member asserts her right to property. - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7056 RFA No. 555 of 2011 Conclusions and Reasons: 30. On an overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, oral evidence, and documentary material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court cannot be sustained either in law or on facts and warrant interference in appeal. 31. The Trial Court has proceeded on a narrow and hyper-technical approach by discarding the case of the plaintiff solely on the ground that the partition deed dated 12.12.1983 marked as Ex.P-1 is an unregistered document. While the trial Court was justified in holding that an unregistered partition deed cannot be received in evidence to effectuate partition by metes and bounds, it committed a manifest error in refusing to consider the overwhelming admissions on record, which independently and conclusively establish the factum of partition and its implementation. - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7056 RFA No. 555 of 2011 32. The reply notice dated 02.09.1992 issued by original defendant No.4 constitutes a clear, categorical, and unequivocal admission of the family partition dated 12.12.1983, the allotment of 3 acres in Sy.No.14 to the plaintiff, delivery of possession, and exclusive enjoyment by her. This admission is neither explained away nor rebutted in a manner known to law. The legal heirs of defendant No.4, being successors-in-interest, cannot be permitted to take a stand contrary to the binding admission made by their predecessor, particularly when such admission has been acted upon for decades. 33. Equally significant is the fact that defendant Nos.5 and 6, who are also brothers of the plaintiff, have unequivocally admitted the family partition and the allotment made in favour of the plaintiff in their written statements. These admissions, read conjointly with the reply notice issued by defendant No.4, are sufficient to establish that the partition was not only effected but also acted upon. The silence of defendants Nos.7, 8, and 9, - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7056 RFA No. 555 of 2011 who chose not to contest the proceedings, further strengthens the plaintiff’s case and warrants drawing an adverse inference against them. 34. The defence set up by defendant No.2 and the legal heirs of defendant No.4 is found to be vague, evasive, and inconsistent. No material particulars regarding the alleged absence of partition, the extent of joint family properties, or the income derived therefrom have been furnished. The contesting defendants, while enjoying larger and excess shares pursuant to the very same family arrangement, have sought to deny even the limited share admittedly allotted to the plaintiff. Such conduct clearly amounts to approbation and reprobation and disentitles them from equitable relief. 35. The Trial Court has also failed to appreciate that the plaintiff herself has consistently acknowledged the existence of the partition, though asserting that a lesser share was allotted to her. Had the defendants taken a - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7056 RFA No. 555 of 2011 consistent stand disputing the partition at the earliest point of time, the plaintiff could have sought comprehensive relief by bringing all joint family properties into a common hotchpotch. Instead, the defendants, by their silence to the legal notices and selective denial after institution of the suit, have attempted to take undue advantage of technicalities. 36. In matters arising out of family partitions, particularly where rights of a female member are in issue, Courts are expected to adopt a purposive and justice- oriented approach rather than one that defeats substantive rights on technical grounds. The Trial Court, in the present case, has misread the evidence, ignored binding admissions, and failed to draw permissible inferences from the conduct of the parties. The findings recorded are, therefore, perverse and suffer from non- consideration of material evidence. - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7056 RFA No. 555 of 2011 37. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court holds that the plaintiff has successfully established the family partition dated 12.12.1983 and the allotment of the suit schedule property measuring 3 acres in Sy.No.14 to her share. The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court dismissing the suit are unsustainable and liable to be set aside. The Trial Court, in the opinion of this Court, has failed to take into consideration these crucial circumstances, including the conduct of the defendants, the absence of consistent denial prior to the suit, and the suppression of material particulars relating to joint family properties. These omissions have materially affected the findings recorded by the Trial Court. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid significant aspects could not have been ignored and warrant interference in appeal. Accordingly, point No.(i) is answered in the negative and point No.(ii) is answered in the affirmative. - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7056 RFA No. 555 of 2011 Finding on Point No.iii: 38. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed; (ii) The judgment and decree dated 30.01.2002 passed by the XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru in O.S.No.10724/1992 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed; (iii) It is hereby declared that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.14 measuring 3 acres, which was allotted to her share in the family partition dated 12.12.1983. (iv) The defendants, their agents, representatives, and anyone claiming through or under them are hereby permanently restrained from interfering with the plaintiff’s - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7056 RFA No. 555 of 2011 peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property; (v) Draw decree accordingly. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13