- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27710 RSA No. 809 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 809 OF 2014 (PAR) BETWEEN: SIDDAGANGAIAH S/O. LATE VEERABHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDENT OF CHIKKAHALLI, HIREHALLI POST, URDIGERE HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-572101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GANGADHARAPPA A V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RAJAMMA W/O. SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/OF THOREKEMAPAHALLI, MADALAKOTE POST, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 123. 2. SMT. RUDRAMMA, W/O. R.B. SHIVALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.78, 13TH BLOCK, POLICE HEAD CONSTABLE QUARTERS, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE – 560001 Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27710 RSA No. 809 of 2014 3. SMT. SHARADAMMA, W/O. UMESH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.294, I BLOCK, O CROSS, NAGARABHAVI, 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560 072. 4. SMT. GANGAMMA @ RAMYA RAJENDHIRABABU, W/O. RAJENDRA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT 294, 1ST BLOCK O CROSS, NAGARABHAVI, 2ND STAGE BANGALORE – 560 072 5. BASAVARAJU, S/O. LATE VEERABHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT 164, 3RD FLOOR YASAVANTH JAYALAKSHMI BUILDING SHANIDEVARA TEMPLE ROAD SANNAKKI BAYALU BANGALORE – 560 079. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M P SRIKANTH., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5 (NOC)) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 04.03.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.121/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.06.2011 PASSED IN OS.NO.71/2008 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMKUR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27710 RSA No. 809 of 2014 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.03.2014 passed in Regular Appeal No.121 of 2011 by the learned First Additional District and Session Judge, Tumukuru and the judgment and decree dated 01.06.2011 passed in O.S. No.71 of 2008 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tumkur. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the trial Court. The appellant was the defendant and the respondents were the plaintiffs. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this regular second appeal are as follows: 4. The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession. It is the case of the plaintiffs that one Basappa was the original propositus. He died leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendant as his legal heirs. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27710 RSA No. 809 of 2014 It is contended that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties and the plaintiffs and defendant are the members of a Hindu undivided family and no partition was effected between the plaintiffs and defendant. The plaintiffs demanded for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The defendant refused to effect a partition. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for partition and separate possession. 5. The defendant filed a written statement contending that there was a prior partition between the plaintiffs and defendant and a Panchayat Palu Parikath was executed between the plaintiffs and defendant on 30.05.1990. Based on the said document, the revenue entries were changed in the name of the respective parties. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable and prays to dismiss the suit. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27710 RSA No. 809 of 2014 6. The Trial Court, based on the rival pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues for its consideration. (i) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of themselves and the defendant and they are in joint possession of the same? (ii) Whether the defendant proves that the suit schedule properties are the exclusive properties of 1st plaintiff, 6th plaintiff and himself, as contended by him in para No.5(b) of his written statement? (iii) Whether the defendant is liable to render proper accounts as sought by the plaintiffs? (iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession and other reliefs as sought by them? (v) What order or decree?” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27710 RSA No. 809 of 2014 7. The plaintiffs, in order to substantiate their case, examined plaintiff No.4 as PW-1 and marked five documents as Exhibits P1 to P5. In rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as DW-1 and marked seven documents as Exhibits D1 to D7, apart from examining another witness as DW-2. 8. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence of both sides and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue No.1 in affirmative, issue Nos.2 and 3 in negative, issue No.4 partly in affirmative, and issue No.5 as per final order. The suit of the plaintiffs was partly decreed and held that plaintiff Nos.2 to 6 are entitled for 1/5th share each in all the suit scheduled properties by metes and bounds vide judgment dated 01.06.2011. 9. The defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree, preferred a regular appeal in R.A. No.121 of 2011. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27710 RSA No. 809 of 2014 10. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for its consideration: i. “Having come to the conclusion that suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of plaintiffs 2 to 6 and defendant, whether the trial Court has erred in grant 1/5th share to each of the plaintiffs and not declaring the share of defendant? ii. Whether the impugned judgment and decree is arbitrary, perverse, not sustainable in law and needs to be interfered with by this Court? iii. What order?” 11. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, allowed the appeal in part and modified the judgment and preliminarily decree passed by the Trial Court and declared that plaintiff Nos.2 to 6 and the defendant are entitled for 1/6th - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27710 RSA No. 809 of 2014 share each in all the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds. 12. The defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A. No.121 of 2011 and the judgment and preliminary decree passed in O.S. No.71 of 2008, has filed this Regular Second Appeal. 13. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant. 14. Learned counsel for the defendant admitted that there was a partition between the plaintiffs and the defendant, and the plaintiffs executed a Panchayath Palu Parikath on 30.05.1990. As on the date of filing of the suit, the suit schedule properties were not the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendant, and they were not the members of the Hindu joint family. The said aspects have not been properly considered by the Courts below and have committed an error in passing the impugned - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27710 RSA No. 809 of 2014 judgments. He also submits that the father of the parties passed away much prior to 1994. The sisters are not entitled for equal share. He submits that the daughters are only entitled for a notional share. Hence, both the Courts below have not considered the said aspect and committed an error in granting equal shares to the sisters. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 15. This Court, by order dated 15.03.2017, admitted the appeal to consider the following Substantial Question of Law : “(i) Whether the courts below having noticed the fact that the father of the parties died much earlier to 1994 even much prior to the coming into force of the Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1990, was justified on applying the provisions of section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act as amended by Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 and allotting equal share to the daughters? and to consider any other - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27710 RSA No. 809 of 2014 question of law which may arise for consideration while hearing the appeal” Reg. Substantial Question of Law: 16. There is no dispute in regard to the relationship between the parties to the suit and also the nature of suit schedule properties as joint family properties. The defence of the defendant is that there was a prior partition between the plaintiffs and the defendant and a Panchayath Palu Parikath dated 30.05.1990 came to be executed and based on the said Panchayath Palu Parikath, the names of the parties were entered in the revenue reports. 17. The defendant has taken a defence that there was a prior partition. The defendant has not produced the alleged Panchayath Palu Parikath dated 30.05.1990 to prove that there was a prior partition between the plaintiffs and the defendant. 18. Admittedly, the father of the parties passed away prior to 1994. The plaintiffs have contended that the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27710 RSA No. 809 of 2014 suit schedule properties are the joint family properties and they are the members of a Hindu undivided family and no partition is effected. 19. As observed above, the defendant has taken a defence that there was a prior partition. But, the defendant has failed to prove that there was a prior partition. The defendant has contended that their father died much prior to 1994. Hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled for equal share. 20. The said issue is no more res integra and is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma reported in (2020) 9 SCC 11, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in paragraph 129 as follows: “129. Resultantly, we answer the reference as under: (i) The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after amendment in - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27710 RSA No. 809 of 2014 the same manner as son with same rights and liabilities. (ii) The rights can be claimed by the daughter born earlier with effect from 9.9.2005 with savings as provided in Section 6(1) as to the disposition or alienation, partition or testamentary disposition which had taken place before 20th day of December, 2004. (iii) Since the right in coparcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that father coparcener should be living as on 9.9.2005. (iv) The statutory fiction of partition created by proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as originally enacted did not bring about the actual partition or disruption of coparcenary. The fiction was only for the purpose of ascertaining share of deceased coparcener when he was survived by a female heir, of ClassI as specified in the Schedule to the Act of 1956 or male relative of such female. The provisions of the substituted Section 6 are required to be given full effect. Notwithstanding that a preliminary decree has been passed the daughters are to be given share in coparcenary equal to that of a son in pending proceedings for final decree or in an appeal. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27710 RSA No. 809 of 2014 (v) In view of the rigor of provisions of Explanation to Section 6(5) of the Act of 1956, a plea of oral partition cannot be accepted as the statutory recognised mode of partition effected by a deed of partition duly registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 or effected by a decree of a court. However, in exceptional cases where plea of oral partition is supported by public documents and partition is finally evinced in the same manner as if it had been affected by a decree of a court, it may be accepted. A plea of partition based on oral evidence alone cannot be accepted and to be rejected outrightly.” 21. From the perusal of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma (supra), it is clear that the provision contained in the substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, confers the status of a coparcener on the daughter born before or after the amendment in the same manner as a son with the same rights and liabilities. It is also made clear that since the right in - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27710 RSA No. 809 of 2014 the coparcener is by birth, it is not necessary that father coparcener should be living as on 09.09.2005. 22. In view of the mandate laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Vineeta Sharma (supra), the substantial question of law framed by this Court is no more a substantial question of law. 23. In view of the above discussion, the First Appellate Court has rightly passed the judgment awarding 1/6th share to plaintiff Nos.2 to 6 and the defendant. 24. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 25. In the result, I pass the following order: ORDER (I) The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. (II) In view of dismissal of appeal, pending interlocutory applications - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27710 RSA No. 809 of 2014 do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3