- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26172 RFA No. 1660 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1660 OF 2023 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: 1. BHAGYAMMA, W/O RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, 2. CHIKKARANGEGOWDA S/O RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, 3. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, 4. MANJEGOWDA S/O RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, ALL ARE R/O BOREGOWDANAPALYA, MENASANAHALLI DHAKALE KOTHIGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK AND DIST: TUMKUR – 572 130. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SAGAR B B, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26172 RFA No. 1660 of 2023 AND: 1. JAYALAKSHMAMMA, W/O HANUMANTHAIAH B T AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/O 30/1, 6TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI MAGADI ROAD BANGALORE – 560 079. 2. KRISHNAPPA (DIED ON 31-01-2014) RANGASWAMY S/O GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST ALL ARE R/O BOREGOWDANAPALYA, MENASANAHALLI DHAKALE KOTHIGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK AND DIST: TUMKUR – 572 130. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LOKESH M, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; R2 - SERVED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.12.2022 PASSED IN OS No.01/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNIGAL, THEREBY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED BY RESPONDENT-1 IN PART HEREIN FOR PARTITION AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26172 RFA No. 1660 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellants/defendants No.1 and 4 to 6 questioning the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2022 passed in O.S No.1/2011 by the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Kunigal1, whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiff for partition was decreed in part holding that the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of half share in item Nos.1 to 9 and 11 of the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 3. The plaintiff has filed a suit for partition and separate possession of half share in the suit schedule properties. It is stated that one Gangaiah is the original 1 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26172 RFA No. 1660 of 2023 propositus of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 6. The genealogy is as follows:  ಮ: ಣನಹ ೕಬ : ತ    : ಗ   :  ಮ ವಂಶ#ಕ ಗಂಗಯ ಉ|| ಗಂಗಣ ( ) ↓ ↓ ↓ $ಂಗಮ% (&') (ತಮ% (&') ↓ ↓ ರಂಗಮ% (&') ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ಷಪ (75) ರಂಗ(* + (55) ,ಚ. ಮ% (53) ಗಂಗಮ% (50) ಗಂಗಮ% (50) / ಗ0 ಮ% (48) 'ಬ1 ಯ0 (60) ಗಂಗ3ಂಕಟಮ% (58) 6ಕ7 ರಂಗಯ0 (55) ↓ ↓ ಜಯಲ ಮ (52) (ಅ9:;) / ಗ0 ಮ% (48) ಹ=ಮಂತಯ0 (64) ರಂಗ(* + (55) "ನನ> ಸಮ@ಮ" (A ಎಂ.ಆ;.)  ಮ D7 EDF ಪ / ರ ಮಡIಹ #ತ ಗ    4. It is stated that Gangaiah had two wives, namely, Ningamma and Sakamma. During the lifetime of Gangaiah, he has partitioned the joint family properties through registered partition deed dated 20.06.1970. All the suit schedule properties were fallen to the share of Ningamma. Ningamma has only daughter, namely, Rangamma. Defendant No.2 is the husband of Rangamma. Plaintiff and defendant No.1 are the only two daughters of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26172 RFA No. 1660 of 2023 Rangamma. Defendant No.3 is the husband of defendant No.1. Defendants No.4 to 6 are the children of defendants No.1 and 3. Defendants No.7 to 12 are the purchasers of the suit schedule properties. Since the suit schedule properties were fallen to the share of Ningamma through a registered partition deed dated 20.06.1970, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 inherited them through their mother Rangamma. It is further stated that suit item No.10 is also joint family property. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession. 5. The defendants have entered appearance in the suit and filed written statement denying the plaint averments. It is specifically contended that the suit is not maintainable insofar as item No.10 of suit schedule property is concerned, as the said property was not inherited by Rangamma through Gangaiah. Therefore, denying the plaint averments, the defendants pray to dismiss the suit. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26172 RFA No. 1660 of 2023 6. Based on pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiff proves that suit schedule properties are her joint family properties? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in joint and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties? 3. Whether the defendants No.1 to 6 and 10 prove that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 4. Whether the defendants No.1 to 6 and 10 prove that there was an oral partition between Ningamma and Rangaswamy? 5. Whether the defendants No.1 to 6 and 10 prove that plaintiff's mother Rangamma and grandmother Ningamma have sold the properties received by them in the partition? 6. Whether the plaintiffs prove that she is entitled for mesne profits? 7. Whether the plaintiffs prove that she is entitled for a share in the suit schedule properties? And if so at what quantum? 8. What order or decree? Additional Issue dated 13/02/2017 1) Whether the 9th defendant proves that he is bonafide purchaser for value of suit property? Additional Issues dated 16/11/2019 1) Whether the defendant No.11 and 12 prove that the written statement schedule property was fallen to the share of defendant No.3 under the registered partition deed dt: 20.06.1970? 2) Whether defendant No.11 and 12 further prove that they purchased the written statement - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26172 RFA No. 1660 of 2023 schedule property from defendant No.3 for a valuable consideration on 14.09.2018? Additional Issue dated 12/08/2021 1) Whether the defendant No.1 to 6 prove that grandfather of defendant No.4 to 6 by name Krishnappa has bequeathed his self acquired property i.e., suit item No.10 in favour of defendant No.1, 4 to 6 through registered Will dated 25.04.2011?” 7. In support of the case of the plaintiff, the husband of the plaintiff has got examined as P.W.1 and witness as P.W.2 and got marked documents as Exhibits P1 to P50. The defendant No.3 has got examined as D.W.1 and got marked documents as Exhibits D1 to D31, defendant Nos.5 and 6 got examined D.W.2 and DW.3 and two witnesses as D.W.4 and D.W.5. 8. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record has decreed the suit in part declaring that the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of half share in item Nos.1 to 9 and 11 of the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds, but, the suit is not decreed insofar as item No. 10 of the suit schedule - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26172 RFA No. 1660 of 2023 property. The trial Court has observed that since the relationship between the parties are not in dispute, Ningamma had acquired the suit schedule properties through partition deed dated 20.06.1970 and therefore, her only daughter Rangamma has inherited the suit schedule properties which flows to the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Therefore, the item Nos. 1 to 9 and 11 of suit schedule properties were acquired by Rangamma through her mother and decreed the suit so far as item Nos.1 to 9 and 11 of suit schedule properties. Insofar as item No.10 of suit schedule property is concerned, it was acquired by Krishnappa, the husband of Rangamma, as his self acquired property and it was not part of the registered partition deed dated 20.06.1970. Therefore, in this suit, the said property is not available for partition and the trial Court has not granted decree of partition so far as item No. 10 is concerned. 9. The trial Court observed that defendant No.2 had purchased the said property out of joint family nucleus - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26172 RFA No. 1660 of 2023 of ancestral property of Krishnappa situated at Girigowdanapalya Village and item No. 10 of suit schedule property is not inherited nor succeeded through partition deed dated 20.06.1970 and as such, both parties are at liberty to seek out their remedies by filing a separate suit insofar as item No. 10 is concerned. 10. Further, the trial Court has observed in paragraph No.22 of the judgment that in respect of item No.10 of suit schedule property is concerned, the grandfather of defendants No.4 to 6 and father of defendant No.1 during his lifetime bequeathed item No. 10 of the suit schedule property in favour of defendants No.1, 4 to 6 under registered Will dated 25.04.2011. After the death of defendant No.2 - Krishnappa, defendants No.1, 4 to 6 have become absolute owners of the item No.10 of the suit schedule property. Therefore, with these observations, the decree for partition is not granted so far as item No.10 of suit property and held that defendants No.1, 4 to 6 have become absolute owners of item No. 10 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26172 RFA No. 1660 of 2023 of the suit schedule property and has decreed the suit so far as item Nos.1 to 9 and 11 of suit schedule properties. Further, liberty is granted to work out their remedies in another suit, insofar as item No.10 of suit schedule property is concerned. 11. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendants No.1 and 4 to 6 have preferred this appeal by raising various grounds. 12. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants No.1 to 6 argued that the suit is not maintainable and therefore, granting of decree so far as item Nos. 1 to 9 and 11 of suit schedule properties are concerned, is not correct. 13. It is further submitted that when the trial Court has granted liberty to the parties to work out their remedy by filing a separate suit for partition so far as item No.10 is concerned, but, simultaneously held that, by virtue of the registered Will made by the defendant No.2- - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26172 RFA No. 1660 of 2023 krishnappa, the defendant Nos.1, 4 to 6 have become absolute owners of item No.10 of suit schedule property is illegal, as there is no evidence regarding execution of Will and its genuiness. Therefore, the observations made by the trial Court so far as item No. 10 property is concerned, the defendants No.1, 4 to 6 have become owners property so far as item No. 10 of suit schedule property is coming in the way in the case, in future, a suit is filed so far as Item No. 10 is concerned. Therefore, this observation be expunged and is without any evidence on record and is perverse, therefore, prays to set aside this observation. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellants prays to allow the appeal. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff justified the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and since plaintiff and defendant No.1 are only two daughters of Rangamma, therefore, whatever properties were inherited by Rangamma, the same were divided equally between the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26172 RFA No. 1660 of 2023 two daughters who are plaintiff and defendant No.1. Therefore, the grant of decree to the extent of half share to the plaintiff is legal and correct. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal. 15. Further, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the observation made so far as item No.10 property is concerned that defendant Nos.1, 4 to 6 have become owners by virtue of the registered Will dated 25.04.2011 is not correct. Therefore, prays to remove the observations made by the Trial Court holding that defendant Nos.1, 4 to 6 have become owners of the suit schedule item No.10 of property by virtue of the Will dated 25.04.2011. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal by removing the observations made by the Trial Court so far as suit schedule item No.10 property is concerned. 16. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties, the following points arise for my consideration: - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26172 RFA No. 1660 of 2023 i. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiff proves that she is entitled to a half share in all the suit schedule item Nos.1 to 9 and 11 properties? ii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the decree passed by the Trial Court in decreeing the suit and granting a half share to the plaintiff, so far as item Nos.1 to 9 and 11 properties are concerned, requires any interference by this Court? iii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the observations made and finding given by the Trial Court so far as suit schedule item No.10 property is concerned that defendant Nos.1, 4 to 6 have become owners of the property by virtue of the registered Will dated 25.04.2011 executed by defendant No.2/Krishnappa require interference by this Court? iv. Whether, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court requires interference by this Court? - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26172 RFA No. 1660 of 2023 17. Upon considering the relationship between the parties, the relationship is not disputed. Gangaiah, who is the original propositus had divided the property as per the registered partition deed dated 20.06.1970 and suit schedule item Nos.1 to 9 properties had fallen to the share of Ningammma, who is the wife of Gangaiah. Rangamma is the only daughter of Ningamma and Gangaiah. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 are the daughters of Rangamma and defendant No.2/Krishnappa; therefore, it is proved that the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendant No.1, inherited through the original propositus Gangaiah. Therefore, the Trial Court is correct in holding that the plaintiff/Jayalakshmamma is entitled to half share in suit schedule item Nos.1 to 9 and 11 properties. In this regard, the Trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record, which needs no interference by this Court. Hence, the judgment and - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26172 RFA No. 1660 of 2023 decree passed insofar as suit schedule item Nos.1 to 9 and 11 properties are concerned, is liable to be confirmed. 18. So far as suit schedule item No.10 property is concerned, admittedly, as per the partition deed dated 20.06.1970 (Ex.P-6), suit schedule item No.10 property is not found in the said partition deed. Defendant No.2/Krishnappa acquired the said property during his lifetime. Whether the acquisition of suit schedule item No.10 property by Krishnappa was by his self earnings or acquired through his ancestors is the question for consideration, but that was not done in the suit by the Trial Court. Defendant No.2/Krishnappa executed the registered Will dated 25.04.2011 bequeathing the suit schedule item No.10 property in favour of defendant Nos.1, 4 to 6, but the Trial Court observed that because of the registered Will dated 25.04.2011 and given finding that defendant Nos.1, 4 to 6 have become owners of suit schedule item No.10 property. This observation made by the Trial Court is not correct for the reason that when the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26172 RFA No. 1660 of 2023 suit is filed for partition including suit schedule item No.10 property and when the Trial Court has given finding that suit schedule item No.10 property is not the subject matter of the partition deed dated 20.06.1970 (Ex.P-6) and is not meant for partition in the suit as suit schedule item Nos.1 to 9 and 11 properties are mentioned in the partition deed, the effect of partition is through the mother of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. 19. The Trial Court is correct to the extent that so far as suit schedule item No.10 property is concerned, the parties may make out their rights by filing another suit, but at the same time, it has simultaneously committed error in giving a finding that defendant Nos.1, 4 to 6 have become absolute owners of the suit schedule item No.10 property. 20. So far as the Will is concerned, there is no evidence recorded. Without recording the evidence regarding the execution of the Will, giving a finding as if - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26172 RFA No. 1660 of 2023 the Will is executed and defendant Nos.1, 4 to 6 have become absolute owners of the property is not correct. Therefore, When the Trial Court has given liberty to the parties to work out remedy insofar as suit schedule item No.10 property is concerned in another suit, certainly the finding given by the Trial Court in this regard on the Will come in the way of deciding the suit. Hence, the observations made by the Trial Court that defendant Nos.1, 4 to 6 have become owners of suit schedule item No.10 property by virtue of the registered Will dated 25.04.2011 is liable to be set aside. 21. Therefore, the observation made by the Trial Court so far as suit schedule item No.10 property is concerned, the parties shall workout their remedy by filing another suit is upheld, but giving finding on the Will and the declaration that defendant Nos.1, 4 to 6 have become owners of the suit schedule item No.10 property are set aside. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.(i) and (iii) in the - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26172 RFA No. 1660 of 2023 Affirmative point No.(ii) in the Negative and point No.(iv) in the Partly Affirmative. 22. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Regular First Appeal is allowed- in-part. ii. The judgment and decree dated 17.12.2022 passed in O.S.No.01/2011 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal, insofar as decreeing the suit entitling the plaintiff to half share in suit schedule item Nos.1 to 9 and 11 is concerned, is confirmed. iii. The liberty granted by the Trial Court so far as suit schedule item No.10 property is concerned to work out the remedy by filing another suit is upheld. iv. The observation made by the Trial Court declaring defendant Nos.1 and 4 to 6 have become absolute owners of the property by virtue of the registered Will dated 25.04.2011 is hereby set aside. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26172 RFA No. 1660 of 2023 v. In case the suit is filed so far as against suit schedule item No.10 property is concerned, by any of the parties, the observation made by the Trial Court so far as the Will dated 25.04.2011 shall not come in the way of deciding the suit. vi. Also, whatever observations made by the Trial Court so far as suit schedule item No.10 property is concerned, whether it is self-acquired property of Krishnappa or acquired through joint family property, is set aside. vii. Draw decree accordingly. viii. The FDP Court is directed to dispose of the FDP case as early as possible, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE UN: Para 1 to 14 SRA: Para 15 to end List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46