- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33575 RSA No. 80 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 80 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MAHADEVA S/O. LATE. MAHADEVAMMA AND JAVAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 2. SMT. CHIKKAMMA W/O. MAHADEVA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 3. KUM. GEETHA D/O. MAHADEVA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS 4. SRI. ANIL S/O. MAHADEVA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS 5. SMT. SINDHU D/O. MAHADEVA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF BADAGALA HUNDI VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT - 570 005. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.R. SREENIVASA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33575 RSA No. 80 of 2021 AND: 1. SMT. PADMA D/O. LATE. MAHADEVAMMA AND JAVAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO. 355, 3RD CROSS, VIDYANAGAR, MYSORE - 570 006. 2. SRI. PAPANNA S/O. LAE. MAHADEVAMMA AND JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 3. SMT. SANNAMMA W/O. MARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE RESIDING AT BADAGALA HUNDI VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 007. 4. SRI. S. UMESH S/O. SANNARAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O. BALLENAHALLI VILLAGE, BOOKANAKERE HOBLI, K.R. PET TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 570 006. 5. SRI. HANUMA NARASAIAH S/O. CHIKACHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O. BILLAKEMPANAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, MN VILLAGE POST, RAMANAGAR TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 570 007. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33575 RSA No. 80 of 2021 6. SRI. M.N. NAVEEN KUMAR S/O. LAKSHMINARAYANA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O. NO. 420/1, 11TH MAIN, SARASWATHI PURAM EXTENSION, CHAMARAJA MOHALLA, MYSORE - 570 006. 7. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER K.I.A.D.B., K.R. ROAD, METAGALLI, MYSORE - 570 006. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SMT. NAMITHA S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R7; SRI. SHIVARAJ B. KERUDI, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6; R3 - SERVED; VIDE ORDER DATED 10.02.2025, NOTICE TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.08.2020 PASSED IN RA.No.149/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.07.2018 PASSED IN OS.No.201/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSORE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33575 RSA No. 80 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2. Defendant Nos.1 to 5 are the appellants in this second appeal challenging the granting of share to the plaintiffs by decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs in part in O.S.No.201/2011 dated 03.07.2018 which was confirmed in RA No.149/2019 dated 12.08.2020. 3. Operative portion of the order of the Trial Court reads as under: “The suit of the plaintiff is hereby partly decreed with cost. The plaintiff No.1, 2 and defendant No.1 are entitled for 1/6th share each in the schedule ‘A’ to ‘E’ properties. The plaintiff No.3 is entitled for ½ share in the schedule item No.A to E properties. In view of the acquisition of A and B schedule properties, the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 are entitled for their legitimate share in the compensation amount received by the defendant No.7. The defendant No.7 has to return the amount of compensation as per the shares of the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3.” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33575 RSA No. 80 of 2021 4. Facts of the case are as under: 4.1. A suit for partition came to be filed by the plaintiffs against defendant Nos.1 to 9 by contending that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and defendant No.1 are the children of Mahadevamma and Javaregowda. Mahadevamma was the only daughter to her father Marigowda. Hence Marigwoda has taken Javaregowda as his son-in-law in his house and they were residing with Marigowda. 4.2. Defendant Nos.3 to 5 are the children of defendant No.1 – Mahadeva and defendant No.2 is the wife of defendant No.1. Plaintiff No.3 was later on impleaded as she is the wife of said Marigowda. 4.3. Suit properties originally belonged to Marigowda and Sannamma and katha was mutated by consent in the name of Mahadevamma after the death of Marigowda. Mother of the plaintiff died at about 16 years earlier and father of the plaintiff died about four years earlier to the institution of the suit. Plaintiff and defendant No.1 being the legal heirs have succeeded to the property equally and therefore, laid the claim. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33575 RSA No. 80 of 2021 5. Suit was resisted by the defendants by filing detailed written statement. 6. After due trial, suit was decreed as aforesaid. 7. Plaintiff did not choose to file any appeal against the judgment passed by the Trial Court and they were satisfied with the decree granting 1/6th share in the suit properties. 8. It is defendant Nos.1 to 5 who filed the appeal in RA No.149/2019 assailing the correctness of the judgment of the Trial Court. 9. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on reappreciation of the material on record, dismissed the appeal of defendant Nos.1 to 5. 10. Being further aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.1 to 5 have preferred the second appeal. 11. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that respondent No.3 in the appeal namely Sannamma who has got ½ share in the suit properties has - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33575 RSA No. 80 of 2021 bequeathed her 1/2 share in favour of the appellants herein and therefore, shares are to be reworked. 12. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents would oppose such a submission made on behalf of the appellants. 13. He would further contend that the scope of the present suit was only with regard to the declaration of the shares and since the plaintiffs are satisfied with 1/6th share, if any share that has been bequeathed by Sannamma in favour of the appellants, that may not be subject matter of the present suit and the appellants are required to establish the right with regard to ½ share of Sannamma in a duly constituted proceedings. 14. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 15. On such perusal of the material on record, since the plaintiffs are satisfied with the decree and having not challenged the decree granting 1/6th share wherein the present defendants have also been granted share with regard - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33575 RSA No. 80 of 2021 to the share of Sannamma is concerned as is rightly contended on behalf of the respondents, appellants are entitled to work out their remedy in a duly constituted suit. 16. In the Final Decree Proceedings, pursuant to the decree of the Trial Court, ½ share of Sannamma can be separated out and in that ½ share, appellants can claim by taking necessary legal recourse. 17. Reserving such liberty for the appellants, this Court does not find any merits in any of the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal memorandum. 18. Accordingly, following: ORDER i. Admission is declined. ii. Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48