- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34578-DB RFA No. 505 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 505 OF 2014 (PAR) BETWEEN: SHRI L.VENKATAESHBABU S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH NAIDU SINCE DEAD BY LRs., 1 SMT. V.SUJATHA, W/O LATE L.VENKATAESHBABU, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, 2 SMT.LAKSHMIAH VIGNESH, S/O LATE L.VENKATESHBABU, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 3. SRI. SURYAKANTH, S/O LATE L.VENKATESHBABU, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, 4. SRI. EASHWAR, S/O LATE L.VENKATESHBABU, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT LAKSHMI TALKIES COMPLEX, DANIAL ROAD, ANDERSONPET, ALLIKALLUR, KOLAR-563113. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. V B SHIVA KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR LRs. DECEASED SOLE APPELLANT) Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34578-DB RFA No. 505 of 2014 AND: 1. SMT. L. SHANTHI W/O SHRI C PATTABHIRAMAN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS REP BY HER G P A HOLDER SHRI C PATTABHIRAMAN R/AT NO.114, UPSTAIRS 18TH CROSS, LAKSHMIPURAM ULSOOR, BANGALORE 560 008 2. SMT LALITHA W/O VENUGOPAL MAJOR BY AGE R/AT LAKSHMI TALKIES BUILDING ANDERSONPET POST K G F - 563 113 3. SMT AMARAJYOTHI W/O SOUNDARARAJAN MAJOR BY AGE R/AT LAKSHMI TALKIES BUILDING ANDERSONPET POST K G F - 563 113 4. SMT SANGEETHA MAJOR BY AGE R/AT LAKSHMI TALKIES BUILDING ANDERSONPET POST K G F -563 113 [DEFENDANT No.5 IS DEAD, HER LR IS ALREADY ON RECORD AND IS MADE PARTY IN THIS APPEAL AS RESPONDENT No.4] 5. NOORIE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY & GOLDEN COLLEGE OF PHARMACY ANDERSONPET, K G F 563 113 REP BY ITS SECRETARY SHRI L S SHAHZADHA S N M SCHOOL ROAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34578-DB RFA No. 505 of 2014 ANDERSONPET, K G F 563 113 6. SMT FARHANA BEGUM W/O SHRI SYED IQBAL.L AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT S N M SCHOOL ROAD ANDERSONPET K G F 563 113 7. SMT FARHANA BEGUM W/O SHRI SYED IQBAL AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT S N M SCHOOL ROAD ANDERSONPET K G F 563 113 8. 8(a) R MATHY DEAD BY LRS SMT SARASWATHI W/O LATE MATHI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.53, 7TH CROSS ROAD OPP NEHRU GROUND ROBERTSONPET K G F 563 113 8(b) SMT LATHA D/O LATE MATHI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO.53, 7TH CROSS ROAD OPP NEHRU GROUND ROBERTSONPET K G F 563 113 8(c) SHRI RAJA S/O LATE MATHI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT NO.53, 7TH CROSS ROAD OPP NEHRU GROUND ROBERTSONPET K G F 563 113 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34578-DB RFA No. 505 of 2014 8(d) SMT MANJULA D/O LATE MATHI AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NO.53, 7TH CROSS ROAD OPP NEHRU GROUND ROBERTSONPET K G F 563 113 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; VIDE ORDER DATED:08.07.2015, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 HELD SUFFICIENT; SRI. S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R5; R6 TO R8(a TO d) ARE SERVED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96(1) OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 5.12.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.26/1993 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, K.G.F., DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION, SEPARATE POSSESSION, MESNE PROFITS, ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) We have taken this appeal in revised call. Though respondent No.1/plaintiff had entered appearance on caveat, neither she nor her learned counsel chose to remain present at the time of hearing. Accordingly, the appeal has been heard in their absence. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34578-DB RFA No. 505 of 2014 2. The present appeal under Section 96 (1) read with Rule 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 CPC has been filed by the first defendant/appellant impugning the judgment and decree dated 05.12.2013 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, K.G.F. 3. One C. Lakshmaiah Naidu, father of plaintiff/respondent No.1 and defendant No.1/appellant died on 22.12.1988 intestate. The Family tree of late C. Lakshmaiah Naidu, as described in the plaint is as under: C.LAKSHMAIAH NAIDU DIED ON 22ND December, 1988 Lalitha Amarjyothi Venkatesh Babu Shanthi Sangeetha w/o Venugopal 33 years 28 years(Son) 22 years Minor by (daughter) w/o sounder- w/o her mother Rajan Pattabi- 16 years Raman (Daughter) (Daughter) 4. The plaintiff had filed the suit claiming partition and separate possession of her 1/6th share in the suit schedule property. It is not in dispute that out of the four daughters of late C. Lakshmaiah Naidu, three sisters, other than the plaintiff, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34578-DB RFA No. 505 of 2014 executed relinquishment deeds in favour of the defendant No.1/appellant on 28.03.2006, relinquishing their respective shares in the suit schedule property. 5. The learned Trial Court, despite the execution of the aforesaid relinquishment deeds by the three sisters in favour of the defendant No.1/appellant, proceeded to hold that the plaintiff was entitled to 1/2 share in the suit schedule property, on the ground that the amount paid to the three sisters were paid under the relinquishment deeds was from the joint family nucleus allegedly created from the suit schedule property. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: Whether the plaintiff has established that a joint family nucleus was created from the suit schedule property and that the consideration paid under the relinquishment deeds executed by the three sisters in favour of defendant No.1/appellant was from his own? 6. The plaintiff did not produce any document to suggest that a nucleus was created out of the suit schedule property. The trial Court has assumed that the amounts were - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34578-DB RFA No. 505 of 2014 paid to the three sisters under the relinquishment deeds were from the nucleus created from the suit schedule property. 7. It was for the plaintiff to plead and prove the existence of such nucleus and establish that the payments made under the relinquishment deeds were out of the joint family funds. In the absence of any evidence establishing the said fact, the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court cannot be sustained. 8. The relinquishment deeds executed by the three sisters in favour of the appellant/defendant No.1 would suggest that they have given up their share in the property in favour of the appellant/defendant No.1 alone and the plaintiff would not be entitled to the partition of share relinquished by three sisters in favour of the appellant/defendant No.1. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 would be entitled only to her share in the suit schedule property. Accordingly, we pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34578-DB RFA No. 505 of 2014 ii. The judgment and decree dated 05.12.2013 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, K.G.F is modified to the extent that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 is declared entitled to 1/5th share in the suit schedule property. iii. Let a preliminary decree be drawn in terms of the aforesaid order. The proceedings for passing of the final decree shall be done by the Trial Court in accordance with law. iv. Insofar as the direction regarding mesne profits payable to the extent of her share is concerned, the impugned judgment is confirmed. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19