- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1030 OF 2021 C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.915 OF 2021 IN RFA No. 1030/2021 BETWEEN: 1. GOWRAMMA DEAD BY LRS RAJASHEKARA S/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O MARALENAHALLI WARD NO 1 SIRA GATE POST TUMKURU – 572 137. 2. CHETHAN KUMAR S/O LATE SIDDPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O MARALENAHALLI WARD NO 1 SIRA GATE POST TUMKUR – 572 137. 3. 3(a) AMBIKA DEAD BY LR’S SHWETHA MATHAD W/O SIDDRAMAYYA MATHAD D/O AMBIKA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O NO.921 R Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 3(b) ANANDNAGAR, NEAR SSK ITI VTC HUBLI PO OLD HUBLI – 580 024. NIRMALA V MATHAD W/O VISHWANATH D/O AMBIKA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O NO.228, ANAND NAGAR NEAR SSK ITI VT HUBLI PO OLD HUBLI – 580 024. 4. BHARATHI W/O. PRABHUSWAMY SALIMUTT AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O RTI COLONY KOPPAI ROAD GADAG – 582 101. 5. SATEESH B TUMKURU S/O LATE BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O PLOT NO 8, SHETTAR LAYOUT VIDAYA NAGAR HUBLI – 580 024. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH S HOSMATH AND SRI. SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SHAKKAVVA @ SHAKUNTALA W/O LATE GANGADHRAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS V.H.VADAI, NO.28 RAGHAVENDRA COLONY SHANTHINAGARA KESHAVAPURA HUBLI - 580 031. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 2. LEELA W/O. VADHIRAJ AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS V H VADAI NO 28 RAGHAVENDRA COLONY SHANTHINAGARA KESHAVAPURA HUBLI – 580 031. 3. MANJULA W/O BEJAMIN AGED 50 YEARS V.H.VADAI, NO.28 RAGHAVENDRA COLONY SHANTHINAGARA KESHAVAPURA HUBLI – 580 031. 4. SHANMUKHA S/O. LATE GANGADHARAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS V.H.VADAI, NO.28 RAGHAVENDRA COLONY SHANTHINAGARA KESHAVAPURA HUBLI – 580 031. 5. SIDDAGANGAMMA W/O. ESHWARAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/O RAGHAVENDRANAGARA HULUKALLI CROSS DHARWAD ROAD HUBLI – 580 031. 6. MADHUDAMMA W/O CHIKKADHARAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS PANCHAYATHRAPALAYA SIRA GATE TUMKURU – 572 137. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 7. CHIKKANNA DEAD BY LRS THIMMAKKA W/O LATE CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS R/O MARENAHALLI SIRA GATE POST WARD NO-1 TUMKUR – 572 137. 8. GANGALAKSHMAMMA W/O RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/O CHOLENAHALLI GULUR HAND POST TUMKUR – 572 137. 9. BYLAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/O MAENAHALLI SIRA GATE POST WARD NO-1 TUMKURU – 572 137. 10. MANGALAMMA W/O THIRUSMALAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O MUDDENAHALLI PALYA HEGGUNDA POST NELAMANGALA TALUK 11. MOHAN KUMAR S/O. LATE CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O MARELENAHALLI SIRA GATE POST WARD NO-1 TUMKURU – 572 137. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 12. SHARADAMMA W/O. CHIDANANDAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O. DODDAKARENAHALLI YETAGANAHALLI POST NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL – 562 123. 13. UMESH S/O LATE CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS MARELENAHALLI SIRA GATE POST WARD NO-1 TUMKURU – 572 137. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIJAYA KRISHNA BHAT M, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; V/O DATED 09/07/2024-NOTICE TO R5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; SRI. LAKSHMAN H, ADVOCATE FOR R6; SRI. R GOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R7 TO R13) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.07.2021 PASSED IN OS.No.27/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU AND ETC., IN RFA NO. 915/2021 BETWEEN: 1. 1(a) B CHIKKANNA S/O. CHIKKABYLAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY LRS: THIMMAKKA, W/O LATE CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/O MARALENAHALLI, SIRA GATE POST, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 WARD NO.1, TUMAKURU CITY, PINCODE – 572 101. 1(b) GANGALAKSHMAMMA W/O RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O CHOLENAHALLI, GULUR HAND POST, TUMAKURU TALUK – 572 101. 1(c) BYLAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O MARELENAHALLI, SIRA GATE POST, WARD NO.1, TUMAKURU CITY – 572 101. 1(d) MANGALAMMA W/O THIRUMALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O. MUDDENAHALLI PALYA, HEGGUNDA POST, NELAMANGALA TALUK – 562 123. 1(e) MOHANKUMAR S/O LATE CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O MARELENAHALLI, SIRA GATE POST, WARD NO.1, TUMAKURU CITY – 572 101. 1(f) SHARADAMMA W/O CHIDANANDAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O DODDAKARENAHALLI, YENTAGANAHALLI POST, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL – 562 123. 1(g) UMESH S/O LATE CHIKKANNA, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O MARELENAHALLI, SIRA GATE POST, WARD NO.1, TUMAKURU CITY – 572 101. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. R GOPAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SHAKKAVVA @ SHAKUNTALA W/O LATE GANGADHARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS 2. SMT LEELA W/O VADHIRAJ, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 3. SMT MANJULA W/O BENJAMIN, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 4. SHANMUKHA S/O LATE GANGADHARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS ALL ARE R/O V.H.VADAVI, NO.28, RAGHAVENDRA COLONY, SHANTHINAGARA, KESHAVAPURA, HUBLI – 580 020. 5. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE GANGANNA, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, R/O MARELENAHALLI, KASABA-HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK – 572 101. SINCE DEAD BY LRs: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 5(a) RAJASHEKARA S/O LATE SIDAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 5(b) CHETAN KUMAR S/O LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, BOTH THE ABOVE R5(a) AND (b) ARE R/O MARAKENAHALLI, WARD NO.1, SIRA GATE-POST, TUMAKURU – 572 101. 6. SMT. AMBIKA W/O SHIVANANDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O NO.922, NARENDRA MUTT, ANANDANAGAR, OLD HUBLI – 580 020. 7. SMT. BHARATHI W/O. PRABHUSWAMY SALIMUTT, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O ITI COLONY, KOPPAL ROAD, GADAG – 582 101. 8. SATEETH B. TUMAKURA S/O LATE BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O PLOT NO.8, SHETTAR LAYOUT, VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI – 580 020. 9. SIDDAGANGAMMA W/O ESWARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O RAGHAVENDRANAGARA, HULIKALLI CROSS, DHARWAD ROAD, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 HUBLI – 31. 10. SMT MADHUDAMMA W/O CHIKKADHARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O PANCHANATHARAYARAPALYA, SIRA GATE, TUMAKURU-TOWN – 572 101. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIJAY KRISHNA BHAT M, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4 & R9; SRI. MAHANTESH S HOSMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R5(A & B) & R6 TO R8; SRI. LAKSHMAN H, ADVOCATE FOR R10) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.07.2021 PASSED IN OS No.27/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM,. TUMAKURU AND ETC., THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The appeal in RFA No.1030/2021 is filed by the legal representatives of defendant No.1, who are defendant Nos.1(a), 1(b) in O.S.No.27/2010 and the legal representatives of defendant No.2, who are respondent Nos.3(a) and 3(b) herein in RFA No.1030/2021 and defendant Nos.3 and 4 in O.S.No.27/2010, questioning the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 judgment and decree dated 17.07.2021 passed in O.S.No.27/2010 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tumakuru1, thereby, the suit filed for partition and separate possession was decreed in respect of all the suit schedule properties by granting 1/4th share to the plaintiffs and defendant No.5 was also entitled to 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties. 2. Whereas, the appeal in RFA No.915/2021 is filed by the legal representatives of defendant No.7, who are defendant Nos.7(a) to 7(g) in O.S.No.27/2010, calling in questioning the judgment and decree dated 17.07.2021 passed in O.S.No.27/2010 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tumakuru, so far as granting decree for partition in respect of suit schedule item No.1 property to the extent of 01 acre out of total extent 04 acre 06 guntas. 3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 1 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 PLAINT 4. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for partition and separate possession by pleading the following genealogical tree: ವಂಶವೃಕ ಪ ಣ ಪತ ಮಕ ಂೕ ಬರಡುವ ವಂಶವೃಕ ಪ ಣ ಪತ ೕಮ ೕ ೕಂ !"#ಜ ವಡ" % #ಘ'ೕಂದ ಲ* +ಂನಗರ ಂೕ ಹುಬ/01ಇವರು ನಮ3 ಹ01ಯ ಂೕ ಮದ *!5ಗ0ದು6 ಸ" ೕಯವರ ವಂಶವೃಕ ಈ 9ಳ;ನಂ<=. 5ದ6ಂಗಯ? (ಅಜB) (Dೕ) (ಮೂಲFಯಕ) ಲಮ3 (ಅಜB) (Dೕ) Gರಮ3(ಅH<)(79 ವಷL) ಗಂ ಧರಯ?(ತಂ=)(Dೕ) NವLತಮ3(ಅH<)(Dೕ) 5ದ6ಗಂ (ಅH<) ಶOಂತಲ(PQ)(60 ವಷL) ೕ(ಅTLUರ)(45 ವಷL) ಮಂXY(ಸZೕದ)(43 ವಷL) ಷಣು3ಖ(ಸZೕದ)(39ವಷL) !"#ಜ (ಗಂಡ)(48 ವಷL) ^ಜಯ(ಮಗ)(15 ವಷL) ^ನಯ(ಮಗ)(10 ವಷL) ಸು`ೕತ(ಮಗ)(5 ವಷL) ಈ ಪ ರ ಸ" ೕಯವರ ವಂಶವೃಕ ಇರುತ<= ಅಂತ ಬರವaQಂದ bಗೂ ೕಟL ಅdಡ^e ಪ ರ 0ದು ಬರುತ<= ಅಂP ಬರ ಟf ವಂಶವೃಕ ಪ ಣಪತ . ಸgಳ:- ಹುಬ/01 ಮ , ಂೕ, - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 5. The claim of the plaintiffs that they are the wife and children of late Gangadharaiah and the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties, claiming 1/4th share in all the suit schedule properties. Also, it is pleading of the plaintiffs that there was no earlier partition. Hence, prays to grant decree for partition. WRITTEN STATEMENT 6. Defendant Nos.1 to 5 have filed written statement and denied the plaint averments. It is the contention of the defendants that the plaintiffs are not the legal heirs of Gangadharaiah and they are strangers to the family of Gangadharaiah. Hence, they are not entitled to partition and prays to dismiss the suit. 7. Defendant No.6 is the purchaser of suit schedule item No.2 property. Defendant No.7 is the tenant in respect of the suit schedule item No.1 property to the extent of 01 acre out of the total extent of 04 acre 06 guntas under the ownership of Siddalingaiah. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 8. Defendant No.7 has filed written statement contending that suit schedule item No.1 property originally belonged to Siddalingaiah and defendant No.7 had filed Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal, Tumakuru, for grant of occupancy rights over the suit schedule item No.1 property. Upon various legal proceedings, ultimately, in W.P.No.19370/2004 before this Court, defendant No.7 was granted occupancy rights to the extent of 01 acre out of total extent of 04 acre 06 guntas. Therefore, it is the prayer of defendant No.7 that the said extent of 01 acre out of total extent of 04 acre 06 guntas in suit schedule item No.1 property is not amenable for partition. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. ISSUES 9. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties? - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for 1/4th share each in the suit schedule properties and thereby, they are entitled for Partition and Separate Possession of the same? 3. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the suit is barred by limitation? 4. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the court fee paid by the plaintiffs is insufficient? 5. Whether defendant No.7 proves except him no others have got right, title and possession over the written statement schedule property? 6. What order or decree the parties are entitled for? FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT 10. In order to prove the case, plaintiff No.2 is examined as PW-1 and another attesting witness is examined as PW-2 and got marked the documentary evidence as Exs.P-1 to P-14(a). On behalf of the defendants, one Prabhuswamy Salimutt, the Power of Attorney (POA) holder of defendant Nos.1 to 4, is examined as DW-1; defendant No.1(b) is examined as DW-2; defendant No.5 is examined as DW-3; defendant No.7(b) is examined as DW-4 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 and one more attesting witness is examined as DW-5 and got marked the documentary evidence as Exs.D-1 to D-62. 11. Upon appreciating the evidence on record, the Trial Court decreed the suit by granting 1/4th share to the plaintiffs together and defendant No.5 was also entitled to her 1/4th share in all the suit schedule properties. The Trial Court, by rejecting the contention of the defendants that the plaintiffs are strangers to the family of Gangadharaiah and considering the documentary evidence at Exs.P-6 to P-14, held that plaintiff No.1 is the wife of Gangadharaiah and that plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are the children of plaintiff No.1 and Gangadharaiah. 12. Further, the Trial Court appreciated the evidence of PW-2 and held that as per Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, 'the IE Act, 1872'), the relationship between the plaintiffs and Gangadharaiah is proved. Hence, it held that the plaintiffs are not strangers to - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 the family of Gangadharaish. Accordingly, decreed the suit by granting 1/4th share jointly to the plaintiffs. 13. Further, the Trial Court observed that while rejecting the contention of defendant No.7 that in the compromise in W.P.No.19370/2004, the plaintiffs were not parties and therefore whatever compromise between defendant No.7 and defendant Nos.1 to 5 is not binding on the share of the plaintiffs. Hence, the Trial Court decreed the suit by granting 1/4th share to the plaintiffs in all the suit schedule properties. Thus, the Trial Court decreed the suit. 14. Being aggrieved by it, the legal representatives of defendant No.1, who are defendant Nos.1(a), 1(b) and the legal representatives of defendant No.2, who are respondent Nos.3(a) and 3(b) herein and defendant Nos.3 and 4 have preferred the appeal in RFA No.1030/2021. 15. Being aggrieved by the decree of partition so far as suit schedule item No.1 property is concerned, to the extent of 01 acre out of total extent of 04 acre 06 guntas, - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 the legal representatives of defendant No.7, who are defendant Nos.7(a) to 7(g), have preferred the appeal in RFA No.915/2021. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS 16. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/defendants in RFA No.1030/2021 submitted that the plaintiffs are strangers to the family of Gangadharaiah, as they are not the wife and children of Gangadharaiah; therefore, the plaintiffs are falsely claiming share in the suit schedule item No.1 property. Further, by placing reliance on Ex.P-13-school admission certificate and considering the date of birth and the date of admission in the school, it is proved that plaintiff No.2 is not the daughter of Gangadharaiah; hence, it is submitted that the appreciation of evidence made by the Trial Court is perverse. Therefore, it is submitted that the plaintiffs are not entitled to decree for partition and separate possession. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 17. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/legal representatives of defendant No.7 in RFA No.915/2021 submitted that defendant No.7 is the tenant under the original propositus Siddalingaiah. He had filed Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal, Tumakuru, and the Land Tribunal, Tumakuru, rejected the grant of occupancy rights in favour of defendant No.7. After remand, the Land Tribunal, Tumakuru, again rejected the claim of defendant No.7 and it was challenged in W.P.No.19370/2004 before this Court. In the said writ petition, the family members of Siddalingaiah have entered into compromise with defendant No.7 and ultimately, in the compromise, 01 acre of land was granted as occupancy rights in favour of defendant No.7. Therefore, it is submitted that when defendant No.7 was granted occupancy rights to the extent of 01 acre, the suit for partition in respect of 01 acre of land out of the total extent of 04 acre 06 guntas in suit schedule item No.1 property is not maintainable. Hence, it is submitted that grant of decree for partition in respect of 01 acre of land is - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 not correct. Therefore, prays to set aside the judgment and decree to the extent of 01 acre out of the total extent of 04 acre 06 guntas in respect of suit schedule item No.1 property. Hence, prays to allow the appeal to this extent. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS 18. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that plaintiff No.1 is the wife of Gangadharaiah and plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are children of plaintiff No.1 and Gangadharaiah. This fact is proved upon appreciating the documentary evidence Exs.P-3 to P-14. These documentary evidence conclusively prove that the plaintiffs are the wife and children of Gangadharaiah, which is also corroborated by the evidence of PW-2. Hence, it is submitted that the Trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record holding that the plaintiffs are legal heirs of Gangadharaiah, which needs no interference. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 19. Further, it is submitted that whatever compromise between defendant No.7 and defendant Nos.1 to 5 is not binding on the plaintiffs since the plaintiffs were not parties in W.P.No.19370/2004. Defendant Nos.1 to 5 might have consented for grant of occupancy rights in respect of 01 acre out of the total extent of 04 acre 06 guntas in suit schedule item No.1 property, but in the said compromise entered in W.P.No.19370/2004, the plaintiffs were not parties. Therefore, the said grant of occupancy rights to the extent of 01 acre out of the total extent of 04 acre 06 guntas in suit schedule item No.1 property is not binding on the share of the plaintiffs. Therefore, this has also been rightly considered by the Trial Court and hence, it is submitted that in all respects the Trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence and applied law. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeals. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION 20. Upon hearing arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties and upon perusal of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the following points arise for consideration: i. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiffs prove that plaintiff No.1 is the wife of Gangadharaiah and plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are children of plaintiff No.1 and Gangadharaiah? ii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiffs prove that all the suit schedule properties are joint family and ancestral properties and are amenable for partition? iii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, defendant Nos.1 to 5 prove that the plaintiffs are not the legal heirs of Ganghadaraiah; thus, they are not entitled to claim share over the suit schedule properties? iv. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, defendant No.7 proves that the land bearing Sy.No.66/1 to the extent 01 acre out of the total extent of 04 acre 06 guntas in suit schedule item No.1 property is not amenable for partition and thus, the decree granting share to the - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 extent of 01 acre as stated above requires interference by this Court? v. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court requires interference by this Court? 21. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition claiming 1/4th share over the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff No.1 is the wife and plaintiffs No.2 to 4 are children of Gangadharaiah. Gangadharaiah is the son of Siddalingaiah. 22. The defendants No.1 to 5 contended in their written statement that the plaintiffs are not legal heirs of the Gangadharaiah. Therefore, it is the burden on the plaintiffs to prove that they are the legal heirs of Gangadharaiah. In the plaint, the plaintiffs have pleaded that plaintiff No.1 is the wife of Gangadharaiah and that plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 4 are the children born to plaintiff No.1 and Gangadharaiah. To substantiate this relationship, the plaintiffs have produced Exs.P4 and P11, which are the genealogical trees issued by the Village Accountant, Bengeri and Ex.P10, the legal heir - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 certificate issued by the same authority. These documents are certified copies and are admissible in evidence. Under Sections 74 and 79 of the Indian Evidence Act. Presumption attaches to the genuineness of such certified copies unless the contrary is proved. Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 have neither specifically challenged the authenticity of these documents nor adduced any rebuttal evidence to discredit them. In the absence of any cogent evidence to the contrary, the statutory presumption regarding the genuineness of these certified documents remains unrebutted. Consequently, the plaintiffs have successfully established that plaintiff No.1 is the wife of the late Gangadharaiah and that plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 4 are his children by producing the legal heir certificate and genealogical trees, the genuineness of which stands unchallenged. 23. Further, Ex.P5 is the marriage invitation card of the Gangadharaiah and plaintiff No.1. As per this marriage invitation card, the marriage between the deceased Gangadharaiah and plaintiff No.1 was solemnized on - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 18.02.1968. The said marriage invitation card is found to be the original document. Therefore, a presumption arises under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act in respect of its authenticity. Since the document is more than 30 years old as on the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiffs are entitled to the benefit of the statutory presumption. The defendants have not adduced any rebuttal evidence to displace the said presumption. 24. Further, Ex.P8, Ex.P9, Ex.P12 and Ex. P13 are birth certificates, school transfer certificate and school admission certificate of plaintiffs No.2 to 4. These original and certified copies of certificates issued by the competent authority, prove the fact that plaintiffs No.2 to 4 are the children of plaintiff No.1 and Gangadharaiah. There is no rebuttal evidence adduced by the defendants, except denial in their written statement and oral evidence. 25. Upon considering and appreciating the evidence of PW.2, who is a witness, has deposed before the Court - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 regarding the relationship of the plaintiffs with Gangadharaiah, it is proved that he possesses special knowledge and acquaintance with the family of plaintiffs. BURDEN OF PROOF OF RELATIONSHIP 26. Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 makes provision regarding “Opinion on relationship, when relevant”. The said provision is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: “50. Opinion on relationship, when relevant.––When the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion, expressed by conduct, as to the existence of such relationship, or any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant fact: Provided that such opinion shall not be sufficient to prove a marriage in proceedings under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (4 of 1869), or in prosecution under sections 494, 495, 497 or 498 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). Illustrations (a) The question is, whether A and B, were married. The fact that they were - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 usually received and treated by their friends as husband and wife, is relevant. (b) The question is, whether A was the legitimate son of B. The fact that A was always treated as such by members of the family, is relevant.” 27. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dologobinda Paricha v. Nimai Charan Misra and Others2, has held at paragraphs No.6 and 13 as under: "6. We proceed to consider the second question first. The Evidence Act states that the expression “facts in issue” means and includes any fact from which either by itself or in connection with other facts the existence, non-existence, nature or extent of any right, liability or disability asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding necessarily follow; “evidence” means and includes (1) all statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses in relation to matters of fact under enquiry; and (2) all documents produced for the inspection of the court. It further states that one fact is said to be relevant to another 2 1959 SCC Online, SC 210 - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 when the one is connected with the other in any one of the ways referred to in the provisions of the Evidence Act relating to the relevancy of facts. Section 5 of the Evidence Act lays down that evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as are declared to be relevant and of no others. It is in the context of these provisions of the Evidence Act that we have to consider Section 50 which occurs in Chapter II, headed “Of the Relevancy of Facts”. Section 50, insofar as it is relevant for our purpose, is in these terms: “50. When the court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion, expressed by conduct, as to the existence of such relationship, of any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant fact.” On a plain reading of the section it is quite clear that it deals with relevancy of a particular fact. It states in effect that when the court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another the - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 opinion expressed by conduct as to the existence of such relationship of any person who has special means of knowledge on the subject of that relationship is a relevant fact. The two illustrations appended to the section clearly bring out the true scope and effect of the section. It appears to us that the essential requirements of the section are — (1) there must be a case where the court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another; (2) in such a case, the opinion expressed by conduct as to the existence of such relationship is a relevant fact; (3) but the person whose opinion expressed by conduct is relevant must be a person who as a member of the family or otherwise has special means of knowledge on the particular subject of relationship; in other words, the person must fulfil the condition laid down in the latter part of the section. If the person fulfils that condition, then what is relevant is his opinion expressed by conduct. Opinion means something more than mere retailing of gossip or of hearsay; it means judgment or belief, that is, a belief or a conviction resulting from what one thinks on a particular question. Now, the “belief” or conviction may manifest itself in conduct or - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 behaviour which indicates the existence of the belief or opinion. What the section says is that such conduct or outward behaviour as evidence of the opinion held is relevant and may, therefore, be proved. We are of the view that the true scope and effect of Section 50 of the Evidence Act has been correctly and succinctly put in the following observations made in Chandu Lal Agarwala v. Khalilar Rahman [ILR (1942) 2 Cal 299, 309] : “It is only ‘opinion as expressed by conduct’ which is made relevant. This is how the conduct comes in. The offered item of evidence is ‘the conduct’, but what is made admissible in evidence is ‘the opinion’, the opinion as expressed by such conduct. The offered item of evidence thus only moves the court to an intermediate decision : its immediate effect is only to move the court to see if this conduct establishes any ‘opinion’ of the person, whose conduct is in evidence, as to the relationship in question. In order to enable the court to infer ‘the opinion’, the conduct must be of a tenor which cannot well be supposed to have been - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 willed without the inner existence of the ‘opinion’. When the conduct is of such a tenor, the court only gets to a relevant piece of evidence, namely, the opinion of a person. It still remains for the court to weigh such evidence and come to its own opinion as to the factum probandum — as to the relationship in question.” We also accept as correct the view that Section 50 does not make evidence of mere general reputation (without conduct) admissible as proof of relationship : Lakshmi Reddi v. Venkata Reddi [AIR (1937) PC 201]." 13. We may in this connection refer to one of our own decisions, Sitaji v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary [AIR 1954 SC 601] wherein the following observations were made: “A member of the family can speak in the witness box of what he has been told and what he has learned about his own ancestors, provided what he says is an expression of his own independent opinion (even though it is based on hearsay derived - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 from deceased, not living, persons) and is not merely repetition of the hearsay opinion of others, and provided the opinion is expressed by conduct. His sources of information and the time at which he acquired the knowledge (for example, whether before the dispute or not) would affect its weight but not its admissibility. This is therefore legally admissible evidence which, if believed, is legally sufficient to support the finding.” It is true that Dharanidhar Misra was not directly related to the family of Lokenath. He was, however, distantly related to Haripriya. He was a friend of Lokenath Parichha and lived in the same neighbourhood. His evidence showed that he knew him and the members of his family quite well. That being the position, his evidence that he attended the marriage ceremonies and the upanayan ceremonies of several members of the family undoubtedly showed his opinion as expressed by his conduct." - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 28. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Bantasingh and other v. Niranjan Singh3 at paragraph No.26 held as under: "26. Interpreting Section 50 of the Evidence Act, this Court held: (Paricha case [ From the Judgment and Order dated 27-8-2003 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal No. 1290 of 1982 : AIR 2004 P&H 334] , AIR p. 918, para 6) “6. … On a plain reading of the section it is quite clear that it deals with relevancy of a particular fact. It states in effect that when the court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another the opinion expressed by conduct as to the existence of such relationship of any person who has special means of knowledge on the subject of that relationship is a relevant fact. The two illustrations appended to the section clearly bring out the true scope and effect of the section. It appears to us that the essential requirements of the section are — (1) there must be a case where the court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to 3 2008 4 SCC 75 - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 another; (2) in such a case, the opinion expressed by conduct as to the existence of such relationship is a relevant fact; (3) but the person whose opinion expressed by conduct is relevant must be a person who as a member of the family or otherwise has special means of knowledge on the particular subject of relationship; in other words, the person must fulfil the condition laid down in the latter part of the section. If the person fulfils that condition, then what is relevant is his opinion expressed by conduct. Opinion means something more than mere retailing of gossip or of hearsay; it means judgment or belief, that is, a belief or a conviction resulting from what one thinks on a particular question. Now, the ‘belief’ or conviction may manifest itself in conduct or behaviour which indicates the existence of the belief or opinion. What the section says is that such conduct or outward behaviour as evidence of the opinion held is relevant and may, therefore, be proved.” It was furthermore held: (AIR pp. 918-19, para 7) “7. … If we remember that the offered item of evidence under Section 50 is conduct in the sense explained above, then there is no - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 difficulty in holding that such conduct or outward behaviour must be proved in the manner laid down in Section 60; if the conduct relates to something which can be seen, it must be proved by the person who saw it; if it is something which can be heard, then it must be proved by the person who heard it; and so on. The conduct must be of the person who fulfils the essential conditions of Section 50, and it must be proved in the manner laid down in the provisions relating to proof. It appears to us that that portion of Section 60 which provides that the person who holds an opinion must be called to prove his opinion does not necessarily delimit the scope of Section 50 in the sense that opinion expressed by conduct must be proved only by the person whose conduct expresses the opinion. Conduct, as an external perceptible fact, may be proved either by the testimony of the person himself whose opinion is evidence under Section 50 or by some other person acquainted with the facts which express such opinion, and as the testimony must relate to external facts which constitute conduct and is given by persons personally acquainted with such facts, the testimony is in each case direct within the meaning of Section 60. This, in our - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 opinion, is the true interrelation between Section 50 and Section 60 of the Evidence Act.” 29. It would be beneficial to refer to Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and Ors.4 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “…. A strong presumption arises in favour of wedlock where the partners have lived together for a long spell as husband and wife. Although the presumption is rebuttable, a heavy burden lies on him who seeks to deprive the relationship of legal origin. Law leans in favour of legitimacy and frowns upon bastardy. …" 30. Similarly, in Andrahennedige Dinohamy and Anr. v. Wijetunge Liyanapatabendige Balahamy and Ors.5,5 wherein the Privy Council observed that: “….where a man and woman are proved to have lived together as man and wife, the law will presume, unless the contrary be clearly proved, that they were living together in consequence of a valid marriage and not in a state of concubinage". 4 (1978) 3 SCC 527 5 1927 SCC OnLine PC 51 - 36 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 31. In Mohabbat Ali Khan v. Mahomed Ibrahim Khan and Ors.6, the Privy Council observed that: "… The law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage when a man and a woman have cohabited continuously for a number of years. …'' 32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tulsa and others v. Durghatiya and others,7, has held at paragraphs No.11 to 14 as under: “11. At this juncture reference may be made to Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (in short “the Evidence Act”). The provision refers to common course of natural events, human conduct and private business. The court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have occurred. Reading the provisions of Sections 50 and 114 of the Evidence Act together, it is clear that the act of marriage can be presumed from the common course of natural events and the conduct of parties as they are borne out by the facts of a particular case. 6 1929 SCC OnLine PC 21 7 (2008) 4 SCC 520 - 37 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 12. A number of judicial pronouncements have been made on this aspect of the matter. The Privy Council, on two occasions, considered the scope of the presumption that could be drawn as to the relationship of marriage between two persons living together. In first of them i.e. Andrahennedige Dinohamy v. Wijetunge Liyanapatabendige Balahamy [AIR 1927 PC 185] Their Lordships of the Privy Council laid down the general proposition that : (AIR p. 187) “… where a man and woman are proved to have lived together as man and wife, the law will presume, unless the contrary be clearly proved, that they were living together in consequence of a valid marriage and not in a state of concubinage.” 13. In Mohabbat Ali Khan v. Mohd. Ibrahim Khan [(1928-29) 56 IA 201 : AIR 1929 PC 135] Their Lordships of the Privy Council once again laid down that : (AIR p. 138) “The law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage, when a man and a woman have cohabited continuously for a number of years.” 14. It was held that such a presumption could be drawn under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. - 38 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 33. Applying the principles of law laid down with regard to Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, P.W.2 has deposed that he is acquainted with the family of the plaintiffs. His evidence goes to show that he had special means of knowledge regarding relationship between the plaintiffs and Gangadharaiah. He deposed that plaintiff No.1 is the wife of Gangadharaiah and plaintiffs No.2 to 4 are children born to Gangadharaiah and plaintiff No.1. His evidence is to the effect that Gangadhariah and plaintiff No.1 lived together for long spell of time and lived as husband and wife. His evidence proves that he was well acquainted with family of the plaintiffs and thereby proves that he has special means of knowledge regarding the relationship between Gangadharaiah and the plaintiffs. Upon considering the cross-examination of P.W.2 nothing contrary is revealed so as to discredit the evidence of P.W.2. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 proves the relationship of Gangadharaiah with plaintiffs and is found to be relevant and admissible for appreciation of evidence of P.W.1 in this regard. - 39 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 Consequently, the evidence of P.W.1 regarding the said relationship stands corroborated with evidence of P.W.2. BURDEN OF PROOF AND ONUS OF PROOF 34. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh8 observed thus: “19. There is another aspect of the matter which should be borne in mind. A distinction exists between burden of proof and onus of proof. The right to begin follows onus probandi. It assumes importance in the early stage of a case. The question of onus of proof has greater force, where the question is, which party is to begin. Burden of proof is used in three ways: (i) to indicate the duty of bringing forward evidence in support of a proposition at the beginning or later; (ii) to make that of establishing a proposition as against all counter-evidence; and (iii) an indiscriminate use in which it may mean either or both of the others. The elementary rule in Section 101 is inflexible. In terms of Section 102 the initial onus is always on the plaintiff and if he discharges that onus and makes out a case which entitles him to a relief, the onus shifts to the defendant to prove those circumstances, if any, which would disentitle the plaintiff to the same.” 8 2006) 5 SCC 558 - 40 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 35. Also, in the case of Addagada Raghavamma and Anr. v. Addagada Chenchamma and Anr,9 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “12. … There is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof : burden of proof lies upon the person who has to prove a fact and it never shifts, but the onus of proof shifts. …Such considerations, having regard to the circumstances of a particular case, may shift the onus of proof. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. …” 36. There is a distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof. The plaintiffs have discharged their burden effectively by leading the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and documentary evidence as discussed above. From the evidence led by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have discharged their burden to prove their relationship with Gangadharaiah. When the plaintiffs have discharged their burden initially then the onus is on the defendants to prove that how Gangadharaiah was not related to the plaintiffs. But defendants have not adduced any convincing evidence that 9 1963 SCC OnLine SC 37 - 41 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 Gangadharaiah is not related to plaintiffs in this regard. Therefore, the defendants have failed to discharge their onus of proof and the burden of proof discharged by the plaintiffs is made as effective and conclusive proof that plaintiff No.1 is the wife of Gangadharaiah and plaintiffs No.2 to 4 are children born to Gangadharaiah and plaintiff No.1. Therefore upon reading the evidence led by the plaintiffs as discussed above, the plaintiffs have discharged their burden to prove the relationship but at the same time when it is onus on the defendants, they failed to discharge their onus of proof. REVENUE RECORDS NOT PROOF OF TITLE 37. In the absence of any substantive rebuttal, the defendants place reliance on the revenue records. However, their reliance on the revenue records is of no avail, as such records only hold presumptive value and do not confer title. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Bhan and - 42 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 Ors. v. Financial Commissioner and Ors.10 observed thus: “9. … It is well settled that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record- ofrights. It is settled law that entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only “fiscal purpose” i.e. payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. So far as title to the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court (vide Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh, (1993) 4 SCC 403). …” 38. The fact in issue in the present case is, whether plaintiff No.1 is the legally wedded wife of Gangadharaiah and whether plaintiffs No.2 to 4 are the children born to the Gangadharaiah and plaintiff No.1. In order to establish this relationship, the opinion of a witness who possesses special means of knowledge regarding such relationship is a relevant fact under Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act. 10 (2007) 6 SCC 186 - 43 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 39. PW.2 has deposed regarding the existence of the relationship between the plaintiffs and Gangadharaiah. The evidence on record establishes that PW.2 possesses special means of knowledge regarding the said relationship. Therefore, his testimony is relevant and admissible under Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act. The defendants have not placed any contra evidence to discredit or rebut the testimony of PW.2. Further, upon consideration of the cross- examination of PW.2 reveals that nothing has been elicited to show that he does not possess special means of knowledge regarding the relationship between the plaintiffs and the deceased Gangadharaiah. 40. It is pertinent to note that Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act uses the expression "special means of knowledge" and not "special knowledge." The special means of knowledge" refers to a long-standing and continuous acquaintance with the facts relating to a family and its members. When such knowledge regarding a relationship is acquired naturally over a long period in the normal course of - 44 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 human conduct, it constitutes a "special means of knowledge" within the meaning of Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the present case, the witness has deposed on the basis of his long-standing acquaintance with the family and his natural observation of the relationship between the plaintiffs and Gangadharaiah in the ordinary course of life. Such prolonged observation and continuous association constitute the "special means of knowledge" contemplated under Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act for proving the relationship between the plaintiffs and Gangadharaiah. Therefore, as per Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, the evidence of P.W.2 is found to be relevant and admissible, particularly in the absence of any contra evidence. Accordingly, the plaintiffs have proved the fact that the plaintiff No.1 is wife of Gangadharaiah and plaintiffs No.2 to 4 are children of Gangadharaiah and plaintiff No.1. 41. Learned counsel for defendants No.1 to 4 highlighted the discrepancies found in Ex.P13. Ex.P13 is the School Admission Certificate of plaintiff No.2 in which the - 45 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 date of birth of the plaintiff No.2 is stated as 02.06.1968 and Ex.P5 being the marriage invitation card, the date of marriage of deceased Gangadharaiah and plaintiff No.1 is mentioned as 18.02.1968. Therefore, these documents show that there is a gap of nearly four months from the date of marriage and the date of birth of plaintiff No.2. The learned counsel for the defendants contended that it is unnatural. Ex.P8 is the certified copy of the birth certificate of plaintiff No.2, wherein the date of birth is mentioned as 22.02.1969. Although there is a discrepancy with regard to the date of birth mentioned in Ex.P8 and Ex.P13, the date of birth mentioned in Ex.P8 is found to be relevant, as it is contained in the record maintained specifically for the registration of births. According to the official records, the birth certificate is a public document maintained specifically for the purpose of registration of births whereas Ex.P13 is only a school admission certificate. The Headmaster of the school is not the competent authority to determine or certify the date of birth; the date entered in the school records is based on the - 46 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 information furnished by the parents at the time of admission. Therefore, the discrepancy with regard to the date of birth in Ex.P8 and Ex.P13 is minor in nature and does not go to the root of the plaintiffs' case so as to discredit or rebut their evidence. 42. Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act stipulates what constitutes certified copies of public documents, Section 77 stipulates the mode of proof of public documents by production of certified copies and Section 79 raises a presumption as to the genuineness of such certified copies. The certified copies of the documents are relevant evidence to prove that plaintiff No.1 is the wife of Gangadharaiah and plaintiffs No.2 to 4 are children of Gangadharaiah and plaintiff No.1. Ex.P8 being the birth certificate and Ex.P13 being the school admission certificate, are relevant documents. There is no evidence to the contrary produced by the defendants to show that these documents are not relevant to the facts in issue. The fact in issue involved in the present case is that, the plaintiffs are legal heirs of - 47 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 deceased Gangadharaiah, being his wife and children. The certified copy of the document marked as Ex.P8 being the birth certificate of plaintiff No.2, is relevant and admissible in evidence for proving the date of birth of plaintiff No.2. Once the document is found to be relevant and admissible, the onus shifts to the defendants to prove that it is not relevant, but no evidence has been adduced on behalf the defendants in this regard. Therefore, the certified copy of the birth certificate is proved to be relevant and admissible for consideration and appreciation of the evidence. Accordingly, on appreciating the certified copy of the birth certificate, it is proved that plaintiff No.2 is the daughter of deceased Gangadharaiah and plaintiff No.1. The discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendants do not go to the core of the plaintiffs’ case and are minor in nature. Therefore, Ex.P13 being the certified copy of school admission certificate also proves that the plaintiff No.2 is the daughter of deceased Gangadharaiah and the fact that - 48 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 plaintiff No.2 is the daughter of deceased Gangadharaiah and plaintiff No.1. 43. Therefore, based on the evidence discussed above and upon re-appreciation of the entire materials on record, the plaintiffs have proved the relationship between the Gangadharaiah and plaintiff No.1. Consequently, it is established that the plaintiff No.1 is the wife of Gangadharaiah and plaintiffs No.2 to 4 are children of Gangadharaiah and plaintiff No.1. Accordingly, I answer point No.(i) in the Affirmative and point No.(iii) in the Negative. 44. The plaintiffs have also adduced evidence to establish that the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties. Once the plaintiffs have asserted and adduced prima facie evidence that the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties, the onus shifts to the defendants to establish that they are not ancestral or joint family properties. However, the defendants - 49 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 have failed to adduce any rebuttal evidence in that regard. Further, in the written statement, defendants No. 1 to 5 have not denied that the properties are ancestral and joint family properties. The mere defence of defendants No. 1 to 5 is that, the plaintiffs are not the legal heirs of Gangadhariah; however, the defendants have failed to submit evidence to rebut the plaintiffs' averments and documents. The original propositus was one Siddalingalaiah who had four children. Ex.P1 is the RTC extract in respect of land bearing Sy.no.66/1. Exs.D3, D6 and D8 are copies of orders of Land Tribunal in which owner of the land is shown as Siddalingaiah. 45. Further, Exs. D11 to D29 are the RTC extracts in respect of the land bearing Sy. No. 66/1, which reflect the names of Gowramma, Parvathamma, and Siddagangamma. Ex. D10 is the mutation register extract, which shows that Siddalingaiah was the original propositus. Consequently, there is no dispute regarding the fact that Siddalingaiah was the original owner holding title to the suit properties. - 50 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 Therefore, the plaintiffs have proved the fact that the suit properties are ancestral and joint family properties. Since the plaintiffs have proved that all the suit properties are ancestral and joint family properties and that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Gangadharaiah, they are entitled to a 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties. Accordingly, I answer point No.(ii) in the Affirmative. 46. The next question that arises for consideration before the Court is that, whether the 1 acre of land out of the total 4 acres 6 guntas in Sy. No. 66/1, as claimed by defendant No. 7, is amenable to partition or not. 47. The learned counsel for defendant No.7 submitted that the defendant No.7 was a tenant of the land of suit item No.1 of the suit schedule property and he has filed an application for grant of occupancy rights before the Land Tribunal. It is contended that initially the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of defendant No.7 but ultimately in the legal proceedings against the order passed - 51 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 by the Land Tribunal of rejecting the application of defendant No.7 for the occupancy rights, the matter went up before this Court in W.P No.19370/2004. The order copy of the writ petition is produced at Ex.D52. In the said W.P No.19370/2004 vide order dated 12.04.2012, this Court has recorded that there is compromise between defendants No.1 to 5 and defendant No.7 and therefore occupancy rights was granted in favour of defendant No.7 to the extent of 1 acre only out of total extent of 4 acres 6 guntas in land bearing Sy.66/1. Ex.D50 is the compromise petition filed in W.P No.19370/2004. 48. The learned counsel for defendant No.7 argued that since this Court had directed the Land Tribunal to grant occupancy rights in favour of defendant No.7 in respect of 1 acre of land, it is not available for partition among the plaintiffs and the defendants. He further contended that the land had vested in the State as on 01.03.1974, and consequently, Siddalingaiah was no more owner of the said property. He further argued that following the Land - 52 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 Tribunal's grant of occupancy rights over the 1 acre of land in favour of defendant No.7, a compromise was entered into between defendant No.7 and defendants Nos. 1 to 5. He contended that Siddalingaiah ceased to be the owner of this 1 acre of land in Sy. No. 66/1, as the land had already vested in the State way back on 01.03.1974 by virtue of the amendments to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. Therefore, he submitted that the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek partition over the said 1 acre of land in Sy. No. 66/1. 49. To counter this, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the compromise entered into between defendant No.7, the tenant and defendants No. 1 to 5, the owners, being the legal heirs of Siddalingaiah is not binding on the plaintiffs, as they were not parties to the said compromise. Hence, it is submitted that any grant of occupancy rights in respect of the one acre of land is not binding on the shares of the plaintiffs. - 53 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 50. It is proved that defendant No.7 had put forth his claim asserting that he was a tenant in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 66/1, measuring 4 acres 6 guntas in its entirety, and contended that the said land had vested in the State under Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. Ultimately, in the proceedings relating to the grant of occupancy rights, this Court, by its order in W.P. No. 19370/2004, marked as Ex. D52, granted occupancy rights to defendant No.7 to the extent of 1 acre in Sy. No. 66/1. Thus, defendant No.7 was granted occupancy rights only to the extent of 1 acre out of the total extent of 4 acres 6 guntas in Sy. No. 66/1, which is more fully described as Item No. 1 of the suit schedule property. Once the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the said writ petition and in terms of the compromise entered into between defendants Nos. 1 to 5 on one side and defendant No. 7 on the other, the grant of occupancy rights was subject to the condition precedent that the land must have been vested in the State as on - 54 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 01.03.1974 by virtue of the amendments to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, which came into force on 01.03.1974. 51. Therefore, when occupancy rights are granted, even if such a grant was based on a compromise to which the plaintiffs were not parties while deciding the writ petition as per Ex.D52, the legal position remains that only lands which vested in the State as on 01.03.1974 are available for the grant of occupancy rights under Sections 44 and 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Consequently, by virtue of the grant of occupancy rights over the 1 acre of land out of the total 4 acres 6 guntas in Sy. No. 66/1, the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim partition over the said 1 acre, as it had already vested in the State as on 01.03.1974. The very fact of granting occupancy rights in favour of defendant No.7 to the extent of 1 acre of land in Sy. No. 66/1 relates back to the vesting of the land as on 01.03.1974. The vesting of the land and the grant of occupancy rights cannot be bifurcated; they are integral to each other. Unless the land has vested in - 55 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 the State, the question of granting occupancy rights does not arise. The vesting of the land in the State as on 01.03.1974 is a condition precedent for the grant of occupancy rights. 52. Soon after occupancy right is granted to defendant No.7 to the extent of 1 acre of land, then the condition precedent of the said land for vesting to the State comes into force and it is recognised as per law. Therefore, as on 01.03.1974, it is presumed that Siddalingaiah lost his title and ownership over the property in Sy.no.66/1 in respect of 1 acre of land by virtue of the grant of occupancy right in favour of defendant No.7 as per compromise. Once Siddalingaiah is deemed to have lost his title and ownership over the said 1 acre of land, the plaintiffs cannot claim partition to the extent of 1 acre of land in Sy. No.66/1, over which occupancy rights have been granted in favour of defendant No.7. 53. The rulings relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in RFA No.915/2021 are distinguishable on - 56 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 facts and therefore, they are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for partition over the item No.1 of the suit schedule property to the extent of 3 acres 6 guntas only excluding 1 acre and the decree granting partition in respect of item No.1 of suit schedule property is found to be correct. Therefore, I answer point No.(iv) in the Affirmative. 54. Therefore, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court granting partition to the entire extent of 4 acres 6 guntas of item No. 1 of the suit schedule property is liable to be modified, holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to partition only to the extent of 3 acres 6 guntas in item No. 1 of the suit schedule property. Further, the judgment and decree granting 1/4th share insofar as item No. 2 of suit schedule property is concerned, is liable to be confirmed. Accordingly, I answer point No.(v) Partly Affirmative. 55. Before parting with the judgment, this Court places on record its deep appreciation for the well researched - 57 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 and valuable assistance rendered by Research Assistant, namely Smt. Pushpa R., and her valuable research helped the Court to take a correct conclusion. Accordingly, the Court places its appreciation on Research Assistant, namely Smt. Pushpa R., on record. 56. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) RFA No.1030/2021 is dismissed. ii) RFA No.915/2021 is allowed. iii) The judgment and decree dated 17.07.2021 passed in O.S.No.27/2010 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tumakuru is modified. iv) The plaintiffs together are entitled to 1/4th share, defendants No.1(a) and 1(b) together are entitled to 1/4th share, defendants No.2, 3 and 4 together are entitled to 1/4th share and defendant No.5 is entitled to 1/4th share in the land bearing Sy.no.66/1 to the - 58 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30042 RFA No. 1030 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 915 of 2021 extent of 3 acres 6 guntas only out of 4 acres 6 guntas (excluding one acre). v) The judgment and decree of the Trial Court insofar as granting partition in respect of item No.2 of suit schedule property, is hereby confirmed. vi) Defendant Nos.1(a), 1(b) and defendants No.2, 3 and 4 are directed to pay necessary court fee. vii) No order as to costs. viii) Draw decree accordingly. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA: Para 1 to 20 UN: Para 21 to end List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48