- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010453962025 NC: 2026:KHC:36027 RFA No. 1655 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1655 OF 2025 (PAR/DEC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GANGARATHNAMMA W/O LATE GOPALAKRISHNA DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF LATE MUNIYAPPA AND LATE LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 2. MR. KIRAN KUMAR S/O. LATE GOPALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT HUNEGULLU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NAIK VENKATRAMAN NAGAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. GOPAMMA D/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA AND LATE LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT HOSUR VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010453962025 NC: 2026:KHC:36027 RFA No. 1655 of 2025 2. SMT. YASHODHAMMA D/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA AND LATE LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, MAGADI ROAD, KAMAKSHMIPALYA, BANGALORE – 560 079. 3. KUMARI. PUSHPAVATHI D/O LATE GOPALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS 4. SMT. MUNIRATHAN D/O. GANGAMMA GRANDDAUGHTER OF LATE MUNIYAPPA AND LATE LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESIDING AT HUNEGULLU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SOHANI A HOLLA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. S.R. SREEPRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.10.2024 PASSED IN OS.NO. 340/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHICKBALLAPUR AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010453962025 NC: 2026:KHC:36027 RFA No. 1655 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 3 calling in question the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.340/2019 dated 21.10.2024 by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM., at Chickballapura (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the suit filed for partition and declaration was dismissed. 2. Being aggrieved by dismissal of the suit filed for partition and declaration and against the findings made on the gift deed, the present appeal is preferred by defendant Nos.1 and 3. 3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 4. The plaintiffs have filed suit for partition of claiming 1/4th share in the suit schedule property and also - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010453962025 NC: 2026:KHC:36027 RFA No. 1655 of 2025 made prayer to declare that the gift deed dated 25.01.2019 is obtained by playing fraud and misrepresentation and not binding on them. 5. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiffs are the daughters, defendant No.1 is the daughter-in-law and defendant Nos.2 to 4 are the grand children of late Muniyappa and late Lakshmamma. It is stated that the suit schedule land bearing Sy.No.80/4 measuring 30 guntas situated at Devastanada Hosahalli village, Kasaba Holbi, Chikkaballur Taluk, is the joint family property of the plaintiffs and defendants. It is stated that the suit schedule land was acquired by Muniyappa and katha was mutated in the name of Lakshmamma. 6. It is stated that Muniyappa was managing the suit schedule land till his death as manager of the family and died in the year 2008 leaving behind his wife Lakshmamma, plaintiffs and defendants as his successors. It is stated that the mother of defendant No.4 came to - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010453962025 NC: 2026:KHC:36027 RFA No. 1655 of 2025 Hunegal village and started residing with Lakshmamma after demise of her husband. The said Lakshmamma was illiterate lady and was unaware about the worldly affairs and taking undue advantage of old age ailments as well as the illiteracy of Lakshmamma, defendant No.4 in order to knock off the suit schedule property has fraudulently without the knowledge of Lakshmamma and plaintiffs, had got created the gift deed in the name of her mother Gangamma on 25.01.2019. Therefore, the said gift deed was obtained by playing fraud and misrepresentation. 7. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the said Lakshmamma was old aged woman has lost her eye sight about three years before her death and she could not hear for last five years and she was also not in position to identify her own daughters and grand children. Defendant No.4 in order to knock of the said suit schedule land, took Lakshmamma to the Sub-Registrar office and got obtained alleged gift deed dated 25.01.2019. The said Lakshmamma died on 13.08.2019 leaving behind the - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010453962025 NC: 2026:KHC:36027 RFA No. 1655 of 2025 plaintiffs and defendants as her successors. After the death of Lakshmamma, defendant No.4 started detriment to the interest of plaintiffs over the joint family and thus the plaintiffs demanded their 1/4th share in the suit schedule property, but the same is denied. Therefore, they came to know about that the execution of alleged gift deed. The mother of defendant No.4 was also died on 14.10.2019 leaving behind defendant No.4 as her successor. After the death of mother of defendant No.4, defendant No.4 trying to transfer katha of the suit schedule land in her name and denied to give share to the other coparceners. 8. It is the case of the plaintiffs and defendants that the said Lakshmamma had purchased the suit schedule land through registered sale deed dated 30.09.1970 and it is her absolute property. Therefore, filed the suit for partition and for declaration that the gift deed executed is by playing fraud and misrepresentation. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010453962025 NC: 2026:KHC:36027 RFA No. 1655 of 2025 9. In pursuance of the suit summons issued, defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 appeared through their respective Advocates. Defendant No.2 remained absent and thus she was placed exparte. Defendant Nos.1 and 3 have filed their separate written statement and defendant No.4 has filed her separate written statement. 10. Defendant Nos.1 and 3 have admitted the relationship of plaintiffs and defendants and have contended that the suit property belongs to Lakshmamma. It is the case of defendant Nos.1 and 3 that during the lifetime of Lakshmamma, she has executed the registered Will dated 13.08.2019 bequeathing the land to an extent of 15 guntas in favour of defendant No.3 and to an extent of 15 guntas was given to mother of defendant No.4. Therefore, by virtue of the said Will, defendant No.3 has been bequeathed 15 guntas of land and mother of defendant No.4 was bequeathed 15 guntas of land. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010453962025 NC: 2026:KHC:36027 RFA No. 1655 of 2025 11. When this being the fact, defendant No.4 played fraud and obtained Khata in mutation No.MR H25/2018-19 to the full extent of the suit schedule land on the guise of alleged gift deed. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit. 12. Defendant No.4 filed separate written statement and admitted the relationship between plaintiffs and defendants and it is the contention of defendant No.4 that Lakshamamma has executed the gift deed in favour of Gangamma (the daughter) and thus defendant No.4 has become the absolute owner to the full extent. It is the case of defendant No.4 that Lakshmamma during her advanced age, was living with her mother and therefore, out of love and affection, she has executed the gift deed in favour of defendant No.4 on 25.01.2019, which is registered in the office of Sub-Registrar and also the said Lakshmamma handed over the possession of the suit schedule land to the mother of defendant No.4. Therefore, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 3 have no manner - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010453962025 NC: 2026:KHC:36027 RFA No. 1655 of 2025 of right, title and interest over the suit schedule land. Hence, the suit schedule land is not partible. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 13. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, plaint schedule property is a joint family property of plaintiffs and defendants and the same was acquired in the name of their mother Lakshmamma for the benefit of family? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, defendant No.4 fraudulently without the knowledge of their mother Lakshmamma and the plaintiffs got obtained the gift deed dated: 25.01.2019 in favour of her mother Gangamma? 3. Whether the defendant No.4 proves that, plaint schedule is the self acquired poeprty of the deceased Lakshmamma? 4. Whether the defendant No.4 proves, that, the deceased Lakshmamma out of her love and affection gifted the plaint schedule property in favour of her mother - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010453962025 NC: 2026:KHC:36027 RFA No. 1655 of 2025 Smt.Gangamma through a registered gift deed dated: 25.01.2019? 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief as sought for? 6. What Order or Decree? ADDITIONAL ISSUES 1. Whether defendant No.3 proves that, he acquired right and interest over the suit property by virtue of registered Will executed by Lakshmamma in his favour? 2. Whether defendant No.3 further proves that, the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation? 14. In order to prove the case, plaintiff No.2 is examined as PW.1 and another witness is examined as PW.2 and produced documentary evidence as Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.12. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No.4 is examined as DW.1 and defendant No.1 is examined as DW-5 and got marked documentary evidence as Exs.D1 to D11 and three more witnesses are examined as attesting - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010453962025 NC: 2026:KHC:36027 RFA No. 1655 of 2025 witness to gift as DW.2, 3 and 4 and one attesting witness to Will is examined as DW.6. 15. The Trial Court has dismissed the suit filed for partition and declaration and upheld the gift deed by accepting the case of defendant No.4. The trial Court assigned reasons that the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 3 have failed to prove due execution of the Will, though it is registered one. The Trial Court appreciated the evidence of DW.6 who is attesting witness to the Will deposed that he did not know that Lakshmamma had executed a Will. Therefore, disbelieved the evidence of DW.6 and ultimately held that the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 have not proved the execution of Will by Lakshmamma. 16. At the same time, the Trial Court has upheld the contention of defendant No.4 that Lakshmamma was the absolute owner as she has purchased the suit schedule land by her own source of income; therefore, as per - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010453962025 NC: 2026:KHC:36027 RFA No. 1655 of 2025 Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the suit schedule land is the absolute property of Lakshmamma and also assigned reasons that by attesting witnesses DWs.2, 3 and 4 to the gift deed and also the evidence of DW.1, it is proved that Lakshmamma had executed a gift deed in favour of mother of defendant No.4. Therefore, upheld the execution of gift deed. Thus, by these observations and findings, the suit filed for partition was dismissed and also denied the relief of declaration to declare that gift is not binding on the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 3. 17. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 3 have filed the instant appeal by raising various grounds in the memorandum of appeal and in consonance with the grounds urged, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 3 vehemently submitted that though the plaintiffs have not challenged the judgment and decree, but defendant Nos.1 - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010453962025 NC: 2026:KHC:36027 RFA No. 1655 of 2025 and 3 are affected by the dismissal of the suit since the suit filed is for partition and declaration. Thus, defendant Nos.1 and 3 have been denied the share in the suit schedule land as it is the ancestral property. Hence, filed this present appeal. 18. Further, it is submitted that Lakshmamma during her lifetime has executed the registered Will on 12.03.2013 when she was healthy, but in the said Will, Lakshmamma had bequeathed the suit schedule land to equal share to defendant No.3 and the mother of defendant No.4. Therefore, both these defendant Nos.3 and 4 have obtained 15 guntas of land each. Thereafter, when Lakshmamma was at her advanced age had lost eye sight and was not hearing properly and was not having worldly affairs regarding the documents, but defendant No.4 by playing fraud and misrepresentation got executed the gift deed to the entire suit schedule land in her favour; therefore, it is submitted that the gift deed obtained by defendant No.4 is by playing fraud and misrepresentation. - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010453962025 NC: 2026:KHC:36027 RFA No. 1655 of 2025 Hence, it is submitted that though the suit was dismissed, but the findings given by Trial court virtually indicates the share of defendant No.1 and 3 as it is against the will and wish of Lakshmamma. Thus, it is submitted that the appeal is maintainable as defendant Nos.1 and 3 are deprived of getting their 1/4th share in the suit schedule land. Therefore, submitted that if the suit has been decreed, then defendant Nos.1 and 3 would have obtained 1/4th share, but now by virtue of dismissal of the suit, defendant Nos.1 and 3 are deprived of getting their 1/4th share in the suit schedule land. 19. Further, it is submitted that the dismissal of the suit is on technical term, but substantially it deprives the legitimate right of defendant Nos.1 and 3 for claiming 1/4th share in the suit schedule land. Therefore, defendant Nos.1 and 3 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court have preferred this present appeal. Thus, the appeal is maintainable and hence, prays to decree the suit filed for partition and prays to grant - 15 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010453962025 NC: 2026:KHC:36027 RFA No. 1655 of 2025 1/4th share to plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 3 along with defendant No.2. 20. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 submitted that Lakshmamma had purchased the suit schedule property in the year 1970, therefore, the said suit schedule land was the absolute property of Lakshmamma as per Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The said Lakshmamma was being looked after by defendant No.4 and her mother during her last days. Therefore, out of love and affection when she was looked after by the mother of defendant No.4 and defendant No.4 at her advanced age, the said Lakshmamma had executed the gift deed in favour of mother of defendant No.4. Hence, defendant No.4 has become owner of the suit schedule land, which is correctly appreciated by the Trial Court. 21. Further, it is submitted that the execution of the registered gift deed is proved by the attesting - 16 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010453962025 NC: 2026:KHC:36027 RFA No. 1655 of 2025 witnesses to the gift deed, who are DWs.2, 3 and 4. Therefore, the gift deed executed is genuine and for bona fide reasons. Hence, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 3 are not entitled to any share in the suit schedule land as the suit schedule land is not partible land. Thus, supported the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and prays to dismiss the appeal. 22. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are plaintiffs and defendant No.2 submitted that Lakshmamma had executed the Will dated 12.03.2013 bequeathing the suit schedule land to an extent of 15 guntas to her grand son (defendant No.3) and to the mother of defendant No.4 to the extent of 15 guntas. Therefore, whatever execution of gift deed by Lakshmamma has been executed as contended by defendant No.4 are by playing fraud and misrepresentation, since on the alleged execution of gift deed dated 25.01.2019, Lakshmamma was at her advanced age and has lost her eye sight and also became - 17 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010453962025 NC: 2026:KHC:36027 RFA No. 1655 of 2025 partially deaf and dumb and blind and could not recognize the daughters and did not know worldly affairs and had no knowledge regarding the execution of the documents. Thus, whatever the execution of gift deed is nothing but playing fraud and misrepresentation. Therefore, it is submitted that Lakshmamma has four children and hence, the suit filed for partition be decreed by granting 1/4th share to all the children of Lakshmamma. Hence, supported the contention of appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 3 and prays to allow the appeal. 23. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties and upon perusal of the Trial Court records as furnished by the learned counsel for both the parties, the following points would arise for consideration. i. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the respondents/plaintiffs proved that the suit schedule land is the joint family and ancestral property entitling partition of 1/4th share to defendant No.2? - 18 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010453962025 NC: 2026:KHC:36027 RFA No. 1655 of 2025 ii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 3 prove that the execution of the gift deed by Lakshmamma in favour of mother of defendant No.4 is by playing fraud and misrepresentation and execution of gift deed is excluding other natural legal heirs and giving the entire suit schedule land in favour of defendant No.4 only is unnatural circumstances? iii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, defendant No.4 is proved that Lakshmamma had earlier executed the registered gift deed dated 25.01.2019 in favour of mother of defendant No.4? iv. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, defendant Nos.1 and 3 and the plaintiffs prove that Lakshmamma had executed the registered Will bequeathing the suit schedule land to the extent of 15 guntas of land each only in favour of defendant No.3 and mother of defendant No.4? 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? - 19 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010453962025 NC: 2026:KHC:36027 RFA No. 1655 of 2025 24. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. For easy reference, the genealogy is stated as follows: Muniyappa (Died in 2008) Lakshmamma Gopamma Yashodamma Gopalakrishna Gangamma P-1 P-2 (Gangarathnamma)(wife) Munirathna D-1 D-4 Pushpavati Kiran Kumar D-2 D-3 25. The suit schedule land was purchased in the name of Lakshmamma through registered sale deed dated 03.09.1970 is also not in dispute. The question for consideration in this appeal is regarding the suit schedule land acquired by Lakshmamma as per the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendant No.4, Lakshmamma had purchased the suit schedule land in her name. Whereas, the plaintiffs and - 20 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010453962025 NC: 2026:KHC:36027 RFA No. 1655 of 2025 defendant Nos.1 and 3 submitted that Muniyappa is the husband of Lakshmamma had purchased the suit schedule land in his wife's name on 03.09.1970. Therefore, it is pleading of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 3 that the suit schedule land is the joint family and ancestral property purchased by Muniyappa. 26. Just because, the suit schedule land purchased in the name of Lakshmamma, cannot be said that Lakshmamma had acquired and purchased the property on her own source of income in the absence of any evidence. When defendant No.4 was contending that Lakshmamma had purchased suit schedule land in her name out of her own source of income, there must be some evidence, but here, defendant No.4 has not produced any evidence to show that what was the source of income of Lakshmamma to purchase the suit schedule land and there is no evidence that what was the work being done by Lakshmamma during her lifetime and what was her source of income. Here, there is no evidence by defendant No.2 - 21 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010453962025 NC: 2026:KHC:36027 RFA No. 1655 of 2025 that to prove that Lakshmamma had purchased the said suit schedule land. Whereas, Muniyappa is the husband of Lakshmamma who is eldest member in the family being only earning member in the family, out of his own source of income had purchased the suit schedule land in the name of Lakshmamma. Therefore, after considering these source of acquisition of suit schedule land as above discussed on its preponderance of probabilities, it is presumed and proved that Muniyappa had purchased the suit schedule land through registered sale deed dated 03.09.1970 in the name of Lakshmamma. Therefore, in this regard, the suit schedule land cannot be considered as the absolute property of Lakshmamma as per Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 27. It is the case of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and 3 that Lakshmamma during her lifetime on 12.03.2013 had executed the registered Will bequeathing the suit schedule land in the name of defendant No.3, who is grandson and mother of defendant No.4. Plaintiff No.2 is - 22 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010453962025 NC: 2026:KHC:36027 RFA No. 1655 of 2025 examined as PW.1 and deposed about the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are in possession and cultivating the land. When it is the case of the plaintiffs that Lakshmamma had executed a registered Will, but the original Will is not produced. 28. As per Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, at least one attesting witness shall be examined and DW.6 is the witness to the Will but DW.6 in his evidence has deposed that he did not know that Lakhshmamma had executed the Will. Under these two circumstances, upon appreciating the evidence on record that the original Will is not produced and from the evidence of DW.6 that he did not know that Lakshmamma had executed a Will; therefore, the execution of Will is not proved. To this extent, the finding given by the Trial Court is correct that the Will is not proved. 29. Then the question is for considering whether Lakshmamma had executed the registered gift deed with - 23 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010453962025 NC: 2026:KHC:36027 RFA No. 1655 of 2025 her full consciousness knowing worldly affairs and about the nature of the documents and the execution of gift deed is as per full understanding that why she had excluded other three children and executed the the gift deed giving the suit schedule land entirely to defendant No.4; under these circumstances, the evidence is to be appreciated. It is the case of defendant No.4 that Lakshmamma was residing along with the mother of defendant No.4 and also with defendant No.4 and therefore, out of love and affection, Lakshmamma had gifted the suit schedule land to the mother of defendant No.4, but the question is mere mentioning that the gift deed is executed out of love and affection, whether this reasoning is having sound quality of that why the other three natural legal heirs were excluded and contrary to her earlier Will dated 12.03.2013. 30. In the gift deed, there is no recital that Lakshmamma had executed the registered Will earlier on 12.03.2013 and it was revoked and after revocation of the Will, the gift deed was executed, absolutely there is no - 24 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010453962025 NC: 2026:KHC:36027 RFA No. 1655 of 2025 recital in this regard. Further, it is the evidence of plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 3 that on 25.01.2019, Lakshmamma was at her advanced age having lost her eye sight and hearing capacity and also could not recognize her own daughters and grand children. Though there is no evidence regarding the physical and mental health condition of Lakshmamma, but the fact remains that Lakshmamma died on 13.08.2019. The gift deed was executed on 25.01.2019 and on 13.08.2019, Lakshmamma died. Therefore, during short interval of time, Lakshmamma died after six months of date of execution of gift deed. 31. Further, there is no mentioning in the gift deed by recital that why the other three natural legal heirs were excluded. This aspect is important from the observation made by the Trial Court for the reason that when there are other natural legal heirs and for exclusion of them bequeathing the suit schedule land to one of the legal heir, raises true suspiciousness about the execution of the gift - 25 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010453962025 NC: 2026:KHC:36027 RFA No. 1655 of 2025 deed. Even, it is hold good so in the case of execution of Will also. Therefore, just because attesting witnesses DWs.2 to 4 have deposed that Lakshmamma had executed the gift deed by giving over several documents, but there is no evidence that what was the physical and mental health condition of Lakshmamma and whether she was having knowledge of worldly affairs. Therefore, exclusion of other natural legal heirs and gifting the suit schedule land only in favour of one of the legal heir creates doubt regarding execution of the gift deed. Therefore, here the attempt made by defendant No.4 to knock off the entire suit schedule land in her favour only without giving any share to the other natural legal heirs, who are plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 3. Therefore, under these circumstances, the execution of gift deed is found to be suspicious one, as it excludes the other three natural legal heirs and claiming the share over the suit schedule land. 32. In this regard, mere legal requirements are proved regarding execution of document that itself does - 26 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010453962025 NC: 2026:KHC:36027 RFA No. 1655 of 2025 not sufficient to hold that the document is validly executed. Sufficiency of legal requirements is only first step towards proving the document, but that alone is not sufficient to say that the document is executed validly. When other requirements are to be considered and creates reasonable suspiciousness about execution of the documents, then the proof of legal requirements after execution goes in a shadow way. Therefore, mere attesting witnesses had deposed that the gift was executed that alone does not constitute valid execution of gift deed. In this regard, the Trial Court has committed an error in believing that the the gift deed executed by Lakshmamma in favour of defendant No.4 and thus it is nothing but showing way to grant the suit schedule land only in favour of defendant No.4 exclusively depriving the claim of share to other natural legal heirs, who are the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 3. Therefore, what this Court above held that the gift deed is not validly executed. Therefore, when the gift deed is taken away and also the - 27 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010453962025 NC: 2026:KHC:36027 RFA No. 1655 of 2025 Will as above stated, all the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 3 are all the grand children of Lakshmamma are entitled to 1/4th equal share in the suit schedule land. 33. Considering the other submissions made by learned counsel for respondent No.4, it is opined that the appeal filed by defendant Nos.1 and 3 is not maintainable by placing reliance on the observations made in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bansari & others vs. Ram Phal1 held as follows: “Sections 96 and 100 of the CPC make provision for an appeal being preferred from every original decree or from every decree passed in appeal respectively; none of the provisions enumerates the person who can file an appeal. However, it is settled by a long catena of decisions that to be entitled to file an appeal the person must be one aggrieved by the decree. Unless a person is prejudicially or adversely affected by the decree he is not entitled to file an appeal (See Phoolchand and Anr. v. Gopal Lal, [1967] 3 SCR 153; Smt. Jatan Kanwar Golcha v. M/s Golcha Properties (P) Ltd., [1970] 3 SCC 573; Smt. Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar and Ors., [1974] 2 SCC 393. No appeal lies against a mere finding. It is significant to note that both Sections 96 and 100 of the CPC provide for an appeal against decree and not against judgment.” 1 AIR 2003 SC 1989 - 28 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010453962025 NC: 2026:KHC:36027 RFA No. 1655 of 2025 34. It is the submission made by respondent No.4/defendant No.4 that the mere appeal pending under Section 96 of CPC is does not by itself maintainable. Further, it is submitted that the appellants are defendant Nos.1 and 3 and they are not aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit. Therefore, submitted the appeal filed by them is not maintainable and therefore, the appeal filed only on the finding on the gift deed made by the Trial Court is not maintainable. 35. Considering the above submissions, the above cited judgment rendered in the context of suit filed for specific performance, but the present suit is filed for partition. This makes difference in the factual matrix in the present case and in the above cited case. Though the plaintiffs have not filed appeal and defendant Nos.1 and 3 allow them to file appeal, but the fundamentally the instant suit is filed for partition. In every suit for partition, the plaintiff is defendant and the defendant is plaintiff and - 29 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010453962025 NC: 2026:KHC:36027 RFA No. 1655 of 2025 if the suit filed for partition was decreed, the defendants will also get share. Though, in the suit filed for partition, the plaintiffs alone make prayer for their respective shares. Therefore, in this regard, when the suit filed for partition was dismissed, defendant Nos.1 and 3 also will lose their right to claim their share. Therefore, the appeal filed by defendant Nos.1 and 3 is maintainable. Therefore, having found difference in the factual matrix in the above cited case and in the present case, the above cited judgment is not applicable to the present case. 36. Further, learned counsel for respondent No.4/defendant No.4 places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. B.Ranga Reddy2 and submitted that the appeal filed by defendant Nos.1 and 3 is not maintainable by placing reliance on the observations made in the said judgment at Paragraph No.10, which reads as follows: 2 (2019) 10 Scale 671 - 30 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010453962025 NC: 2026:KHC:36027 RFA No. 1655 of 2025 "10. The CPC amendment of 1976 has not materially or substantially altered the law except for a marginal difference. Even under the amended Order 41 Rule 22 sub-rule (1) a party in whose favour the decree stands in its entirety is neither entitled nor obliged to prefer any cross- objection. However, the insertion made in the text of sub-rule (1) makes it permissible to file a cross-objection against a finding. The difference which has resulted we will shortly state. A respondent may defend himself without filing any cross-objection to the extent to which decree is in his favour; however, if he proposes to attack any part of the decree he must take cross-objection. The amendment inserted by the 1976 amendment is clarificatory and also enabling and this may be made precise by analyzing the provision. There may be three situations: (i) The impugned decree is partly in favour of the appellant and partly in favour of the respondent. (ii) The decree is entirely in favour of the respondent though an issue has been decided against the respondent. (iii) The decree is entirely in favour of the respondent and all the issues have also been answered in favour of the respondent but there is a finding in the judgment which goes against the respondent.” 37. In the above cited case, the suit filed is for declaration. Therefore, in the suit filed for declaration, it was observed that in the absence of separate appeal by - 31 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010453962025 NC: 2026:KHC:36027 RFA No. 1655 of 2025 the aggrieved plaintiffs, the defendants and the other co-parties cannot maintain the appeal under Section 96 of CPC. But when the present case is considered, it is a suit for partition. If the said suit is decreed, the defendant Nos.1 and 3 will also get partition of 1/4th share in the suit schedule land, but the suit is dismissed; therefore, defendant Nos.1 and 3 being wife and son of Gopal Krishna are deprived of getting 1/4th share in the suit schedule land. Hence, when defendant Nos.1 and 3 are deprived of getting their 1/4th share by virtue of dismissal of the suit, they are aggrieved party, then they have a right to prefer the appeal as per Section 96 of CPC. Under these circumstances, the above cited judgment is not applicable to the present case on hand. 38. When the suit is filed for partition, the plaintiff is the defendant and the defendant is the plaintiff. Defendant No.3 has filed written statement praying to dismiss the suit on the ground that he was bequeathed 15 guntas of land by virtue of the Will dated 12.03.2019, but - 32 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010453962025 NC: 2026:KHC:36027 RFA No. 1655 of 2025 subsequently by virtue of the gift deed, he would lose his share also, then the entire suit schedule land goes to defendant No.4 only. Therefore, under these circumstances, defendant Nos.1 and 3 are aggrieved party as they have deprived of getting their shares; therefore, they have preferred the present appeal is very well maintainable under Section 96 of CPC. Hence, the difference in factual matrix in the present case and in the above cited case, the above cited cases are not applicable to the present case. Hence, the appeal filed by defendant Nos.1 and 3 is maintainable. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.(i), (ii) and (v) in the Affirmative and point No.(iii) & (iv) in the Negative. Thus, the suit is liable to be decreed by granting decree of partition and separate possession by metes and bounds. Hence, the appeal is liable to be allowed. 39. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: - 33 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010453962025 NC: 2026:KHC:36027 RFA No. 1655 of 2025 ORDER i. The Regular First Appeal is allowed. ii. The judgment and decree dated 21.10.2024 passed in O.S.No.340/2019 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Chickballapura, is hereby set aside. iii. The suit filed by the plaintiffs is decreed. iv. The four children of late Muniyappa and late Lakshmamma namely, Gopamma, Gangamma, Yashodamma and Gopal Krishna are entitled to 1/4th share each in the suit schedule land by metes and bounds. v. No order as to costs. vi. Draw decree accordingly. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending IAs’, if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE rv: Para 1 to 37 SRA: Para 38 to end. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19