- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010260992018 NC: 2026:KHC:39898 RSA No. 2525 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2525 OF 2018 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT CHIKKAMMA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS W/O LATE SIDDARAJU, R/AT THONACHANAHALLI CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 2. SMT. MAHESHWARI D/O LATE VIJAY KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R/AT THONACHANAHALLI, CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI HANUMANTHAIAH S/O LATE ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT THONACHANAHALLI, CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 216. Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010260992018 NC: 2026:KHC:39898 RSA No. 2525 of 2018 2. SRI.SANJEEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O LATE ANJANAPPA, R/AT MALLASANDRA, KASBA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101. 3. SRI. CHIKKANNA S/O LATE ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS WORKING AS SECURITY POLICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH S/O LATE ANJANAPPA, AGED 45 YEARS R/OF KURIPALYA, TUMKUR TOWN - 572 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR PATEL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2 - SERVED SRI. NAIK RAMACHANDRA RAMA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 VIDE ORDER DATED 08.07.2026, R4 HAS DIED AND NO ISSUES) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.09.2018 PASSED IN RA.NO.17/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUBBI, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.03.2015 PASSED IN O.S.NO.215/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBI. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010260992018 NC: 2026:KHC:39898 RSA No. 2525 of 2018 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard Sri.M.B.Chandrachooda, Sri.Sunil Kumar Patel and Sri.Naik Ramachandra Rama, learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Though the matter is listed for admission, it is taken up for final disposal in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prakash v. Phulavati reported in 2016 (2) SCC Page 36. 3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under; A suit for partition came to be filed by the plaintiffs who are the daughter and grand daughter of common prepositus Anjanappa. 4. There is no dispute with regard to the nature of property. It is a joint family property. Anjanappa had a wife by name Lakshmamma and they had six children - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010260992018 NC: 2026:KHC:39898 RSA No. 2525 of 2018 namely Chikkamma, Hanumantaiah, Sanjeevaiah, Chikkanna, Vijaykumar and Virupaksha. Vijaykumar died and the second plaintiff is the daughter of said Vijaykumar. Chikkamma is the first plaintiff. Hanumantaiah is the second defendant in this suit. Sanjeevaiah, Chikkanna and Virupaksha are defendant Nos.3 to 5 in this suit. First defendant is mother - Lakshmamma. 5. The suit, on contest, came to be decreed granting 1/7th share as there was no dispute with regard to the relationship and nature of property. 6. Second defendant filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.17/2015. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prakash versus Phualavati reported in 2016 (2) SCC Page 36, allowed the appeal in part by altering the share, holding that there was a notional partition. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010260992018 NC: 2026:KHC:39898 RSA No. 2525 of 2018 7. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs are before this Court. 8. Sri.M.B.Chandrachooda, learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, would contend that the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prakash Vs. Phulavathi, supra is over-ruled in view of the pronouncement of the judgment in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents support the judgment of the First Appellate Court. 10. Having heard the arguments of both sides, for disposal of the appeal, the sole substantial question of law that would arise is; "whether the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma supra would over-ride the principles of law enunciated in Prakash Vs. Phulavati, supra and thus, judgment of the trial Court needs to be restored by allowing the appeal?" - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010260992018 NC: 2026:KHC:39898 RSA No. 2525 of 2018 11. It is to be noticed that before the First Appellate Court, suit as was decreed by the Trial Court was modified by following the principles of law enunciated in Prakash Vs. Phulavathi, Supra. 12. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma, all other judgments on the question of consideration of amended Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 stood impliedly over-ruled. 13. The authoritative principles enunciated in Vineeta Sharma's case is called out in Paragraph 129 of the judgment, which reads as under; "129. Resultantly, we answer the reference as under: (i) The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after amendment in the same manner as son with same rights and liabilities. (ii) The rights can be claimed by the daughter born earlier with effect from 9.9.2005 with savings as - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010260992018 NC: 2026:KHC:39898 RSA No. 2525 of 2018 provided in Section 6(1) as to the disposition or alienation, partition or testamentary disposition which had taken place before 20th day of December, 2004. (iii) Since the right in coparcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that father coparcener should be living as on 9.9.2005. (iv) The statutory fiction of partition created by proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as originally enacted did not bring about the actual partition or disruption of coparcenary. The fiction was only for the purpose of ascertaining share of deceased coparcener when he was survived by a female heir, of Class-1 as specified in the Schedule to the Act of 1956 or male relative of such female. The provisions of the substituted Section 6 are required to be given full effect. Notwithstanding that a preliminary decree has been passed the daughters are to be given share in coparcenary equal to that of a son in pending proceedings for final decree or in an appeal. (v) In view of the rigor of provisions of Explanation to Section 6(5) of the Act of 1956, a plea of oral partition cannot be accepted as the statutory recognised mode of partition effected by a deed of partition duly registered under the provisions of the - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010260992018 NC: 2026:KHC:39898 RSA No. 2525 of 2018 Registration Act, 1908 or effected by a decree of a court. However, in exceptional cases where plea of oral partition is supported by public documents and partition is finally evinced in the same manner as if it had been affected by a decree of a court, it may be accepted. A plea of partition based on oral evidence alone cannot be accepted and to be rejected outrightly. 12. On careful consideration of the above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that daughters would be entitled to share in the property as that of a male coparcener, the judgment of the First Appellate Court needs to be set aside and judgment of the Trial Court needs to be restored. 13. Accordingly, in the case on hand, since there is no dispute as to the relationship and nature of property, the judgment of the First Appellate Court which is impugned in the present appeal needs to be set aside by answering the substantial question of law in favour of the appellant. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court needs to be restored. - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010260992018 NC: 2026:KHC:39898 RSA No. 2525 of 2018 14. Hence, the following; ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court passed in R.A.No.17/2015 dated 14.09.2018 is set aside and judgment of the Trial Court passed in O.S.No.215/2008 dated 13.03.2015 is restored. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47