- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046492024 NC: 2026:KHC:40286 RFA No. 185 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 185 OF 2024 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: 1. J. KUMARI, D/O LATE JAIPAL, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.46, SUNAKAL PET MAIN ROAD, CUBBONPET MARKET, BENGALURU - 560 002. 2. SMT. LALITHA J, D/O LATE V. JAIPAL, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.46, SUNAKAL PET MAIN ROAD, CUBBONPET MARKET, BENGALURU - 560 002. 3. SRINIVAS J, S/O LATE JAIPAL, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.46, SUNAKAL PET MAIN ROAD, CUBBONPET MARKET, BENGALURU - 560 002. RAMAMURTHY, S/O LATE JAIPAL, SINCE DEAD BY LRS Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046492024 NC: 2026:KHC:40286 RFA No. 185 of 2024 4. SMT. AMBIKA RAMAMURTHY, W/O LATE J. RAMAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 5. MASTER PARIKSHIT, S/O LATE J. RAMAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN & MOTHER SMT.AMBIKA, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.46, SUNAKAL PET MAIN ROAD, CUBBONPET MARKET, BENGALURU - 560 002. 6. J DEV RAJ, S/O LATE JAIPAL, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.46, SUNAKAL PET MAIN ROAD, CUBBONPET MARKET, BENGALURU - 560 002. 7. J. MAHESHA, S/O LATE JAIPAL, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.46, SUNAKAL PET MAIN ROAD, CUBBONPET MARKET, BENGALURU - 560 002. 8. J. HARISHA, S/O LATE JAIPAL, - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046492024 NC: 2026:KHC:40286 RFA No. 185 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.46, SUNAKAL PET MAIN ROAD, CUBBONPET MARKET, BENGALURU - 560 002. 9. SMT. J. SONI, D/O LATE JAIPAL, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.46, SUNAKAL PET MAIN ROAD, CUBBONPET MARKET, BENGALURU - 560 002. 10. SMT. J. RAJANI, D/O LATE JAIPAL, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.46, SUNAKAL PET MAIN ROAD, CUBBONPET MARKET, BENGALURU - 560 002. 11. J. JITHENDRA, S/O LATE JAIPAL, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.46, SUNAKAL PET MAIN ROAD, CUBBONPET MARKET, BENGALURU - 560 002. …APPELLANTS (BY MISS.NIVEDITHA C SHIVANAIKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. VIJETHA R NAIK., ADVOCATE) - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046492024 NC: 2026:KHC:40286 RFA No. 185 of 2024 AND: 1. V. GOKUL DAS, S/O LATE H. VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT NO.18, 2ND MAIN ROAD, DODDABETTAHALLI, KAVERI LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 097. 2. SMT. B.N.SHOBHADEVI, D/O LATE V. SUSELADEVI, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.871, 4TH MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 040. 3. SMT. B.N.CHANDRIKADEVI, D/O LATE V. SUSELADEVI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.871, 4TH MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 040. 4. SMT. RENUKA, D/O LATE V. SUSELADEVI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.871, 4TH MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 040. 5. SMT. B.N.HEMADEVI, D/O LATE V. SUSELADEVI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.2364, 'A' BLOCK, - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046492024 NC: 2026:KHC:40286 RFA No. 185 of 2024 12TH MAIN ROAD, SUBRAMANAYA NAGAR, BENGALURU. 6. SMT. B.N.DEVIKA RANI, D/O LATE V. SUSELADEVI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.101/8, 13TH MAIN ROAD, 28TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR 4TH BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 011. 7. RAMESH BABU G.K., S/O KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.1043, 11TH MAIN ROAD, 2ND STAGE,. R.P.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 040. 8. PRASHANTH BABU G.K., S/O KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.1043, 11TH MAIN ROAD, 2ND STAGE R.P.C LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 040. 9. ANAND BABU G.K., S/O KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.1043, 11TH MAIN ROAD, 2ND STAGE R.P.C LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 040. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046492024 NC: 2026:KHC:40286 RFA No. 185 of 2024 10. SMT. KAMAKSHI, S/O LATE V. SOMASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.7, 7TH BLOCK, II STAGE, 100FEET ROAD, BANASANKARI II STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085. 11. SRINIVAS S, S/O LATE V. SOMASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.7, 7TH BLOCK, II STAGE, 100FEET ROAD, BANASANKARI II STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085. 12. SMT. RUPA S @ DEEPA SOMASHEKAR, D/O LATE V. SOMASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.7, 7TH BLOCK, II STAGE, 100FEET ROAD, BANASANKARI II STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085. 13. SMT. RAJESHWARI, W/O ANANTHAPPA, D/O LATE H. VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/AT NO.48, 16TH CROSS, 6TH PHASE, J P NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 078. 14. V. RAMDAS, S/O LATE H. VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046492024 NC: 2026:KHC:40286 RFA No. 185 of 2024 R/AT NO.636, 12TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE, II BLOCK, BANASHANKARI, BENGALURU - 50. 15. V. ASHOK KUMAR, S/O LATE H. VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.250, 6TH CROSS, 3RD STAGE, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, BHUVANESHWARI PARK ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 085. 16. SMT.V.SHANTHAKUMARI, W/O NARAYAN SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, D/O LATE H.VENKATAPPA, R/AT NO.309, 14TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, GNANA BHARATHI, BENGALURU - 560 056. 17. H.V.RAJENDRA KUMAR, S/O LATE H. VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.309, 14TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, GNANA BHARATHI, BENGALURU - 560 056. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H. MUJTABA., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.S.G.SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R13, R15 & R16; (R9 IS REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER R7); R14 & R17 V. RAMDAS AND SRI.RAJENDRA KUMAR H.V. - PARTY - IN - PERSON; SRI.K.SURENDRA BABU, ADVOCATE FOR R2) - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046492024 NC: 2026:KHC:40286 RFA No. 185 of 2024 THIS RFA IS FILED U/S. 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.07.2023 PASSED IN OS NO.611/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This Regular First Appeal is filed by defendant Nos.6 to 15 calling in question the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2023 passed in O.S.No.611/2019 by the VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-15) Bengaluru1, thereby, the suit filed for partition and separate possession was decreed. 2. 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 - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046492024 NC: 2026:KHC:40286 RFA No. 185 of 2024 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that, he and defendants are children and grandchildren of one late H.Venkatappa and late Gowramma. The suit schedule property was the absolute property of H.Venkatappa, who acquired the same through the registered Settlement Deed dated 30.03.1954. Therefore, the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of his father H.Venkatappa, who died on 01.07.1984 leaving behind him his ten children, who succeeded to the suit schedule property. The mother of the plaintiff had predeceased to her husband H.Venkatappa on 22.05.1984. It is submitted that the plaintiff and defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is stated that the suit schedule property belongs to late R.Hanumanthappa, who acquired the right over the same through Sale Deed dated 09.01.1919. The, defendants are trying to alienate the suit schedule property without giving any share to the plaintiff. Further, it is the case of the plaintiff that when he - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046492024 NC: 2026:KHC:40286 RFA No. 185 of 2024 demanded to allot his share, the defendants have refused to allot his share. Thereafter, he got issued notice through his advocate on 01.08.2018 calling upon the defendants to effect partition and the said notice was duly served on the defendants. But the defendants have neither complied nor issued any reply. Therefore, he was constrained to file a suit for partition and separate possession. 4. In pursuant to the suit summons, defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 to 17, 19, 20, 22 to 26 have appeared before the Trial Court. Defendant Nos.3, 18 and 21 have failed to appear and hence they were placed ex-parte. Subsequently, defendant Nos.3 and 21 have appeared before the Trial Court personally to contest the claim of the plaintiff. Defendant Nos.2 to 5, 16 and 17, 19 to 26 have appeared personally and filed their respective written statements supporting the assertion of the plaintiff and also sought for allotment of their shares in the suit schedule property. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 have adopted - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046492024 NC: 2026:KHC:40286 RFA No. 185 of 2024 the written statement of defendant No.2. Defendant Nos.17, 21 to 26 have also filed written statement supporting the claim of the plaintiff and pray for allotment of their respective shares. Defendant Nos.6 to 15 have filed common written statement and admitted the relationship between the parties and also acquisition of the suit property by late H.Venkatappa under the settlement deed. But defendant Nos.6 to 15 have disputed existence of joint family and the suit schedule property is the joint family property. 5. It is the contention of defendant Nos.6 to 15 that during the lifetime of H.Venkatappa, the suit schedule property was allotted to V.Jaipal, who is the father of defendant Nos.6 to 15 and all the joint family members have consented for it and also other joint family members have acquired several joint family properties which are not included in the suit. Therefore, it is contended that the suit is bad for non-inclusion of other joint family properties. - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046492024 NC: 2026:KHC:40286 RFA No. 185 of 2024 Further, they have taken a specific contention that defendant No.3 was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Therefore, it is the contention of defendant Nos.6 to 15 that the other family members have acquired other properties out of joint family funds and other properties were not included in the suit. Therefore, suit for partial partition is not maintainable and prays to dismiss the suit. 6. Upon the pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the following issues and additional issues: "a. Whether plaintiff proves that suit property is the ancestral and joint family property of plaintiff and defendants and they are in joint possession of the same? b. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? c. Whether suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties? d. Whether plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of 1/10 share in the suit property? e. Whether defendant Nos.1, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22 to 26 are entitled for partition and separate - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046492024 NC: 2026:KHC:40286 RFA No. 185 of 2024 possession as claimed in their respective written statements? f. What order or decree? ADDITIONAL ISSUES a. Whether defendant Nos.6 to 15 prove that during lifetime of H.Venktappa, suit property was allotted to Sri V.Jaipal-the father of defendant Nos.6 to 15 and other family members have consented for the same? b. Whether defendant Nos.6 to 15 prove that suit is bad for not including all the joint family properties?" 7. The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 7 documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. Defendant No.11-J.Mahesh examined himself as DW.1 and DW.2 and got marked 18 documents as per Ex.D1 to Ex.D18. 8. The trial Court, after appreciating the materials on record has decreed the suit and granted 1/10th share to the plaintiff and defendant Nos.16 to 18 all together entitled for one-tenth share, defendant Nos.19 to 21 all together entitled for one-tenth share, defendant Nos.22 to 26 are entitled for one-tenth share each in the suit schedule property. The reasons assigned by the Trial Court - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046492024 NC: 2026:KHC:40286 RFA No. 185 of 2024 is that the suit schedule property is joint family property having acquired by the father of the plaintiff-H.Venkatappa through Settlement Deed dated 30.03.1954 and there is evidence on the part of defendant Nos.6 to 15 that the properties were bequeathed to V.Jaipal. Further, it is held that since the suit schedule property is the joint family property and defendant Nos.6 to 15 have failed to prove that the property is exclusively belonging to V.Jaipal, therefore, decreed the suit as prayed for. 9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, defendant Nos.6 to 15 have preferred the appeal by raising various grounds. Learned counsel for defendant Nos.6 to 15 submitted that H.Venkatappa has allotted the suit schedule property exclusively to V.Jaipal in an oral partition and the said oral partition was acted upon and accordingly his name was mutated in the revenue records. He submitted that when the suit schedule property was allotted exclusively to V.Jaipal excluding others, the suit schedule property is not - 15 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046492024 NC: 2026:KHC:40286 RFA No. 185 of 2024 available for partition. Further, it is submitted that the other children of H.Venkatappa have acquired properties but out of joint family funds being members of joint family, but those properties have not been included in the suit. Therefore, the suit is bad for non-inclusion of other properties and it is submitted that suit for partial partition is not maintainable. But the Trial Court has failed to consider this aspect of the matter. Hence, prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 10. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondent/plaintiff and other defendants submit that the property was belonging to H.Venkatappa as he got the same through registered Settlement Deed in the year 1954. The said H.Venkatappa has not bequeathed the property in favour of one V.Jaipal, who is the father of defendant Nos.6 to 15. Therefore, the suit schedule property remains to be joint family property. The Trial - 16 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046492024 NC: 2026:KHC:40286 RFA No. 185 of 2024 Court, based on the oral and documentary available on record has rightly decreed the suit granting 1/10th share to the plaintiff and other defendants, the same does not call for interference of this Court. 11. Further, it is submitted that when it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/defendant Nos.6 to 15 that there was an oral partition in the joint family and H. Venkatappa allotted the suit schedule property in favour of V. Jaipal, absolutely there is no pleadings and evidence in this regard. Therefore, defendant Nos.6 to 15 have failed to prove that there was severance in the joint family and the suit schedule property was allotted exclusively to V. Jaipal. Hence, justified the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. Upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/defendant Nos.6 to - 17 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046492024 NC: 2026:KHC:40286 RFA No. 185 of 2024 15 and respondent /plaintiff and other defendants and perusal of materials available on record, the following points would arise for consideration: i. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the respondent/plaintiff proves that the suit schedule property is the joint family property and is available for partition? ii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, defendant Nos.6 to 15 prove that there was severance in the joint family during the lifetime of H. Venkatappa and suit schedule property was allotted to the share of their father V.Jaipal, under an oral partition and the same was acted upon, thus, they have become absolute owners of the suit schedule property? iii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court requires any interference by this Court? 13. The relationship between plaintiff and defendants is not in dispute. H. Venkatappa had ten children and the plaintiff is one among them. The appellants/defendant - 18 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046492024 NC: 2026:KHC:40286 RFA No. 185 of 2024 Nos.6 to 15 are children and grandchildren of V. Jaipal, who is the second son of H. Venkatappa. 14. It is the case of plaintiff that the suit schedule property is the joint family property. It is not disputed by both the plaintiff and the defendants that H.Venkatappa acquired the suit schedule property through Settlement Deed during 1954. It is the case of plaintiff that after the death of H.Venkatappa and Gowramma, the plaintiff and the defendants constituted a Hindu Undivided family and the property becomes joint family property available for partition and therefore, he filed the suit for partition. But, on contrary, defendant Nos.6 to 15 submit that there was severance in the joint family and the suit schedule property was exclusively allotted to the second son of H.Venkatappa namely, V.Jaipal under oral partition and the said oral partition was acted upon. Therefore, it is the case of the appellants that suit schedule property is not available for partition. - 19 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046492024 NC: 2026:KHC:40286 RFA No. 185 of 2024 15. There is presumption regarding existence of joint family unless there is evidence to show that there was severance in the joint family. When it is the contention taken by defendant Nos.6 to 15 that there is severance in the joint family, then the burden is on them to prove that there is severance in the joint family. Defendant Nos.6 to 15 also taken a contention that there was an oral partition in the family during the lifetime of H. Venkatappa and in the said oral partition, the suit schedule property was allotted to the share of their father-V.Jaipal. When such being the case, the burden is on defendant Nos.6 to 15 to prove that there was severance in the joint family and the suit schedule property was given to the share of V. Jaipal. A perusal of the written statement filed by defendant Nos.6 to 15 shows that there is a clear pleading that during the lifetime of H.Venkatappa, there was an oral partition and in the said oral partition, the suit schedule property was allotted to the share of V.Jaipal and except the same, there is no other averments in the written - 20 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046492024 NC: 2026:KHC:40286 RFA No. 185 of 2024 statement. Therefore, there is no evidence on the part of defendant Nos.6 to 15 to prove that there was severance in the joint family. 16. The documents on record which are khata certificates, khata extracts, tax paid receipts and encumbrance certificates, which are still standing in the name of H.Venkatappa. If there was severance in the joint family or if there is partition, then the defendants could have led evidence in this regard proving that there was an oral partition during the lifetime of H.Venkatappa. 17. When it is the contention of defendant Nos.6 to 15 that there was an oral partition and it was acted upon, then the burden is on them to prove the said oral partition by examining any of the witnesses. But, no witnesses are examined by them to prove that there was an oral partition and also there was no evidence to show that what are the documents produced under the oral partition and was acted upon. Therefore, the evidence on record - 21 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046492024 NC: 2026:KHC:40286 RFA No. 185 of 2024 goes to show that the suit schedule property remains to be joint family property in the absence of any contra evidence by defendant Nos.6 to 15. 18. Further, it is contended by defendant Nos.6 to 15 that, the other children of H.Venkatappa have purchased the properties. But, the said properties are purchased out of joint family funds. But upon considering the evidence on record, H.Venkatappa had ten children and it is not possible for ten children to reside in the suit schedule property as it is only 1000 sq. ft. Therefore, the other children have made an arrangement for separate residence along with their family. Mere, separate residence is not the proof of severance in the family. Residing separately is for convenient living of family members, and such living separately does not amount to partition or severance in the joint family. Therefore, defendant Nos.6 to 15 have failed to prove that the suit schedule property is given exclusively to V.Jaipal during the lifetime of H.Venkatappa. Therefore, the suit schedule property - 22 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046492024 NC: 2026:KHC:40286 RFA No. 185 of 2024 remains to be joint family property. When defendants No.6 to 15 are claiming that there was a severance in the joint family and that the suit schedule property was exclusively given to V.Jaipal excluding the other defendants and the plaintiff, then there must be positive act or conduct by which the exclusion from joint family property becomes known to the plaintiff and other members of the joint family. But in the present case, there is no pleading by defendants No.6 to 15 in their written statement that there was an oral partition and in said oral partition, the suit schedule property was exclusively given to V.Jaipal and it was acted upon and thus the suit property is exclusive property of V.Jaipal. But in this regard, there are absolutely no pleadings and also there is no evidence. 19. In the katha extracts and tax paid receipts, the name of H.Venkatappa continues which proves the fact that suit property was not given or allotted to V.Jaipal. Therefore, the appellants, defendants No.6 to 15 have - 23 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046492024 NC: 2026:KHC:40286 RFA No. 185 of 2024 failed to prove that there was severance in the joint family and the suit property is not partible property. If there was exclusion of plaintiff and other defendants by giving the suit property exclusively to V.Jaipal then defendants No.6 to 15 shall have to prove the three following conditions: 1) Whether the claimant’s share was excluded from the joint family property? 2) If so excluded, when the exclusion took place? 3) When the exclusion finished, became known to the claimant, means the plaintiff. 20. Once the party establishes his claim to a share in the joint property by saying that the family was joint and that he was co-parcerner entitled to a share in its properties, the onus is on the opposite parties means defendants No.6 to 15 to establish exclusion to the co- parcerners knowledge. But as discussed above, there is no evidence on the part of defendants No.6 to 15 that the suit - 24 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046492024 NC: 2026:KHC:40286 RFA No. 185 of 2024 property is exclusive property of V.Jaipal and they are inherited. Hence, in this regard, there is no merit in the argument canvassed by the learned counsel by the appellants / defendants No.6 to 15 that separate residence amounts to severance in the joint family and the suit property is not joint family property. The other family members have acquired the properties on their own earnings. If defendants No.6 to 15 are claiming that the other properties were acquired by the joint family funds jointly then there must be pleading in the written statement that what was the nature of their business, avocation, profession and under what circumstances the properties were acquired jointly, but absolutely in this regard, there is no pleadings in the written statement. Also, there is no evidence in this regard. Hence, defendants No.6 to 15 / appellants failed to prove that they are the exclusive owners of the suit property. In this regard, the trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and granted decree of partition. - 25 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010046492024 NC: 2026:KHC:40286 RFA No. 185 of 2024 Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Affirmative and point Nos.2 and 3 in the Negative. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Regular First Appeal is dismissed. ii) The judgment and decree dated 27.07.2023 passed in O.S.No.611/2019 by the VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-15) Bengaluru, is hereby confirmed. iii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE MKM, UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35