- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.572 OF 2011 (PAR) C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.439 OF 2011 (PAR) IN RFA No. 572/2011 BETWEEN: 1. SRI.OBA REDDY SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS SRI.P.O.VIJAYA REDDY S/O LATE OBA REDDY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 2. SRI.P.O.ASHWATH KUMAR S/O LATE OBA REDDY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT PARAPPANA AGRAHARA BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK …APPELLANTS (BY SRI.P.N.NANJA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI.P.O.NARAYANA REDDY S/O LATE OBA REDDY SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 1(A) 1(B) 1(C) 1(D) SMT.SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE P.O.NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS SRI.N.CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE P.O.NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS SMT.N.NIRMALA W/O GAJEBDRA REDDY D/O LATE P.O.NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS SMT.NETHRAVATHI W/O L.SRINIVASA REDDY D/O LATE P.O.NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.868, 5TH MAIN ROAD CHOWDESHWARY LAYOUT MARATHAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 037 2. SRI.P.O.PATTABIRAM REDDY @ PATTABI S/O LATE OBA REDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT PARAPPANA AGRAHARA BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK 3. SMT.PREMAKUMARI W/O RAJA REDDY D/O LATE OBA REDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT HRBR LAYOUT BEHIND KEB OFFICE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 KALYANANAGARA BENGALURU - 560 043 4. 4(A) 4(B) 4(C) 4(D) 4(E) SRI.P.O.MOHAN REDDY SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT.CHINNAMMA W/O LATE P.O.MOHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS SRI.DHANANJAYA REDDY S/O LATE P.O.MOHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS SMT.SUJATHA W/O LATE GOVERDHAN REDDY D/O MOHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS SMT.VISHALAKSHI W/O LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY D/O LATE P.O.MOHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS SMT.VINUTHA W/O GANESH REDDY D/O LATE P.O.MOHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.2520 14TH CROSS, 24TH MAIN 1ST SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 102 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.PRADEEP KUMAR R.H., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SHANMUKHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R.1(A TO D) AND R.2; SRI.K.M.ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R.1 AND R.2; SRI.V.VINOD REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 SRI.G.PAPI REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR R.3; SRI.N.S.VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R.4(A & B) R.4(C) TO R.4(E) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.12.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1845/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION AND ETC. IN RFA NO.439/2011 BETWEEN: SMT.PREMAKUMARI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS W/O RAJA REDDY D/O LATE OBA REDDY R/O HRBR LAYOUT BEHIND K.E.B OFFICE KALYANA NAGARA BENGALURU ...APPELLANT (BY SRI.G.PAPI REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.V.VINOD REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI.OBA REDDY SINCE DEAD BY LRS 2. 2(A) SRI.P.O.MOHAN REDDY SINCE DEAD BY LRS SMT.CHINNAMMA W/O LATE SRI.P.O.MOHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 2(B) 2(C) 2(D) 2(E) 3. SRI.DHANANJAYA REDDY S/O LATE SRI.P.O.MOHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS SMT.SUJATHA W/O L.GOVERDHAN REDDY D/O LATE SRI.P.O.MOHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS SMT.VISHALAKSHI W/O LAKSHMI NARAYANA REDDY D/O LATE SRI.P.O.MOHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS SMT.VINUTHA W/O GANESH REDDY D/O LATE SRI.P.O.MOHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.2520, 14TH CROSS 24TH MAIN, 1ST SECTOR HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 102 SRI.P.O.VIJAYA REDDY S/O SRI.OBA REDDY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.1277, 'A' BLOCK VIJINAPURA BENGALURU - 560 016 4. SRI.P.O ASHWATH REDDY S/O SRI.OBA REDDY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT PARAPPANA AGARAHARA BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 5. 5(A) 5(B) 5(C) 5(D) SRI.P.O.NARAYANA REDDY SINCE DEAD BY LRS SMT.SHANTHAMMA S/O LATE P.O.NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS SRI.N.CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE P.O.NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS SMT.N.NIRMALA W/O GAJENDRA REDDY D/O LATE P.O.NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS SMT.NETHRAVATHI W/O L.SRINIVASA REDDY D/O LATE P.O.NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.868, 5TH MAIN ROAD CHOWDESHWARI LAYOUT MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 037 5. SRI P.O.PATTABIRAM REDDY @ PATTABI S/O SRI. OBA REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT PARAPPANA AGRAHARA BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.T.S.MAHANTESH, ADVOCATE FOR R.2; SRI.N.S.VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R.2(A & B) R.1 - IS DEAD AS PER CAUSE TITLE SRI.S.G.MUNISWAMY GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R.2(C) - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 SRI.K.VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R.3 AND R.4; SRI.PRADEEP KUMAR R.H., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SHANMUKHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R.5 AND R.6; R.2(D), R.2(E), R.5(A), R.5(B), R.5(C), R.5(D) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED. THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.12.2010 IN O.S.No.1845/2004 PASSED BY XXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL JUDGMENT These two appeals are filed by the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 assailing the judgment and decree dated 06.12.2010 passed in O.S.No.1845/2004 on the file of the 22nd Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-7), wherein the plaintiffs' suit seeking relief of partition is dismissed and at the same time, the Trial Court has relegated defendant No.3/daughter of plaintiff No.1 to file a separate suit for partition challenging the partition between plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 3. Genealogical Tree of the family reads as under; 4. Facts leading to the case are as under; The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Late Sri.Oba Reddy is the father of the plaintiff No.2 namely P.O.Mohan Reddy, plaintiff No.3 namely P.O.Vijaya Reddy, plaintiff No.4 namely P.O.Ashwathkumar and defendants. The plaintiffs instituted the suit seeking relief of partition and separate possession contending that the suit schedule properties are joint family coparcenary properties. It is specifically pleaded that plaintiff No.1, Oba Reddy acquired the said Obareddy (died) Lingamma (wife) (P1) P.O.Narayana Reddy P.O.Mohan Reddy P.O.Vijayareddy P.O.Pattabhiramareddy P.O.Premakumai P.O.Aswathkumar - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 properties in a family partition effected in the year 1961 under a registered Partition Deed dated 01.05.1961. The plaintiffs have categorically asserted that they, along with defendant Nos.1 and 2, constitute an undivided Joint Hindu Family that plaintiff No.1 was the Kartha of the family and that the suit schedule ‘A’ properties are ancestral properties allotted to plaintiff No.1 under the said partition. 5. The plaintiffs have further averred that certain ancestral properties were alienated for family necessity and that sites formed in Sy.No.43 were also sold and therefore, those properties were consciously excluded from the present suit for partition. The plaintiffs have also asserted entitlement to a share in the suit schedule ‘B’ property, which originally belonged to Lingamma, the wife of plaintiff No.1 and the mother of plaintiff Nos.2, 3, 4 and defendant Nos.1 to 3. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 6. Upon service of summons, defendant Nos.1 and 2 entered appearance and filed their written statement stoutly denying the plaint averments. While partially admitting the registered Partition Deed dated 01.05.1961 and the allotment of certain properties to plaintiff No.1, the defendants pleaded that there was a partition during the lifetime of plaintiff No.1, dated 19.06.1995 among plaintiff No.1, plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 and defendant Nos.1 and 2, resulting in complete severance of joint family status. They further pleaded that, pursuant to the said partition, the parties have been exercising exclusive rights and have independently dealt with their respective shares. Though they admitted acquisition of land in Sy.No.50/3 for formation of Jail and 27 guntas in Sy.No.67/2 for road formation by the Government, they sought dismissal of the suit on the ground that the present claim is barred by the fact that there was a partition that took place during the lifetime of plaintiff No.1. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 7. Defendant No.3, the daughter of plaintiff No.1, filed a separate written statement supporting the plaintiffs’ case and sought allotment of her legitimate share in the suit schedule properties. 8. On the basis of rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed appropriate issues and relegated the parties to trial. The plaintiffs examined plaintiff No.3 as P.W.1 and another witness as P.W.2 and relied upon 29 documents. The defendants examined defendant No.1 as D.W.1 along with three other witnesses as D.Ws.2 to 4 and produced documents marked as Exs.D.1 to D.9. 9. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court answered issue Nos.3 to 5 in the affirmative. While answering issue No.4, the Trial Court held that defendant Nos.1 and 2 had succeeded in proving the plea of prior partition dated 19.06.1995. However, while answering additional issue No.10 in the negative, the Trial Court, adverting to Section 6-A of the Hindu - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 Succession Act (Karnataka Amendment), held that since defendant No.3 had not questioned the alleged alienations, she was not entitled to claim partition in the present proceedings and would have to institute a separate suit to challenge the alienations and seek partition. 10. Sri.Nanja Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs, reiterating the grounds urged in RFA No.572/2011, vehemently contended that the entire defence of defendant Nos.1 and 2 rests on Exs.D.8 and D.9, which, according to him, have been grossly misread by the Trial Court. He submitted that the recitals in Exs.D.8 and D.9 unmistakably disclose that partition was effected and possession was delivered thereunder and therefore, the Trial Court erred in treating the said documents as mere memorandum of partition not requiring registration. He further contended that the evidence of P.W.2 demolishes the plea of prior partition and that the finding recorded on issue No.4 is perverse and warrants interference. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 11. Sri.G.Papi Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for defendant No.3 and advancing arguments in RFA No.439/2011 assailed the finding on Additional issue No.10. He submitted that the refusal to grant relief to defendant No.3 on the ground that she had not questioned the alienations is legally untenable and suffers from manifest perversity. Drawing attention to the plaint averments, particularly paragraphs 3 and 4, he submitted that the pleadings themselves disclose the nature of alienations and retained properties and that a non- alienating coparcener is not required to specifically challenge alienations while seeking partition. 12. Learned Senior Counsel placed strong reliance on Ex.P.11, a legal notice issued in the year 2003 by the children of defendant Nos.1 and 2, demanding partition of the suit schedule properties. He contended that the issuance of such a notice clearly belies the plea of partition in 1995, as no such demand could have been made had there been a severance in status. He also relied upon - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 admissions elicited in the cross-examination of the defendants. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the following judgments: 1. Jaspal Kaur Cheema and Another v. Industrial Trade Links and Others – (2017) 8 SCC 592; 2. R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple and Another – (2003) 8 SCC 752; 3. Ganapati Santaram Bhosale v. Ramachandra Subbarao Kulkarni – ILR 1985 Kar 1115. 13. Placing particular reliance on the decision in Ganapati Santaram Bhosale (cited supra), learned Senior Counsel submitted that a non-alienating joint family member seeking partition is not required to challenge the alienations effected by other coparceners and that defendant No.3 is entitled to seek partition even as a defendant. 14. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful consideration of the pleadings - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 and the oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court, being the final fact-finding authority, proceeds to examine the rival contentions. 15. The following points arise for consideration in these appeals: (i) Whether the Trial Court was justified in holding that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have succeeded in establishing the factum of partition dated 19.06.1995? (ii) Whether the finding of the Trial Court on additional issue No.10, relegating defendant No.3 to a separate suit for partition, is perverse and warrants interference? (iii) What order? Findings on Point No.(i):- 16. The case on hand is a classic illustration of the complexities and inherent difficulties that Courts are frequently confronted with while adjudicating intra-family - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 property disputes. More often than not, particularly in rural settings, partitions are effected under informal, incomplete or legally defective instruments. While such documents may not strictly conform to statutory requirements, on the ground there may nevertheless be a disruption or severance of joint family status based on such arrangements. With the passage of time, parties tend to selectively rely upon or disown these documents to suit their convenience, thereby placing the Court in the onerous position of having to undertake a deeper scrutiny not merely of the documents themselves, but also of the surrounding conduct of the parties to ascertain whether the family continued to remain joint or whether there was, in fact, a severance of status as contended by the party setting up such documents. 17. It is in the backdrop of these observations that this Court has meticulously examined the rebuttal evidence adduced by defendant Nos.1 and 2. The defendants have placed heavy reliance on Exs.D.7 and D.8 - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 to substantiate their plea of prior partition. The learned Trial Judge has construed these documents as mere memorandum of partition. However, on a careful and close reading of Exs.D.7 and D.8, it is manifest that these documents do not record or acknowledge an earlier oral partition, but instead purport to effect a partition by themselves. The recitals disclose allocation of specific properties and conferment of exclusive rights, thereby evidencing an operative partition. Consequently, such documents, being instruments effecting partition, compulsorily require registration. In that view of the matter, the objection raised by the plaintiffs with regard to their admissibility is well-founded and the Trial Court has clearly erred in treating Exs.D.7 and D.8 as mere memorandum not requiring registration. 18. Even dehors Exs.D.7 and D.8, the record discloses several subsequent transactions and admissions which assume considerable significance. This Court is confronted with multiple sale deeds executed by plaintiff - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 Nos.1, 2 and 3 as well as material admissions acknowledging that certain suit schedule properties were subjected to Joint Development Arrangements. These documents and admissions, when examined cumulatively, necessitate a closer scrutiny of the conduct of the parties post the alleged partition. It is in this context that this Court is compelled to advert to certain sale deeds executed by plaintiff Nos.1 and 3, as also by plaintiff No.2. 19. The first such document of relevance is the sale deed executed by plaintiff No.1 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.17/1, which is produced at Ex.D.9. Ex.D.9 is a registered sale deed dated 13.08.2003 executed by plaintiff No.1 conveying a site bearing Khata No.17, measuring East to West 36 feet and North to South 145 feet, forming part of Sy.No.17/1, which corresponds to item No.4 of the suit schedule. The description of the property and the manner in which title is asserted under this document have a direct and material bearing on the rival claims of the parties with regard to the continuance - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 or severance of joint family status. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the schedule to Ex.D.9 for a proper appreciation of its legal effect. "SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of the Property bearing House List Katha No.17, situated at Parappanna Agrahara Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring East to West 36 ft. and North to South 145 ft. and bounded on: East by : House belongs to Pattabhi Reddy West by : Property belongs to PM Srinivasreddy North by : Road South by : Property belongs to P.O. Narayanreddi" 20. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for defendant Nos.1 and 2, notwithstanding the consistent assertion of the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 that Sy.No.17/1 is an ancestral property and that no partition by metes and bounds has taken place, the recitals contained in the schedules to the sale deeds particularly when such deeds are executed by the Kartha of the family assume critical significance. Such documents - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 constitute strong pieces of contemporaneous evidence reflecting the state of affairs prevailing at the time of their execution and are relevant in determining whether there was a severance of joint family status. 21. A careful scrutiny of Ex.D.9, the sale deed executed by plaintiff No.1, reveals admissions which are wholly inconsistent with the plea of continued jointness. While conveying the site under Ex.D.9, plaintiff No.1 has specifically acknowledged that on the eastern side of the property sold, there exists a house belonging to defendant No.2. Further, the southern boundary is described as the property belonging to defendant No.1. These boundary recitals are not casual descriptions but categorical acknowledgments of exclusive ownership of adjoining properties by individual family members. Such recitals, emanating from the Kartha himself, unmistakably indicate that the parties were dealing with their respective properties as owners in their individual capacity and not as members of an undivided joint family. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 22. The next document of significance is Ex.D.1, a registered sale deed dated 18.03.2002 executed by plaintiff No.3 in respect of Site No.31 formed in Sy.No.43. The plaintiffs have consistently pleaded that Sy.No.43 was entirely alienated by plaintiff No.1 in his capacity as Kartha of the family. However, the rebuttal evidence adduced by defendant Nos.1 and 2 projects a completely different narrative, which directly undermines the said assertion. If, in fact, the entire Sy.No.43 had been sold by plaintiff No.1 as Kartha, plaintiff No.3 could not have independently conveyed Site No.31 carved out of the very same survey number. There is no plausible explanation forthcoming from the plaintiffs as to how plaintiff No.3 acquired the authority or title to alienate Site No.31 under Ex.D.1. This unexplained transaction strikes at the very root of the plaintiffs’ plea regarding disposal of Sy.No.43 and lends considerable support to the defence plea of severance and individual enjoyment. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 23. Significantly, Ex.D.1 is not an isolated transaction. Plaintiff No.3 has executed yet another sale deed conveying an additional site, which is marked at Ex.D.2. The execution of multiple sale deeds by plaintiff No.3, asserting independent title over specific sites, is a circumstance of considerable evidentiary value and cannot be reconciled with the theory of an undivided joint family with plaintiff No.1 continuing as Kartha exercising exclusive dominion. 24. The recitals contained in the sale deeds marked at Exs.D.1, D.2, D.3 and D.4, therefore, have a direct and substantial bearing on the plaintiffs’ claim in the present suit. These documents, when read cumulatively, reveal a consistent pattern of individual assertion of ownership and separate dealing with specific properties by different family members. In that view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to advert to the relevant recitals contained in Exs.D.2 to D.4. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 25. Ex.D.2 is the registered sale deed executed by plaintiff No.3. The relevant recitals therein read as under: ". . . . . .ೕ ಓಬೆ ಯವರ ಸುಾರು 42 ವಷ ವಯನ ಓ..ಜಯೆ ಆದ ಾನು ಬೆೊಟ ರ ಸ!"#ನ ಶುದ% ಕಯಪತದ ಕಮ *ೇೆಂದೆ: ಇದರ -ೆಡೂ/0ನ12 ನಮೂ3ರುವ ಸ!ಲ5 ಅಂದೆ 7ೆಂಗಳ:ರು ದ;ಣ =ಾಲೂ2ಕು 7ೇಗೂರು >ೋಬ? ೋನಪ5ನ ಅಗ>ಾರ @ಾಮ ಪಂAಾಯ"@ೆ BೇCದ ಾಗಾಥಪEರ @ಾಮದ @ಾಮFಾGಾ >ೌI °I 34 ಮತು# 33ೇ ನಂಬರು Jಾ=ಾ 4329ೇ ನಂಬರು ನನK L=ಾMತ*ಾದ ಸ!ತು# ಆNದುO DPಾ@ಾಯು# ಸ!"#@ೆ ಾೇ ಸಂಪQಣ ಹಕುSTಾರನೂ, ಾ1ೕಕನೂ ಆN ಅಂ3Uಂದ ಸ!"#ನ Jಾ=ೆಯು ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ ಕWೇCಯ12 ನನK >ೆಸC@ೆ ವ@ಾXೊಂಡು ಸದC ಸ!"#ನ ಕಂTಾಯ ಸ>ಾ ಾೇ ವಷ ವಷ ಕYೊಂಡು ಬಂದು ನನK ಇ-ಾನುBಾರ ಸುಖ3ಂದ ಅನುಭೊಂಡು ಬಂ3ರುವEದು ಸCಯ-ೆ. . . . . . . " 26. On a careful reading of the extracted portion of Ex.D.2, it is evident that plaintiff No.3 has conveyed a site bearing House List Nos.34 and 33, situated in Sy.No.43. Two crucial and legally significant aspects emerge from the recitals contained therein. Firstly, plaintiff No.3 has expressly acknowledged that the site agreed to be sold forms part of ancestral property. Secondly, and more importantly, notwithstanding such acknowledgment, he - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 has proceeded to alienate the property asserting himself to be the absolute owner thereof. This simultaneous assertion of the property being ancestral on the one hand and of exclusive and absolute ownership on the other is wholly irreconcilable with the plaintiffs’ consistent plea that the family continued to remain joint and that no severance had taken place. 27. The assertion of absolute ownership by plaintiff No.3, while executing Ex.D.2, cannot be brushed aside as a mere formality or loose drafting. Such a declaration is a deliberate covenant, made contemporaneously, and carries substantial evidentiary value, particularly when tested against the plea of continued joint family status. If the property was truly joint and the family remained undivided, plaintiff No.3 could not have asserted absolute ownership nor could he have unilaterally conveyed the property without reference to the joint family or the Kartha. - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 28. A similar pattern emerges from Ex.D.3, under which plaintiff No.2 has conveyed a site bearing House List No.27, which also forms part and parcel of Sy.No.43. Even under Ex.D.3, plaintiff No.2 has unequivocally asserted that he is the absolute owner of the property and that he is competent to convey valid title in his individual capacity. The recitals do not even remotely suggest that the sale was effected on behalf of the joint family or with the consent of other coparceners. 29. The cumulative effect of Exs.D.2 and D.3 unmistakably demonstrates that plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 were dealing with specific portions of Sy.No.43 as their individual properties, asserting exclusive ownership and exercising full rights of alienation. Such conduct is fundamentally inconsistent with the plaintiffs’ plea that the family remained joint and that plaintiff No.1 continued to act as the Kartha exercising dominion over the suit schedule properties. - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 30. In order to appreciate the true nature and legal effect of the covenants contained in Ex.D.3, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the relevant portions thereof, which read as under: "The terms VENDOR and PURCHASERS herein used shall mean and include their respective heirs, legal representatives, administrators, executors, successors, attorneys and assignees, etc. WHEREAS the Vendor is the sole and absolute owner of the Property bearing House List No.27, Katha No.43, situated at Naganathapura village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, hereinafter called the "Schedule Property" and more fully described in the Schedule hereunder and the same is Vendor's ancestral property. WHEREAS the katha of the Schedule property stands in the name of the Vendor in the records of concerned office and the Vendor has been paying the taxes thereof regularly to the concerned office and till this date, the Vendor is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and it is free from all kinds of encumbrances. WHEREAS the Vendor for want of money for his domestic needs and other legal necessities has offered and agreed to sell the Schedule Property to the Purchasers for a valuable consideration of the sum of Rs.62,000/- (Rupees Sixty Two thousand only) free from all kinds of encumbrances and the Purchasers have - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 accepted the offer of the Vendor and agreed to purchase the schedule property for the said sale consideration." (Emphasis supplied) 31. Ex.D.4 is yet another registered sale deed executed by plaintiff No.2, which assumes considerable significance in the present controversy. Under Ex.D.4, plaintiff No.2 has conveyed a site bearing Site No.164, which forms part and parcel of Sy.No.43. What is of particular relevance is the categorical assertion made by plaintiff No.2 therein that he is the absolute owner of the said site and that he possesses full and unfettered right to alienate the same. There is no reference whatsoever to the joint family, to any collective ownership, or to plaintiff No.1 acting as Kartha. Such an assertion of exclusive ownership by plaintiff No.2, especially when viewed in the light of similar declarations made by plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 under Exs.D.2 and D.3, clearly demonstrates a consistent course of conduct wherein individual members of the - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 family have dealt with specific portions of Sy.No.43 as their separate properties. 32. The execution of Ex.D.4, therefore, is not an isolated or stray transaction. When read conjointly with Exs.D.1 to D.3, it fortifies the defence plea that there was a disruption in joint family status and that the parties were enjoying and alienating their respective shares independently. This pattern of conduct is wholly incompatible with the plaintiffs’ assertion that the family continued to remain joint and that plaintiff No.1 continued to exercise dominion over the properties as Kartha. 33. Apart from the documentary evidence, the record also discloses a crucial admission elicited in the course of cross-examination of the plaintiff with regard to Sy.No.67/2, which corresponds to item No.6 of the suit schedule. The defendants have successfully elicited from P.W.1 an unequivocal admission that Sy.No.67/2 was subjected to a Joint Development Agreement. Such an - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 admission is of great evidentiary value, as entering into a Joint Development Agreement presupposes exclusive control and assertion of ownership over the property dealt with. 34. The said admission further weakens the plaintiffs’ plea of continued jointness. If the property was still joint and undivided, the execution of a Joint Development Agreement without reference to or consent of all coparceners would be legally untenable. The conduct of the plaintiffs in subjecting Sy.No.67/2 to a Joint Development Agreement, coupled with the categorical admission in cross-examination, clearly points towards separate enjoyment and independent assertion of rights over the suit schedule properties. 35. In order to appreciate the nature and scope of the admission made by P.W.1, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the cross- examination, which reads as under: - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 "21. It is true to suggest that land in Sy.No.67/2 was given for development under joint development agreement by me and other plaintiffs. I do not know the defendant No.1 and 2 are not parties to the said agreement. 22. In the old house at our native place my father was in possession till he died and subsequent to his death my younger brother Aswath Kumar is residing there. My father had leased the houses to the tenants. Now Aswathkumar is collecting the rents. It is true to suggest that we had filed this suit for partition only after the children of defendant No.1 and 2 demanded partition by issuing legal notice. The said children are not made as parties in the present suit. 23. I do not know that my sister was given her share of properties at the time of her wedding. Land in Sy.No.43 was converted into sites by my father and even alienated and therefore the purchasers are in possession many having constructed houses. It is true to suggest that in the partition deed schedule at Ex.D.7 and D.8 there is a reference to land in Sy.No.43. There is also mentioned in the same pertaining to the land in Sy.No.67/2 and 49/2. It is not true to suggest that during the lifetime of my father only there was division of properties. It is not true to suggest that though there was already a partition during the lifetime of my father. I have filed false suit. It is not true to suggest that as defendant no.1 is living away from the property, we have filed false case to knock off his property. It is not true to suggest - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 that we have filed the false case to cheat defendant No.1. All the suit properties are uncultivated." (Emphasis supplied) 36. On a cumulative reading of the extracted portions of the cross-examination, it becomes abundantly clear that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have further succeeded in substantiating their case that Sy.No.67/2 was, in fact, subjected to a Joint Development Agreement by the plaintiffs. The admission elicited from P.W.1 is categorical in nature. Though the witness has attempted to plead ignorance as to whether defendant Nos.1 and 2 had joined the said Joint Development Agreement, such an evasive answer does not dilute the core admission that the property was dealt with by the plaintiffs in a manner consistent only with exclusive ownership and independent control. 37. Further, in paragraph No.23 of the extracted cross-examination, the witness has unequivocally acknowledged the existence of the partition deeds marked - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 at Exs.D.7 and D.8. Significantly, the witness has also admitted that there is a specific reference to land bearing Sy.No.43 in the said documents. This admission directly undermines the plaintiffs’ contention that Sy.No.43 was entirely disposed of by plaintiff No.1 in his capacity as Kartha prior to the alleged partition. The acknowledgment of Sy.No.43 in Exs.D.7 and D.8 lends further corroboration to the defence plea that the said survey number continued to be the subject-matter of partition and separate enjoyment. 38. Equally significant are the suggestions put forth by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs during the cross- examination of D.W.2. A careful perusal of the deposition reveals that certain suggestions made to this witness are not merely inconsistent with the plaintiffs’ pleadings but are, in fact, destructive of their own case. It is rather surprising to note that, despite an exhaustive cross- examination of D.W.2, the plaintiffs have, through their - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 own suggestions, conceded material aspects which lend support to the defence version. 39. Suggestions made in cross-examination, though not evidence by themselves, assume evidentiary relevance when they reflect admissions or reveal the stand taken by the party putting forth such suggestions. In the present case, the nature of the suggestions addressed to D.W.2 unmistakably indicate an implicit acceptance of severance and separate enjoyment of properties, which runs contrary to the plaintiffs’ plea of continued joint family status. 40. In view of the significant admissions and self- destructive suggestions elicited during the cross- examination of D.W.2, this Court deems it appropriate to extract paragraph Nos.12 and 13 of the said deposition, which read as under: "12. Palupatti was written only after we went to the house of Oba Reddy. It was not scribed on stamp paper but it was on some other paper. Witness volunteers it was about 15-20 years ago and I am unable to recollect the - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 details. I do not know who had scribed the Palupatti. I do not know which were the properties that were involved in the said Palupatti. I do not know the details of allotment of properties. Witness volunteers I do not know all that but I was called and informed that there was partition and I should be an attesting witness and therefore, I had signed the document. It is not true to suggest that I have signed at the behest of defendant No.1 Narayana Reddy and defendant No.2 Pattabhiramareddy. Witness volunteers I was requested by Vijaya Reddy to sign the Palupatti. 13. Subsequent to subscribing my signature to the Palupatti I had not seen the said document thereafter. All the sons of Oba Reddy had subscribed the signatures to the Palupatti even before we went to their house. Premakumari, the defendant No.3 had not signed the said Palupatti. I do not know whether Premakumari was allotted or not any share in the properties." (Emphasis supplied) 41. On a careful reading of the suggestions put forth by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs during the cross-examination of D.W.2, it becomes evident that the plaintiffs have virtually abandoned their initial and consistent plea that they constitute an undivided Joint Hindu Family which continued without any severance. The - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 tenor and content of the suggestions unmistakably disclose that the plaintiffs themselves have acknowledged circumstances which are wholly inconsistent with their case of continued jointness. The extracted portions clearly demonstrate that, by advancing such crucial suggestions, the plaintiffs have, in effect, brought on record the true factual matrix governing the inter se relationship of the family members. 42. D.W.2, who claims to be an attesting witness to Exs.D.7 and D.8, has categorically deposed that these documents came into existence about 15 to 20 years prior to his examination. He has further stated, in unequivocal terms, that he was called upon and informed that the family members intended to effect a partition and that he was requested to sign the documents as an attesting witness. The witness has also voluntarily stated that it was plaintiff No.3 – Vijay Reddy who specifically requested him to attest the document, which he has described as a Pallu Patti. This voluntary assertion, emanating from an - 36 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 independent witness, assumes considerable evidentiary value. 43. Though in paragraph No.12 of his cross- examination, D.W.2 has expressed his inability to furnish specific details regarding the allotment of individual properties under the said documents, such inability cannot be construed to discredit his testimony in its entirety. It is well settled that a witness to a family partition, particularly one effected several years ago, may not be in a position to recall the minutiae of allotment. However, his categorical assertion that he witnessed a family partition, that he was informed of the intent to divide, and that he attested the documents at the request of a family member, cannot be lightly brushed aside or discarded. 44. On an independent and cumulative appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court is of the considered view that though proof of a legally valid partition per se cannot be conclusively - 37 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 gathered from Exs.D.7 and D.8 alone, the surrounding circumstances and, more importantly, the consistent conduct of the male members of the family assume decisive significance. The repeated and independent alienations of ancestral properties by plaintiff Nos.1, 2 and 3, asserting absolute ownership under Exs.D.1, D.2, D.3, D.4 and Ex.D.9, coupled with admissions elicited in cross- examination and the execution of a Joint Development Agreement in respect of Sy.No.67/2, clearly establish that the family had ceased to function as a joint unit much prior to the institution of the suit. 45. The recitals in the aforementioned sale deeds, when read conjointly with the admissions and conduct of the parties, put a quietus to the narrative set up by the plaintiffs that there was no partition by metes and bounds and that the joint family continued uninterrupted. These circumstances unmistakably point towards a severance of status and separate enjoyment of properties long before - 38 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 the filing of the present suit. In that view of the matter, Point No.(i) is answered in the "Affirmative". Findings on Point No.(ii):- 46. Though the approach adopted by the Trial Court while adjudicating the claim of defendant No.3-the daughter is fundamentally flawed and the finding recorded on Additional issue No.10 clearly suffers from perversity and patent error, this Court is nevertheless of the considered view that, in light of the findings recorded while answering Point No.(i) in the affirmative, defendant No.3 cannot be relegated to file a separate suit for partition by questioning the alienations. 47. It is an admitted position that the alienations in question are of a period much prior to the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act,1956 . It is not in dispute that defendant No.3 was married much prior to the Karnataka Amendment, which came into force in the year 1995. Consequently, she did not acquire any right by birth - 39 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 in the coparcenary property under the un-amended law. This Court has already arrived at a clear conclusion that there was severance of joint family status during the lifetime of plaintiff No.1, the father of defendant No.3. Though this Court has declined to place reliance on Exs.D.7 and D.8 as conclusive proof of a legally valid partition, the severance is otherwise established beyond doubt through the conduct of the parties, supported by registered sale deeds executed by the male members asserting exclusive title. 48. Once severance of status is established during the lifetime of the father, the same is clearly protected by the first proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Though the proviso, on a plain reading, indicates that partition should be by way of a registered partition deed, the said provision has been the subject matter of authoritative judicial interpretation by a larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma [(2020) 9 SCC 1]. The Hon’ble Apex - 40 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 Court, while taking note of ground realities prevalent in rural India, has categorically held that partitions are often effected orally or under unregistered documents, which may only be in the nature of memorandum. It was held that severance of status need not necessarily be proved only through a registered partition deed and that such severance can be established by other cogent evidence, including conduct of parties and contemporaneous documents. 49. In the present case, the plaintiffs themselves, by their unequivocal conduct in executing registered sale deeds asserting exclusive and absolute ownership over distinct portions of the ancestral properties, have clearly demonstrated that there was severance in the family long prior to the institution of the suit and much prior to the amendment to Section 6 of the Act. Such conduct leaves no manner of doubt that the joint family had ceased to exist and that the properties were being dealt with as separate and individual holdings. - 41 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 50. In that view of the matter, defendant No.3, as a daughter, has no locus to challenge the severance of joint family status which admittedly took place prior to the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Once severance is established during the lifetime of her father, she did not acquire any independent or birth right in the suit schedule properties. Therefore, the Trial Court, having itself held that there was severance in the family, committed a serious error in relegating defendant No.3 to file a separate suit to challenge the alienations. Such a course was wholly unwarranted and legally unsustainable. 51. Accordingly, while the reasoning adopted by the Trial Court on Additional issue No.10 is found to be perverse and erroneous, the ultimate conclusion that defendant No.3 is not entitled to claim partition stands affirmed on different and independent reasoning. In view of this Court affirming the finding that there was severance in the family much prior to the amendment and during the lifetime of the father, the claim of defendant - 42 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011 No.3 necessarily fails and is liable to be rejected. Point No.(ii) is answered in the ‘Affirmative’ 52. The judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel in RFA No.439/2011 have no application to the present case on hand. 53. Point No.(iii):- For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) Both appeals are dismissed. (ii) Pending applications, if any, are also dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13