- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6902 RFA No. 1768 of 2025 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. 1768 OF 2025 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. KASTHURI AGED 42 YEARS W/O SRI N.NAGARAJU D/O SRI R.DEVARAJ R/AT. NO. 2/57-A, 4TH CROSS ROAD POOJARI LAYOUT, ASHWATHANAGAR R.M.V. 2ND STAGE BANGALORE-560 094. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SAMPATH KUMAR .A.V, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRATHEEP .K.C, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. R. DEVARAJ AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O LATE RAMUDU @ RAMAIAH R/AT. NO. 18/1 MUNESHWARA B BLOCK STEPDOWN MATADAHALLI, R.T. NAGAR POST BENGALURU-560 032 R/AT NO. 68, 4TH MAIN ROAD MATADAHALLI, SIDDAPPA HOUSE R.T.NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 032. 2. SRI. PRABHAKAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O SRI R.DEVARAJ NO. 10, 10TH CROSS Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6902 RFA No. 1768 of 2025 OPP. ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE BAPUJINAGAR, CHIKKABALLAPURA BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-01. 3. SMT. USHA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS W/O SRI RAJESH D/O R. DEVARAJ R/AT NO. 16, 6TH CROSS 1ST PHASE, NEAR GANAPATHI TEMPLE CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI MANDYA CITY-571 401. 4. SRI. R. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O LATE RAMUDU @ RAMAIAH R/AT NO. 3, MUNESHWARA C BLOCK 4TH CROSS, STEPDOWN MATADAHALLI, R.T.NAGAR POST BANGALORE - 560 032. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AKSHAY R. HUDDAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUBAIR .K.M, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4; V/O DATED 22.01.2026 NOTICE TO OTHER RESPONDENTS IS NOT NECESSARY) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.06.2025 PASSED IN OS.NO.986/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE LII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6902 RFA No. 1768 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT The captioned appeal is by unsuccessful plaintiff assailing the dismissal of the suit filed in O.S.No.986/2017 wherein plaintiff's suit seeking for partition and separate possession is dismissed by the Court on the ground that suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of first defendant. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. The family tree is as under: gÁªÀÄÄqÀÄ @ J¸ï. gÁªÀÄAiÀÄå (¥sÀªÀw) ¸À£ÁägÀªÀÄä (¥ÀªÀw) ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ Dgï.ªÀÄĤAiÀÄ¥Àà Dgï.ªÀÄĤªÀiÁgÀªÀÄä Dgï.ªÀÄĤAiÀÄ¥ïà Dgï.ªÀÄĤAiÀĪÀÄä Dgï.zÉêÁd Dgï.ªÉAPÀmÉñÀ Dgï.dAiÀÄ®Qëöä Dgï.EAzsÀƪÀÄw 70 ªÀµÀð 63 ªÀµÀð (dƤAiÀÄgï - 62 ªÀµÀð 60 ªÀµÀð 56 ªÀµÀð 53 ªÀµÀð 51 ªÀµÀð ªÀÄUÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄĤAiÀÄ¥Àà) (¥ÀªÀw) ªÉAPÀlªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ (¥ÀªÀw) 48 ªÀµÀð 1. ¥Àæ¨sÁPÀgÀ 37 ªÀµÀð 2. PÀ¸ÀÆÛj 34 ªÀµÀð 3. GµÁ 32 ªÀµÀð - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6902 RFA No. 1768 of 2025 4. The plaintiff, who is the daughter of the first defendant, instituted the present suit seeking partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share in the suit schedule property. She has also sought a declaration that the gift deed dated 30.08.2016, executed by the first defendant in favour of his brother, namely defendant No.4, is a sham and nominal document, not supported by consideration, and therefore not binding on her legitimate share in the suit schedule property. 5. The defendants entered appearance and filed their respective written statements, stoutly denying the plaint averments. The first defendant, in his written statement, contended that the suit schedule property is his exclusive self-acquired property and that neither the plaintiff nor the other defendants, except defendant No.4, have any right, title, or interest therein. It was further pleaded that the suit schedule property is neither joint family property nor ancestral property and, therefore, is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6902 RFA No. 1768 of 2025 not available for partition, rendering the suit devoid of any cause of action. 6. Defendant No.4 also filed a separate written statement asserting that the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of his brother, namely the first defendant. It was contended that the first defendant was under severe financial distress, having availed hand loans as well as institutional loans, and that defendant No.4 had discharged such liabilities by making substantial payments on behalf of the first defendant. According to defendant No.4, it is in consideration of the financial assistance rendered by him that the first defendant executed the gift deed dated 30.08.2016, thereby conveying absolute right, title, and interest in the suit schedule property in his favour. On these grounds, defendant No.4 sought dismissal of the suit. 7. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed appropriate issues. The parties were - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6902 RFA No. 1768 of 2025 afforded full opportunity to lead oral and documentary evidence. The plaintiff adduced evidence in support of her claim. Defendant No.4, in rebuttal, examined himself and marked documents at Exs.D-1 to D-16, seeking to establish that the first defendant had incurred substantial debts and that defendant No.4 had repaid the same, which allegedly culminated in the execution of the gift deed in question. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. 8. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and the learned counsel appearing for defendant No.4 and has carefully perused the entire material available on record. 9. In the light of the rival submissions and the evidence on record, the following points arise for consideration: "(i) Whether the finding recorded by the Trial Court holding that the suit schedule property is the self- - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6902 RFA No. 1768 of 2025 acquired property of the first defendant is perverse and warrants interference by this Court? (ii) What order?" Finding on point No.(i): 10. At the very outset, it is significant to note that the plaintiff, while instituting the suit, has unequivocally acknowledged and admitted that the suit schedule property was purchased by her grandfather, late Ramudu @ Ramaiah, who is the father of defendants No.1 and 4, under a registered sale deed dated 16.06.1952. This admission, which goes to the root of the plaintiff’s claim, is found in paragraph No.4 of the plaint. 11. Since pleadings constitute the foundation of a party’s case and admissions made therein are binding, this Court deems it apposite to extract paragraph No.4 of the plaint, which reads as under: "4. The plaintiff submits that the property bearing No.18/1, situated at Muneshwara B Block, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6902 RFA No. 1768 of 2025 Mattadahalli, Bangalore, which is more fully described in the schedule hereunder was purchased by late Ramudu, @ Ramaiah, S/o. late Subbaiah, the father of the first defendant and the four defendant from Zaheera Bi, W/o.Mohammed Saheb through registered sale deed dated 16.06.1952. The first defendant has inherited the estate of Ramudu on the demise of the latter on 09.04.2001 and Ramudu's wife Sannaramma died on 10.12.2000. The first defendant and his sister R. Jayalakshmi had entered into partition deed and the suit schedule property was devolved to the share of the first defendant. The fourth defendant got the ancestral properties in the family partition deed dated 30.11.2008 after the demise of the aforesaid Ramudu and Sannaramma. But the first defendant lived in the old rickety Mangalore tiled roof house and never made any improvements on the schedule property." (Emphasis Supplied) 12. In the light of the categorical pleadings extracted in paragraph No.4 of the plaint, it is evident that the plaintiff herself has acknowledged that the suit schedule property was purchased by her grandfather, late Ramudu @ Ramaiah, under a registered sale deed dated 16.06.1952. Once such an admission is made, the legal - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6902 RFA No. 1768 of 2025 consequence inexorably follows. The property being the self-acquired property of the grandfather, the plaintiff cannot assert any birthright therein. Upon the demise of the grandfather, the first defendant, being his son, succeeded to the property by intestate succession under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Such succession confers title on the heir in his individual capacity, and not as a coparcener. Consequently, the plaintiff, being the daughter of the first defendant, does not acquire any right by birth in the property inherited by her father from his father. 13. Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act (for short "the Act") operates in a limited and specific field. It applies only when a male Hindu dies possessed of coparcenary property governed by Mitakshara law. The foundational requirement for invoking Section 6 is the existence of a coparcenary, wherein the property is ancestral in nature and the heirs acquire rights by birth. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6902 RFA No. 1768 of 2025 14. In the present case, the plaintiff’s own pleadings, particularly paragraph No.4 of the plaint extracted supra, unequivocally admit that the suit schedule property was purchased by the plaintiff’s grandfather under a registered sale deed dated 16.06.1952. Such property, being purchased by the grandfather, is a self-acquired property in his hands and does not constitute ancestral or coparcenary property. Therefore, no coparcenary ever came into existence in respect of the suit schedule property. In the absence of a coparcenary, Section 6 has no application whatsoever to the facts of the present case. 15. Section 8 of the Act, on the other hand, governs intestate succession to the self-acquired property of a male Hindu. When the plaintiff’s grandfather died intestate, succession opened in favour of his Class-I heirs. The first defendant, being the son of the deceased, inherited the suit schedule property under Section 8 of the Act, and such inheritance is in his individual capacity. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6902 RFA No. 1768 of 2025 Property inherited by a son under Section 8 of the Act does not retain the character of joint family or coparcenary property vis-à-vis his own children. 16. Once the first defendant inherited the property under Section 8 of the Act, the plaintiff, being his daughter, did not acquire any right by birth in the said property. Her rights, if any, would arise only upon succession opening to the estate of her father and not prior thereto. Consequently, the plaintiff cannot invoke Section 6 of the Act to claim coparcenary rights or seek partition during the lifetime of the first defendant. 17. Though the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff made a feeble attempt to contend that the plaintiff had financially assisted the first defendant in the construction of the residential house standing on the suit schedule property, the said contention is wholly unsupported by reliable evidence. Except for a stray suggestion alleged to have been elicited in the cross- - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6902 RFA No. 1768 of 2025 examination of defendant No.4, there is no cogent oral or documentary evidence placed on record to establish that the plaintiff had invested any amount towards construction or improvement of the property. On the contrary, defendant No.4, by leading rebuttal evidence, has demonstrated that the first defendant was under acute financial distress, having incurred several debts, and that defendant No.4 had discharged such liabilities and had also paid additional amounts, which ultimately culminated in the execution of the gift deed in his favour. 18. The rebuttal evidence, particularly Ex.D-15, carries greater probative value and clearly outweighs the alleged stray admission relied upon by the plaintiff. Such an isolated statement, even if assumed, does not dislodge the consistent defence set up by defendant No.4 nor does it dilute the legal effect of the plaintiff’s own admissions contained in the plaint. Once it is admitted that the suit schedule property was the self-acquired property of the plaintiff’s grandfather and that the first defendant - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6902 RFA No. 1768 of 2025 inherited the same under Section 8 of the Act, the plaintiff is left with no subsisting cause of action to maintain a suit for partition or to question the alienation made by the absolute owner. The Trial Court has meticulously appreciated these aspects and has rightly answered Issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative. The findings recorded are firmly grounded on the plaintiff’s own pleadings coupled with the rebuttal evidence adduced by defendant No.4. This Court finds no perversity, illegality, or infirmity warranting interference. Accordingly, Point No.(i) is answered in the Negative. Finding on point No.(ii): 19. In view of the findings recorded on point No.(i), this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, stand dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20