- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3393 RFA No. 573 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.573 OF 2012 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. PAPANNA RAO S/O LATE HANUMANTHA RAO AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS C.NANDIHALLI, CHELUR HOBLI GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572101 2. RAMAKRISHNA RAO S/O LATE HANUMANTHA RAO AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS C.NANDIHALLI, CHELUR HOBLI GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572101 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. B K MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. T.G.LAKSHMIBAI W/O B.K.MUKUNDA RAO BHOUNSLE AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS BENNUR VILLAGE GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572101 Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3393 RFA No. 573 of 2012 2. ESHWARIBAI T G W/O V N BABU RAO AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS D.NO.370/S, 25TH, 8TH CROSS HEBBAL II STAGE HINKEL MYSORE - 570001 3. T G PRAKASH RAO S/O T L GOVINDA RAO AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS C.NANDIHALLI, CHELUR HOBLI GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572101 4. SWETHAKUMARI D/O BHOJARAJ MAJOR NEAR ALUMINIUM FACTORY UPPARAHALLI TUMKUR - 572101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S.KALYAN BASAVARJ, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 AND R.2; SRI.N.K.SIDDESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R.3; NOTICE TO R.4 IS D/W V/O/D 01.08.2013) THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.11.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.54/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMKUR, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION AND FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3393 RFA No. 573 of 2012 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL JUDGMENT The captioned appeal is filed by defendant Nos.2 and 3, who are the legal heirs of Hanumantha Rao, assailing the preliminary decree granted in O.S.No.54/2001, wherein plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are granted 1/3rd share each in the suit schedule properties and the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 on 07.09.1990 in favour of defendant No.4 is held to be not binding on the plaintiffs’ legitimate share. 2. The ranks of the parties are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court. 3. The genealogical tree of the family is extracted, which reads as under; - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3393 RFA No. 573 of 2012 Lingoji Rao Govinda Rao Lakshmi Bai Sakku Bai Hanumantha Rao Lakshmi Bai Prakash Rao Eshwari Bai (P.1) (D.1) (P.2) 4. Facts leading to the case are as under; The plaintiffs, namely T.G. Lakshmibai and T.G. Eshwaribai, daughters born through the second wife Sakkubai to Govinda Rao, instituted a suit for partition in O.S.No.54/2001 seeking separate possession of their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties. It was pleaded that the suit schedule properties are joint family ancestral properties belonging to Govinda Rao and defendant No.1, in which the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/3rd share each. It was further averred that their marriages - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3393 RFA No. 573 of 2012 were solemnized in the year 1990. The plaintiffs alleged that defendant Nos.2 and 3, who are strangers to the immediate branch of the family, taking undue advantage of the weakness of defendant No.1, have managed to get the katha mutated in their names in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule properties. 5. Upon service of summons, defendant Nos.1 to 3 entered appearance and filed their written statements contesting the suit. While admitting that the suit schedule properties were originally joint family ancestral properties, the defendants specifically contended that a partition had already taken place between Govinda Rao and his son through the first wife, namely Hanumantha Rao, under a registered Partition Deed dated 29.09.1979. It was asserted that pursuant to the said partition, Hanumantha Rao stood separated from the family and was allotted his exclusive share. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3393 RFA No. 573 of 2012 6. The defendants further sought dismissal of the suit by contending that a revenue site was purchased in the name of plaintiff No.1 through a GPA and that the same was sold for a sum of Rs.80,000/-, which was utilized towards purchase of gold, jewellery and marriage expenses. Defendant No.1 alleged that the entire marriage expenses of plaintiff No.1 were borne by him, which was acknowledged by the plaintiffs under an agreement dated 14.11.1994. It was further contended that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was spent towards the marriage of plaintiff No.1 by availing a loan obtained by mortgaging item No.2 of the suit schedule property. Defendant No.1 also alleged that he and his mother had mortgaged the suit properties, discharged the loan and incurred expenses exceeding Rs.2.5 lakhs towards the marriage of plaintiff No.2 solemnized on 15.05.1997. It was on these grounds that item No.3 of the suit schedule properties was sold in favour of defendant No.4 for a consideration of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3393 RFA No. 573 of 2012 Rs.1,40,000/- under a registered sale deed executed in the year 1996. 7. Based on the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed necessary issues and called upon the parties to lead evidence. 8. In support of their case, the plaintiffs examined plaintiff No.2 as P.W.1 and produced eleven documents. Though defendant No.1 had filed a written statement, he did not step into the witness box nor adduce any evidence. Defendant Nos.2 and 3, despite filing their written statement, neither contested the proceedings nor led any evidence. Upon appreciation of the material on record, the Trial Court decreed the suit granting 1/3rd share each to the plaintiffs by drawing a preliminary decree. 9. Aggrieved by the said judgment and preliminary decree, the present appeal is filed only by defendant Nos.2 and 3, who are the children of Hanumantha Rao. The appellants assail the decree on the ground that there was - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3393 RFA No. 573 of 2012 a subsequent partition dated 25.03.1993 in respect of item Nos.1 to 3 of the suit schedule properties under a Pallu Patti. It is contended that out of the total extent measuring 9 acres 10 guntas, defendant Nos.2 and 3 were allotted 2 acres each in Sy. No.62/2 and that pursuant to the said Pallu Patti, they have been in exclusive possession since 1993. It is further asserted that they have developed the land by raising coconut plantation after availing loan from Canara Bank, and that the original Pallu Patti dated 25.03.1993 is pledged with the said Bank. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs contended that defendant Nos.2 and 3, having neither contested the suit nor led evidence before the Trial Court, lack locus standi to maintain the present appeal. It was further contended that para No.6 of the written statement itself contains a clear admission regarding the registered partition dated 29.09.1979 between Govinda Rao and Hanumantha Rao, pursuant to which Hanumantha Rao stood separated from the family. Consequently, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3393 RFA No. 573 of 2012 defendant Nos.2 and 3, being the children of a coparcener who had already separated, have no locus to set up a plea of subsequent partition in respect of the properties retained by Govinda Rao. It was also pointed out that the said partition of 1979 is admitted even in para No.6 of the appeal memorandum. On these grounds, dismissal of the appeal was sought. 11. Learned counsel appearing for defendant No.1 supported the contentions of defendant Nos.2 and 3, despite the fact that defendant No.1 has neither preferred an independent appeal challenging the preliminary decree nor questioned the alienation in favour of defendant No.4. 12. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records, the following points arise for consideration: (i) Whether defendant Nos.2 and 3 have locus standi to maintain the present appeal? - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3393 RFA No. 573 of 2012 (ii) Whether the judgment and preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court granting 1/3rd share each to the plaintiffs suffers from perversity warranting interference by this Court? (iii) What order? Findings on point Nos(i) and (ii):- 13. Before adverts to the records, this Court deems it fit to extract the stand taken by the defendants at para No.6 of the written statement, which reads as under; "6. Suit properties along with some more properties were the joint family properties of Govinda Rao and his sons Hanumantha Rao and Prakash Rao. Govinda Rao and his eldest son Hanumantha Rao effected partition under a registered partition deed dated 29.09.1979. Item Nos.1 and 3 of the suit schedule fell to the share of Govinda Rao. Item No.2 of the suit schedule was allotted to Govinda Rao by Karnataka Housing Board to Govinda Rao on installments, and after his death, 1st defendant paid balance consideration and became owner of item No.2 of the suit property." (emphasis supplied) - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3393 RFA No. 573 of 2012 14. Since defendant Nos.2 and 3, who are the appellants herein, claim to be aggrieved primarily on account of certain assurances allegedly held out by defendant No.1 and are now seeking to persuade this Court to remand the matter on the premise that they had no effective opportunity to contest the suit, this Court deems it appropriate to advert to and extract paragraph No.6 of the appeal memorandum, which reads as under: "6. According to the written statement filed by the 3rd respondent on 29.09.1979 that the joint family properties which belonged to Govinda Rao and his sons Hanumantha Rao and Praksh Rao was partitioned between Govinda Rao and his eldest son Hanumantha Rao as per the registered partition deed dated 29.09.1979. Item Nos.1 and 3 of the suit schedule properties fell to the share of Govinda Rao. It is submitted that the item No.2 of suit schedule properties was allotted to Govinda Rao by the Karnataka Housing Board on installment basis. During the life time of Govinda Rao, he has paid some installments and after his death, the 3rd respondent Prakash Rao paid the balance consideration and became the absolute owner of item No.2. According to the 3rd respondent, Hanumantha Rao - 1st son of Govinda Rao sold the property allotted to his share in the partition and out of the sale proceeds, - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3393 RFA No. 573 of 2012 Hanumantha Rao purchased land at Nelhal Village and he was running wine shop at Tumkur." 15. A conjoint reading of paragraph No.6 of the written statement and paragraph No.6 of the appeal memorandum leaves no manner of doubt that the father of defendant Nos.2 and 3, namely Hanumantha Rao, who was born through the first wife Lakshmibai, had effected a registered partition with Govinda Rao under a Partition Deed dated 29.09.1979 and had taken his legitimate and exclusive share in the joint family properties. Once this admitted factual position is accepted, defendant Nos.2 and 3 cannot be said to constitute a joint family along with the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. The separation of their father during the lifetime of Govinda Rao resulted in complete severance of status, and consequently, defendant Nos.2 and 3 did not retain any subsisting or pre-existing right in the suit schedule properties. 16. In that view of the matter, the alleged Pallu Patti/partition dated 25.03.1993 said to have been - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3393 RFA No. 573 of 2012 effected between defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.2 and 3 cannot bind the plaintiffs, who admittedly were not parties to the said arrangement. In the absence of any pre-existing right flowing from their father, defendant Nos.2 and 3 had no locus either to assert a claim in respect of the suit schedule properties or to challenge the preliminary decree passed in O.S. No.54/2001. It was only defendant No.1, being the coparcener in whom the property vested after the 1979 partition, who could have maintained an appeal against the preliminary decree. 17. In the present case, the admitted position emerging from the pleadings is that a registered Partition Deed came to be executed on 29.09.1979 between Govinda Rao and his son Hanumantha Rao, who was born through the first wife. Under the said registered partition, Hanumantha Rao took his defined and exclusive share and thereby stood separated from the joint family during the lifetime of Govinda Rao. In Hindu law, once a partition is effected by a registered instrument, it results in complete - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3393 RFA No. 573 of 2012 severance of status, bringing the coparcenary to an end to the extent of the separating coparcener. Such severance is absolute and irreversible, and the separated coparcener thereafter holds his share as his separate property. The legal consequence of such severance is that the descendants of the separated coparcener cannot claim any right by birth in the properties retained by the remaining coparceners, nor do they constitute a joint or undivided Hindu family with them. 18. Applying these settled principles to the facts on hand, defendant Nos.2 and 3, being the children of Hanumantha Rao, do not constitute an undivided joint family either with the plaintiffs or with defendant No.1. Their father, having already taken his share under the registered partition of 1979, extinguished any further coparcenary rights in the suit schedule properties. In the absence of any pre-existing right or subsisting interest, defendant Nos.2 and 3 cannot assert locus standi either to contest the partition suit or to assail the preliminary - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3393 RFA No. 573 of 2012 decree passed therein. A preliminary decree in a partition suit can be challenged only by a person who has a legally cognizable share or interest in the joint family property. Since defendant Nos.2 and 3 trace their claim solely through a father who had already separated and since they derive no independent right in the properties retained by Govinda Rao and defendant No.1, their challenge to the preliminary decree is legally untenable. Consequently, the appeal at their instance is devoid of locus and is liable to be rejected on this ground alone. 19. In the light of the admitted pleadings and the undisputed partition of the year 1979, the suit schedule properties continued to retain the character of joint family ancestral properties only between Govinda Rao and defendant No.1. Consequently, it is only the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 who constituted the undivided joint family and were necessary parties to the partition suit. Any interim or private arrangement alleged to have been entered into between defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.2 - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3393 RFA No. 573 of 2012 and 3 is of no legal consequence and cannot defeat the independent and statutory rights of the plaintiffs as daughters of Govinda Rao. 20. The Trial Court, having meticulously considered these material aspects, has rightly decreed the suit and determined the shares of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, point Nos.(i) and (ii) are answered in the Negative. 21. Point No.(iii):- In view of the findings recorded on point Nos.(i) and (ii), this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER The appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19