- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2694 RSA No. 1466 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1466 OF 2025 (PAR/INJ) BETWEEN: SMT. MALLIGAMMA W/O LATE GANGADHARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT RAJANASIRIYUR VILLAGE HALEBEEDU HOBLI, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DIST. - 573 115. …APPELLANT (BY SRI JAGADEESH D.C, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. RAJASHEKARA S/O MALLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT RAJANASIRIYUR VILLAGE HALEBEEDU HOBLI, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DIST. - 573 115. 2. SMT. GAYATHRI W/O B.R. RAJU, D/O MALLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT BRAMASAMUDRA VILLAGE SAKARAYAPATNA HOBLI, KADUR TALUK - 577 140 CHIKMAGALURU DIST. 3. SRI. PALAKSHA S/O CHANNABASAVE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 4. SRI. MAHESH S/O CHANNABASAVE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2694 RSA No. 1466 of 2025 5. SMT. PUSHPA W/O JAGADISH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 6. SRI. GURURAJ S/O CHANNABASAVE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 7. SRI. SHANTHAVEEREGOWDA S/O CHANNABASAVE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 8. SRI. ANANDA S/O CHANNABASAVE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 9. SRI. MADHUSUDHANA S/O CHANNABASAVE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 3 TO 9 ARE R/AT RAJANASIRIYUR VILLAGE, HALEBEEDU HOBLI, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DIST - 573 115. 10. SRI. GANGADHARA S/O CHANNAVEEREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS R/AT JOGIHALLI VILLAGE HALEBEEDU HOBLI, BELUR TQ., HASSAN DIST. - 573 115. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.07.2025 PASSED IN RA.NO.2/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BELURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.04.2022 PASSED IN OS.NO.201/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2694 RSA No. 1466 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and decree dated 23.07.2025 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Beluru, in R.A.no.2/2023 dismissing appeal and confirming judgment and decree dated 01.04.2022 passed by Civil Judge and JMFC, Beluru, in O.S.no.201/2013, this appeal is filed. 2. Sri D.C. Jagadeesh, learned counsel, submitted that appeal was by defendant no. 1 in O.S.no.201 of 2013 filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein (plaintiffs) for relief of partition and separate possession of their 1/3rd share in suit schedule property. In plaint, plaintiffs had stated that suit properties were ancestral joint family properties of propositus Mallegowda, their grandfather. It was stated Mallegowda and his wife Sannamma had three daughters i.e., Parvathamma, Mallamma and Maligamma. It was stated that Parvathamma had married Channabasavegowda and had seven children namely defendants no.3 to 9, Mallamma married Mallegouda and had two children namely plaintiffs and Maligamma married Gangadharappa (defendants no.1 and 2) and had four children. It was stated that both their parents as well as grandparents - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2694 RSA No. 1466 of 2025 had died, and therefore, plaintiffs were entitled for 1/3rd share in properties of propositus. Since defendants had failed to give share, despite demand, they were constrained to file suit. 3. On service of summons, defendants no.1, 3 and 9 filed written statement admitting propositus Mallegowda had three daughters, but disputed Mallamma bearing any children and denied relationship of plaintiffs with Mallamma. They admitted death of propositus and his wife. It was stated that Mallamma was got married outside village, but as she was suffering from mental retardation, she had left her husband's house and was residing with defendant no.1 and until her death on 08.11.2006. It was further stated that only item no.7 of suit properties was ancestral property, while items no.1 to 6 were self-acquired properties of Mallegowda, who had died on 04.04.1979 and prior to date of death, on 19.02.1979 executed a registered Will bequeathing Items no.1 to 6 in favour of defendant no.1 and after his death, name of defendant no.1 was mutated insofar as items no.1 to 6 and they were in possession. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2694 RSA No. 1466 of 2025 4. Defendant no.2 filed separate written statement and reiterated same. It was further stated that since there was bequethal prior to 20.12.2004, plaintiffs had no right to claim partition right. 5. Based on pleadings, trial Court framed following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs proves that, themselves and the defendants are the members of Hindu Un-divided Family? 2. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that the suit schedule properties are their joint family properties? 3. Whether the defendant no.1 and 3 to 9 prove that the Item no.1 to 6 properties are the self- acquired properties of Mallegowda? 4. Whether the defendants no.1, 2 and 3 to 9 further proves that the father of the 1st defendant by name Mallegowda during his life time had bequeathed the suit schedule properties in favour of 1st defendant Smt.Malligamma and 2nd defendant Gangadharappa through registered Will dated 19.02.1979? 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds? 6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for mesne profit as pleaded in their plaint? 7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs as sought for? 8. What order or decree? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2694 RSA No. 1466 of 2025 6. Thereafter plaintiff no.1 examined himself as PW1 and two others as PWs.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P15. On behalf of defendants, defendant no.1 and two others deposed as DWs.1 to 3 and got marked Ex.D1. On consideration, trial Court answered issues no.1, 2, 5 and 7 in affirmative, issues no.3, 4 and 6 in negative and issue no.8 by decreeing suit and granting 1/3rd share in all suit schedule properties. 7. Aggrieved, defendants no.1 and 3 to 9 filed R.A.no.2/2023 on various grounds, based on which following points were framed for consideration: ಅಂಶಗಳ: 1. ಾ ಗಳ, ಾ ಯರು ಮತು ಪಾ ಗಳ ಂದೂ ಅಾತ ಕುಟುಂಬ ಸದಸರು ಸತಗಳ ಅಭಕ ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಮತು ಾಾ ಆ"ಗಳ ಎಂದು %ಾ&ೕತುಪ(ಸು)ಾ*ೆ,ೕ? 2. 1, 3 -ಂದ 9.ೇ ಪಾ ಗಳ 1 -ಂದ 6.ೇ ಾಾ ಸತುಗಳ ಮ/ೆ0ೕ1ೌಡರ ಸ4ಾ5ತ ಆ"ಗಳ ಎಂದು %ಾ&ೕತುಪ(ಸು)ಾ*ೆ,ೕ? 3. 1, 3 -ಂದ 9.ೇ ಪಾ ಗಳ ಾಾ ಸತುಗಳನು7 ಮ/ೆ0ೕ1ೌಡರು ಃ19.02.1979 ರ ಮರಣ :ಾಸನದ ಮು;ಾಂತರ 1 ಮತು 2.ೇ ಪಾ ಗ<1ೆ =ೕ( ಾ>*ೆಂದು %ಾ&ೕತುಪ(ಸು)ಾ*ೆ,ೕ? - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2694 RSA No. 1466 of 2025 4. ಾ ಯರು ಾಾ ಸತುಗಳ?0 1/3 @ಾಲನು7 ಮತು /ಾಾಂಶ ಪBೆಯಲು ಅಹ5*ಾDರು)ಾ*ೆಂದು %ಾ&ೕತುಪ(ಸು)ಾ*ೆ,ೕ? 5. ಾ ಗಳ ಾೆಯ?0 Eೋ-ದ ಪ-FಾರEೆG ಅಹ5*ೇ? 6. HಾರIಾ .ಾ4ಾಲಯವK Lಾ(ರುವ ೕಪK5 ಮತು (Mಯ?0 ಹಸNೇಪ Lಾಡಬಹು ೇ? 7. 4ಾವ ಆ ೇಶ? 8. After answering points no.1, 4 and 5 in affirmative and points no.2, 3 and 6 in negative, First Appellate Court dismissed appeal, leading to this Second Appeal. 9. It was submitted plaintiffs had not denied or disputed Ex.D1, Will. Same was registered and mutation entries were in name of defendants no.1 and 2. 10. Thus, defendants no.1 and 2 were in possession and enjoyment of Items no.1 to 6 properties and since same were self-acquired properties of propositus, their inclusion in suit for partition as ancestral property was not justified nor Trial Court and first appellate Court justified in granting and affirming decree for partition. It was therefore submitted, following substantial questions of law would arise for consideration: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2694 RSA No. 1466 of 2025 a. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs, holding that, the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties which are actually the properties of the first defendant, who acquired the same through a registered Will Ex.D1 left by her father? b. Whether the first defendant acquired the title to the properties lawfully as per the registered Will, Ex.D1 left by her father in her name and if so, whether it becomes her absolute property as per Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act? c. Whether the Judgment and Decree passed by the 1st Appellate Court in dismissing the appeal filed by first defendant, thereby, confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court is legal? 11. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and decree. 12. This second appeal is by defendant no.1 in suit for partition. Before trial Court, defendants not only disputed nature of properties as ancestral joint family properties, but they disputed lineage of plaintiffs. To substantiate same, plaintiffs relied upon revenue records as well as two independent witnesses namely PWs.2 and 3. On other hand, defendants relied upon registered Will as Exhibit-D1 and deposition of two independent witnesses as DWs.2 and 3. Even defendant no.1 deposed as DW.1. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2694 RSA No. 1466 of 2025 13. While arriving at its conclusions on issues no.1 to 3, trial Court relied on death certificate of Mallamma as Exhibit- P18, showing name of her husband as Mallegowda, Voter ID as Exhibit-P16, school admission certificate of plaintiff no.1 as Exhibit-P17. It found name of plaintiff no.1 parents was shown as Mallamma and Mallegowda. Trial Court found depositions of PWs.1 to 3 consistent insofar as claim of plaintiffs' lineage traced to propositus through daughter Mallamma. On other hand, it found deposition of DWs.2 and 3 answering all suggestions as 'I don't know', to draw adverse inference. 14. Insofar as nature of properties, it observed that items no.1 to 6 of suit properties were Inam lands granted to propositus. Inam lands cannot be stated to be self-acquired properties. Besides after referring to entries in Exs.P2 to P15, it arrived at conclusion that they were joint family properties and despite no challenge to Ex.D1 - Will, plaintiffs would be entitled for share in all joint family properties, as testator would not be justified in executing Will in respect of joint family properties. On said conclusion, it decreed suit. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2694 RSA No. 1466 of 2025 15. First appellate Court on independent re-appreciation confirmed said findings. Though learned counsel for appellant has sought to contend that substantial question of law arises for consideration about failure by plaintiffs to challenge Ex.D1 registered Will and whether by virtue of Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act, defendant no.1 would become absolute owner of bequeathed properties, it is seen that conclusions arrived by both Courts are on assessment of material on record, finding about nature of properties is finding of fact which is concurrent and based on material on record. Therefore, no ground of perversity in findings indicated. Since there is no dispute about all suit properties belonging to propositus, trial Court would be justified in granting 1/3rd share to plaintiffs' mother, as she was one of three daughters of propositus. Thus, no substantial questions of law arise for consideration. Appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE HNM/GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27