- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14740-DB RFA No. 1961 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1961 OF 2016 BETWEEN: SRI. M. RAJU, ADOPTED, S/O LATE MADEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT KAGGALIURA VILALGE, SOSALE HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. DESHRAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. M. RATHNAMMA, W/O SRI. S.C. PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.202, 2ND CROSS, NETHAJI NAGAR, MYSURU - 570 001. 2. SMT. YASHODA W/O SRI. L. VISHAKANTAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT UPPINAKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK - 571 428. 3. SMT. MEENAKSHI, W/O M. MAHESH, Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14740-DB RFA No. 1961 of 2016 AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT: GENDEHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, ARAKERE HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428. 4. SRI. M. MAHADEVA, S/O LATE MADEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 5. SRI. M. SHASHIKALA, D/O LATE MADEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 6. SMT. SIDDAMMA, W/O LATE MADEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, SL NO. 4 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT KAGGALIPURA, VILALGE, SOSALE HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 008. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MEGA SUNIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHARATH GOWDA G B., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3, R4 AND R5 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED VIDE ORDER DATED 14.02.2026 R6 ABATED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATE:24.08.2016 DECREEING THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFFS IN PART THEREBY PARTITIONING THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTIES ITEM NOS. 1 TO 4 ,6,7, 11 TO 16 AND 18 (ONLY IN HOUSE NO.18/3) IN 8/49TH SHARE TO PLAINTIFFS & DEFENDANT NOS. 1 TO 3 AND 1/49TH SHARE TO - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14740-DB RFA No. 1961 of 2016 DEFENDANT NO.4 IN O.S.NO.6/2008 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, AT T. NARASIPURA AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 has been filed by the defendant No.1 against the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2016 passed in O.S.No.6/2008. 2. The plaintiffs/respondents had filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties of their father late Madegowda and also for settlement of the account under Order 20 Rule 18 read with Order 20 Rule 12 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for ascertainment of mesne profit. 3. For a long time the parents of the plaintiffs did not have any issue from their wedlock and therefore, they - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14740-DB RFA No. 1961 of 2016 adopted appellant/defendant No.1 in adoption, who is none other than the sister's son of late Madegowda. After the adoption, the couple was blessed with four daughters and a son, who were the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 and 3 before the trial Court in the suit. Late Madegowda died on 30.11.2005 leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendants. It is not in dispute that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for determination: "1. Whether plaintiffs prove that they and defendants constitute members of undivided joint family and are coparceners? 2. Whether plaintiffs prove that all the suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties? 3. Whether plaintiffs prove that they are in joint possession and enjoyment of all suit schedule properties alongwith defendants? 4. Whether 1st defendant proves that there was a oral partition after death of Madegowda as pleaded in para 13 of his written statement? - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14740-DB RFA No. 1961 of 2016 5. Whether 1st defendant proves that items 7, 13 & 16 are properties exclusively belonging to him? 6. Whether properties at item Nos.5 & 17 are not joint family properties? 7. Whether amount shown in item No.19 is imaginary and created by plaintiffs? 8. Whether suit is bad for partial partition as the plaintiffs have not schedule properties standing in their name? 9. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to their respective shares in the suit properties. If so, for what properties and their extent? 10. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for enquiry into mesne profits? 11. What order or decree?" 4. The trial Court after considering the evidence led by the parties (documentary and oral) passed the impugned judgment and decree. Plaintiffs and defendant No.1 to 3 have been held to be entitled to 8/49th share each, defendant No.4, who is the mother has been held to be entitled for 1/49th share in the suit Item Nos.1 to 4, 6, 7, 11 to 16 and 18. The suit in respect of Item No.5, 19 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14740-DB RFA No. 1961 of 2016 and the house property bearing Assessment No.18/2 which is part of suit Item No.18 was dismissed. 5. It was further directed that suit Item Nos.8 to 10 and 17 which belonged to the grandmother of the plaintiffs, these properties were neither ancestral nor joint family properties, as the grandmother had died intestate, the plaintiffs should be entitled to succeed the share of their father Late Madegowda, which would devolve up on him as the son of Rangamma, the grandmother of the plaintiffs/defendant Nos.1 to 3. Therefore the share of the plaintiffs in those properties would have to be worked out in a separate suit by impleading all the legal heirs of the deceased Rangamma (grand mother). A separate inquiry has been ordered for passing final decree proceedings regarding mesne profit as required under Order XX Rule 12 of the CPC. 6. The only point which has been urged by the appellant/defendant No.1, the adopted son in the present appeal is that by virtue of adoption, under the provisions - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14740-DB RFA No. 1961 of 2016 of Section 11 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, the appellant/defendant No.1 became entitled to the partition of his father's property to the extent of 50% share. He therefore submitted that after death of the father, the plaintiff/defendant No.1 would be entitled for half share in the properties left behind by the father and the balance of 50% properties should be divided among other legal heirs. Except for this contention, no other contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. Whether the appellant/defendant No.1 would be entitled for half share in the properties left behind by his adopted father is a question of law inasmuch as the adoption of defendant No.1 by the parents of the plaintiff is not in dispute. 8. Section 11 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 does not provide for partition of the properties of the adopted father on the date of adoption. Moreover, the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14740-DB RFA No. 1961 of 2016 Act, 1956 is not an enactment providing for succession of the estate of deceased Hindu male/female. The succession of Hindu male/female is governed under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 does not make any difference between an adopted son and a naturally born son/daughter. The adopted son and adopted daughter and naturally born son and daughter are all class-I heirs along with the mother, and therefore on the death of the father, the succession has to take place in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 9. The learned trial Court therefore, has rightly divided and partitioned the properties stating that plaintiffs/defendant No.1 and other sons and daughters of the deceased Madegowda are class-I heirs. All class-I heirs are entitled to equal share under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 10. We therefore, find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14740-DB RFA No. 1961 of 2016 Court in the present appeal and therefore, we dismiss this appeal. However, looking at the relationship between the parties, the appeal is dismissed without cost. In view of dismissal of appeal, pending I.As if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11 ct-vn