- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1856 OF 2014 (PAR) C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1688 OF 2013 REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 782 OF 2018 IN RFA No. 1856/2014 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. K B CHIKKATHAYAMMA W/O LATE B.S. CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, 2. SRI A.C. DHANASHANKAR S/O LATE B.S.CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, APPELLANTS 1 AND 2 R/AT NO.187, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, LOWER PALACE ORCHARDS, BANGALORE - 560 003. 3. SMT. A.C. SUJATHA D/O LATE B.S. CHANNAPPA, W/O A.S. NAGESH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.74, GURUKRUPA, 13TH MAIN, HANUMANTHANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 050. …APPELLANTS Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 (BY SRI. VIKHAR AHMED B., ADVOCATE FOR A1, A2 AND A7. (A3 TO A6 & A8 ARE TRANSPOSED AS RESPONDENT) AND: 1. SMT A C LAKSHMI D/O LATE B.S. CHANNAPPA, W/O DR. JAYAPRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.1192, 18TH MAIN, 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010. 2. SRI. VASANTH JENNU (TENANT) PROPRIETOR: "PARAG HOTEL" MAJOR, R/AT NO.187, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, LOWER PALACR ORCHARDS, BANGALORE - 560 003. 3. SRI.SHASTRI (TENANT) AGED MAJOR, (OLD NO.463), 21 'C' CROSS 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 011. 4. SRI.CHANDRE GOWDA (TENANT) MAJOR,, R/AT NO.3 (OLD NO.463) 21ST "C" CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 011. 5. SRI.MARI GOWDA FATHER"S NAME NOT KNOWN, MAJOR, FANCY STORE, NO.433/1 OPP. TO ARAKERE POLICE STATION, B.S.CHANNAPPA SHOPS BUILDINGS AT ARAKERE VILLAGE, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 415. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 6. VINU POWER COMPUTER PROPRIETOR, SANDEEP, FATHER"S NAME NOT KNOWN, MAJOR, SHOP NO.434/2, OPP TO ARAKERE POLICE STATION B.S. CHANNAPPA BUILDINGS, AT ARAKERE VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 415. 7. MAHALAKSHMI TRADERS (MANURE SHOP) PROPRIETOR, NAME NOT KNOWN, SHOP NO.434/1, OPP. TO ARAKERE POLICE STATION, B.S. CHANNAPPA BUILDINGS, AT ARAKERE VILLAGE, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 415. 8. SOUMYA STUDIO PROPRIETOR, NAME NOT KNOWN, (UPSTAIR SHOP NO. 434/3) OPP. TO ARAKERE POLICE STATION, B.S. CHANNAPPA BUILDINGS, AT ARAKERE VILLAGE, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 415. 9. SRINIVASA TRADERS (HOTEL) PROPRIETOR, NAME NOT KNOWN, (UPSTAIR SHOP NO. 434/3) OPP. TO ARAKERE POLICE STATION, B.S. CHANNAPPA BUILDINGS, AT ARAKERE VILLAGE, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT- 571 415. 10. SRI. ANANTHAKUMAR SWAMIJI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, SECRETARY ABHINAVA BHARATHI, VIDYA SAMSTHE, AT NO.KT.54/A, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 OPP. CHAMUNDESHWARI TEMPLE, B.S. CHANNAPPA BUILDINGS, BANNUR ROAD, CHAMUNDESHWARINAGARA MANDYA CITY - 571 401. 11 SMT.N. SHALINI W/O LATE A.C. SUDHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 12 KUMARI A.S. KANNIKA D/O LATE A.C. SUDHAKAR, MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER GUARDIAN SMT.N. SHALINI 13. KUMAR A.S. SHREYAS S/O LATE A.C. SUDHAKAR, MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER GUARDIAN SMT.N. SHALINI R/AT NO. 1564, 29TH CROSS, BANASHANKARI, 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 070. 14 SMT. A.C. GEETHA D/O LATE B.S. CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, W/O M. NAGARAJA, R/AT NO.487, A & B BLOCK, PEACOCK STREET, MYSORE - 570 023. 15. SMT. A.C. SUNEETHA D/O LATE B.S.CHANNAPPA, W/O C. PUTTAMADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.18, SIERAVILLA, NEAR AMBEDKAR DENTAL COLLEGE, CLINE ROAD, COX TOWN, BANGALORE - 560 005. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.S. MAHESHA., ADVOCATE FOR R1; - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 R2, R5, R14, R15 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED V/O DATED 30.10.2023, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; SRI. U.R. NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R4; V/O DATED 05.01.2021, NOTICE TO R6, R7 & R9 IS DISPENSED WITH; V/O DATED 05.01.2021, NOTICE TO R8 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; V/O DATED 10.02.2022, R10 IS DELETED SRI. MEGHACHANDRA., ADVOCATE FOR R11 TO R13) SRI. MEGHACHANDRA, D.N., ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5 R6 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED SRI. ANAND L., ADVOCATE FOR R8; SRI. A S MAHESHA FOR R1.,ADVOCATE FOR R9) THIS RFA IS FILED U/UNDER 41 RULE 1 R/W SEC 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.07.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.4697/2008 ON THE FILE OF XXXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. IN RFA NO. 1688/2013 BETWEEN: SMT. A.C. LAKSHMI D/O B.S. CHANNAPPA W/O DR JAYAPRAKASH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO 1992, 18TH MAIN, 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE 560 010. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. MAHESHA A.S., ADVOCATE) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 AND: 1. SMT. K.B. CHIKKATHAYAMMA W/O LATE B S CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 2. A C DHANASHANKAR S/O LATE B S CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS BOTH NO.1 & 2 ARE R/AT NO 187, 1ST MAIN ROAD, I CROSS, LOWER PALACE ORCHARDS, BANGALORE 560 003 3. SMT N SHALINI W/O LATE A C SUDHAKARA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 4. A S KANIKA D/O LATE A C SUDHAKARA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS 5. A S SHREYAS S/O LATE A C SUDHAKARA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS 3 TO 5 ARE R/AT HOUSE NO 1564, 29TH CROSS, BANASHANKARI, 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 070. 6. SMT A C GHEETHA D/O LATE B S CHANNAPPA W/O M NAGARAJA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO 487, A AND B BLOCK PEACOCK STREET MYSORE - 570 023. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 7. SMT A.C. SUJATHA D/O LATE B.S. CHANNAPPA W/O A S NAGESH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RA/T NO 74, GURUKRUPA 13TH MAIN, HANUMANTHANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 050. 8. SMT A.C. SUNEETHA D/O LATE B S CHANNAPPA W/O DR C PUTTAMADAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS PRESENTLY R/AT NO 19-G1, SIERAVILLA NEAR B.R. AMBEDKAR DENTAL COLLEGE, CLIVE ROAD, COOK TOWN BANGALORE 560 005. 9. SRI VASANTH JENNU (TENANT) PROPRIETOR PARAG HOTEL MAJOR, R/AT NO 187, 1ST MAIN ROAD I CROSS LOWER PALACE ORCHARDS BANGALORE - 560 003. 10. SRI SHASTRI (TENANT) MAJOR, R/AT NO 3 (OLD NO 463) 21ST C CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 011. 11. SRI CHANDRE GOWDA (TENANT) MAJOR, R/AT NO 3, (OLD NO 463) 21ST C CROSS 3RD BLOCK JAYANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 011. 12. SRI MARI GOWDA FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN MAJOR - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 FANCY STORE 433/1, OPP TO ARAKERE POLICE STATION B.S. CHANNAPPA SHOPS BUILDINGS AT ARAKERE VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK - 571 415 MANDYA DISTRICT. 13. VINU POWER COMPUTER, PROPRIETOR: SANDEEP FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN MAJOR, SHOP : 434/2, OPP TO ARAKERE POLICE STATION B S CHANNAPPA SHOPS BUILDINGS AT ARAKERE VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK 571 415 MANDYA DISTRICT. 14. MAHALAKSHMI TRADERS (MANURE SHOP) PROPRIETOR NAME NOT KNOWN SHOP NO 434/1 OPP TO ARAKERE POLICE STATION, B S CHANNAPPA SHOPS BUILDINGS AT ARAKERE VILLAGE, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK 571 415 MANDYA DISTRICT. 15. SOUMYA STUDIO PROPRIETOR NAME NOT KNOWN (UPSTAIR SHOP NO 434/3) OPP TO ARAKERE POLICE STATION B S CHANNAPPA BUILDINGS AT ARAKERE VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK 571 415 MANDYA DISTRICT 16. SRINIVASA TRADERS (HOTEL) PROPRIETOR NAME NOT KNOWN UPSTAIR SHOP: 434/4 OPP TO ARAKERE POLICE STATION B.S. CHANNAPPA SHOPS - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 BUILDINGS ARAKERE VILLAGE, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK 571 415 MANDYA DISTRICT. 17. SRI ANANTHAKUMAR SWAMIJI FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN SECRETARY, ABHINAVA BHARATHI VIDYA SAMSTHE AT NO KT 54/A, OPP CHAMUNDESHWARI TEMPLE BANNUR ROAD, CHAMUNDESHWARINAGARA MANDYA CITY - 571 401. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKHAR AHMED B., ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 & R7; SRI. MEGHACHANDRA, D.N., ADVOCATE FOR R3, R4 AND R5; SRI. M.V. VEDACHALA., ADVOCATE FOR R6; R8, R11, R17 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; V/O DATED 14.01.2019 APPEAL AGAINST R9, R10, R12 & R14 TO R16 IS DISMISSED; V/O DATED 14.01.2019 NOTICE TO R13 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED01.07.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.4697/2008 ON THE FILE OF XXXVIII-ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. IN RFA NO. 782/2018 BETWEEN: CANARA BANK AVENUE ROAD BRANCH NO.110-115, AVENUE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002 BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 AND SENIOR MANAGER SRI G D SURESH S/O G A DHARMAPALAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIKRAM UNNI RAJAGOPAL.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. K B CHIKKATHAYAMMA W/O LATE B S CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, NO.187, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, LOWER PALACE ORCHARDS BENGALURU-560 003. 2. SRI A C DHANASHANKAR S/O LATE B S CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, NO.187, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, LOWER PALACE ORCHARDS BENGALURU-560 003. 3. SMT N SHALINI W/O LATE A C SUDHAKAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O HOUSE NO.1564 29TH CROSS, BANASHANKARI II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 070. 4. A S KANIKA D/O LATE A C SUDHAKAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O HOUSE NO.1564, 29TH CROSS BANASHANKARI II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 070. 5. A S SHREYAS - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 S/O LATE A C SUDHAKAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O HOUSE NO.1564, 29TH CROSS BANASHANKARI II STAGE BENGALURU-560 070. 6. SMT A C GEETHA D/O LATE B S CHANNAPPA W/O M NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O NO.487 A & B BLOCK, PEACOCK STREET, MYSORE-570 023. 7. SMT A C SUJATHA D/O LATE B S CHANNAPPA W/O A S NAGESH R/O NO.74, GURUKRUPA 13TH MAIN, HANUMANTHANAGAR BENGALURU-560 050. 8. SMT A C SUNEETHA D/O LATE B S CHANNAPPA W/O DR C PUTTAMADAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O NO.19/G1, SIERAVALLIAGE NEAR B R AMBEDKAR DENTAL COLLEGE CLIVE ROAD, COOK TOWN BENGALURU-560 005. 9. SMT A C LAKSHMI D/O LATE B S CHANNAPPA W/O DR JAYAPRAKASH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O NO.1192, 18TH MAIN 5TH BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560 010. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKHAR AHMED B., ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 & R7; SRI. MEGHACHANDRA D.N., ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 R6 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED SRI. ANAND L., ADVOCATE FOR R8; SRI. A.S. MAHESH., ADVOCATE FOR R9) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.07.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.4697/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, PARTLY DECREEING 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 M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Appeal in RFA No.1856/2014 is filed by defendant Nos.1, 2 and 7 and appeal in RFA No.1688/2013 is filed by plaintiff Smt. A.C. Lakshmi, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 01.07.2013 in O.S.No.4697/2008 on the file of XXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'). 2. Appeal in RFA No.782/2018 is filed by Canara Bank being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 01.07.2013 passed by trial court to the extent of item No.1 of the suit schedule properties. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 3. Aforesaid suit in O.S.No.4697/2008 is filed by one Smt. A. C. Lakshmi seeking relief of partition and separate possession with respect to the following house and landed properties; SCHEDULE 1. House property bearing No.4 (old No.187) situated at 1st Main road, 1st Cross, Lower Palace Orchards, Bangalore-560 003, sital area approximately measures 3090 Sq.feet, built up area, ground floor, 1st floor consists of 4040 sq.feet, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Ward No.99, Aramane Nagar, bounded on the: East by:- Road and Lakshmi temple, West by:- Eshwarappa family house, South by:- Shama Rao house, North by:- Road, 2. House property bearing No.3 (Old No.463) situated at 21st 'C' Cross, 3rd Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore, approximately measures East to West: 60 feet and South to North 40 feet, built up area ground floor, first floor, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Ward No.59, Yediyur, bounded on the: East by:- Garden City Hospital, West by:- Road, South by:- Puttanarasimhaiah's house, North by:- Canara Bank. 3. House property bearing No.K.T.54/A, situated at Bannur road, opposite to Chamundeshwari Temple, Chamundeshwarinagara, Mandya City, Pin-571401, Mandya Town Municipal Council Limits consists of sital area approximately measures 450+446/2 ft X 36+192/2 feet and 400+395/2 ft X 9+35/2 ft, built up area [82 Square R.C.C. building, 40 squares R.C.C bulding, 60 Square A.C.C. sheets buildings and bounded on : East by:- Road, West by:- Road, - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 South by:- Private property, North by:-Road. 4. 4. House property and shops bearing Khatha Nos.433/1, 434/1+2, 434/4, 434/5+6, situated at Arakere village, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District, Arakere Town Panchayath area, opposite to Arakere police station, sital area approximately measures East to West: 80 feet, North to South: 60 feet, built up area, ground floor, first floor, ground floor consists of 6 shops and a house, first floor consists of 6 shops, bounded on the: East by:- Neelagiri Sonnegowda's house, West by:- Main road, South by:-Road, North by:- Puttegowda's house. 5.(a) Landed property bearing Sy.No.1118, Hissa. No.9, Piki- P1 consists of 1 acre and 9 guntas, situated at Arakere Village, Arakere Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District., 5.(b) Landed property bearing Sy.No.159, Hissa No.1 consists of 1 acre and 3 guntas, situated at Vaddiandohalli Village, Arakere Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District. 5.(c) Landed property bearing Sy.No.908, Hiasa Ho.1 consists of 29 guntas, situated at Arakere Village, Arakere Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District. 5.(d) Landed property bearing Sy.No.161, Hissa No.1, Piki- P2, consists of 39 guntas, situated at Vaddiandohalli village, Arakere Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District. 5.(e) Landed property bearing Sy.No.162, Hissa No.2, consists of 9 guntas, situated at Vaddiandohalli village, Arakere Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District. 5.(f) Landed property bearing Sy.No.151, Hissa No.3. consists of 22.12 guntas, situated at Vaddiandohalli village, Arakere Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District. 5.(g) Landed property bearing Sy.No.157K, consists of 2 Acres 20 guntas, situated at Vaddiandohalli village, Arakere Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District. 5.(h) Landed property bearing Sy. No. 151, Hissa No.2, Piki- P1, consists of 13 guntas, situated at Vaddiandohalli village, Arakere Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 5.(i) Landed property bearing Sy.No.152, Hissa No.1, consists of 29 guntas, situated at Vaddiandohalli village, Arakere Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District. 5.(j) Landed property bearing Sy.No.927, Hissa No.2, Pikki- P1 consists of 13 guntas, situated at Arakere Village, Arakere Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District. 5.(k) Landed property bearing Sy.No.927, Hissa No.2, Pikki- P2 consists of 13 guntas, situated at Arakere Village, Arakere Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District. 5.(l) Landed property bearing Sy.No. 927. Hissa No.2 Pikki- P3, consists of 13 guntas, situated at Arakere Village, Arakere Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District. 5.(m) Landed property bearing Sy.927, Hissa No.2, Pikki-P4 consists of 20 guntas, situated at Arakere Village, Arakere Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District. 5.(n) Landed property bearing Sy.No.908, Hissa No.2 consists of 27 guntas, situated at Arakere Village, Arakere Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District. 5.(o) Landed property bearing Sy.No.909, Hissa No.2, consists of 1 Acre 17 guntas, situated at Arakere Village, Arakere Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District. 5.(p) Landed property bearing Sy.No. 907, Hissa Pikki -P3 consists of 20 guntas, situated at Arakere Village, Arakere Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District. 5.(q) Landed property bearing Sy.No.906, Hissa Pikki-P1 consists of 1 acre, situated at Arakere Village, Arakere Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District. 5.(r) Landed property bearing Sy.No. 147, Hissa Pikki-P1, consists of 11 guntas, situated at Arakere Village, Arakere Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District. (hereinafter referred to as 'suit schedule properties'). 4. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 5. Admitted genealogy of the parties is extracted hereunder for the purpose of convenience: ªÀA±À ªÀÈPÀë ¯ÉÃmï J.f. ±ÀA§ÄUËqÀ ¯ÉÃmï JA £ÀAdªÀÄä (PÉÆÃA. ¯ÉÃmï J.f. ±ÀA§ÄUËqÀ) ¯ÉÃmï ©.J¸ï. ZÉ£ÀߥÀà (PÉÆÃA. ¯ÉÃmï J.f. ±ÀA§ÄUËqÀ) PÉ.©. aPÀÌvÁAiÀĪÀÄä (ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì 74 ªÀµÀð) (PÉÆÃA ¯ÉÃmï ©.J¸ï. ZÀ£ÀߥÀà) J.¹. VÃvÁ ¯ÉÃmï J.¹.¸ÀÄzsÁPÀgï J.¹. ®Qëöä J.¹. zsÀ£À±ÀAPÀgï J.¹. ¸ÀÄeÁvÁ J.¹. ¸ÀĤvÁ (ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì: 58 ªÀµÀð) 2£Éà ªÀÄUÀ (ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì 55 ªÀµÀð) (ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì 52 ªÀµÀð) (ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì 50 ªÀµÀð) (ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì 44 ªÀµÀð) 1£Éà ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ©£ï. ¯ÉÃmï ©.J¸ï. ZÀ£ÀߥÀà 3£Éà ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 4£Éà ªÀÄUÀ 5£Éà ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 6£Éà ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ©£ï.¯ÉÃmï ©.J¸ï. ZÀ£ÀߥÀà ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï ©.J¸ï. ZÀ£ÀߥÀà ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï ©.J¸ï a£ÀߥÀà ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï ©.J¸ï a£ÀߥÀà ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï ©.J¸ï a£ÀߥÀà JA £ÁUÀgÁdÄ ±Á°¤ J.J¸ï. dAiÀÄ¥ÀæPÁ±À PÀĪÀiÁj ¨sÁgÀw J.J¸ï. £ÁUÉÃ±ï ¹. ¥ÀÄlÖªÀiÁzÀ¥Àà (ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì: 64 ªÀµÀð) (ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì: 64 ªÀµÀð) (ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì: 64 ªÀµÀð) (ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì: 64 ªÀµÀð) (ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì: 64 ªÀµÀð) (ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì: 64 ªÀµÀð) UÀAqÀ ºÉAqÀw UÀAqÀ ºÉAqÀw UÀAqÀ ºÉAqÀw 1) J£ï. gÉÃR 1) J.J¸ï. PÀ¤PÁ 1) eÉ. ¢Ã¦PÁ 1) ¨sÁUÀðªï J.r. UËqÀ 1) J£ï. £ÀA¢vÁ 1) D«ðPï ¦. UËqÀ (ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì : 38 ªÀµÀð) (ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì : 29 ªÀµÀð) (ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì : 31 ªÀµÀð) (ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì : 14 ªÀµÀð) (ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì : 24 ªÀµÀð) (ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì : 18 ªÀµÀð) 1£Éà ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 1£Éà ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 1£Éà ªÀÄUÀ 1£Éà ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 1£Éà ªÀÄUÀ 2) J£ï. ZÉÃvÀ£Á 2) J.J¸ï. ±ÉæÃAiÀĸï 2) ªÀiÁ¼Á«PÀ J.r. UËqÀ 2) J£ï ªÀ¶ðvÀ 2) «PÁ¸ï ¦. UËqÀ (ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì : 3 ªÀµÀð) (ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì : 22 ªÀµÀð) (ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì : 12 ªÀµÀð) (ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì : 19 ªÀµÀð) (ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì : 16 ªÀµÀð) 2£Éà ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 2£Éà ªÀÄUÀ 2£Éà ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 2£Éà ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 2£Éà ªÀÄUÀ 3) J£ï. dAiÀĦæAiÀÄ (ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì : 33ªÀµÀð) 3£Éà ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 6. Thus, as per the aforesaid genealogy, one Sri. B.S. Channappa is the husband of Smt. K.B. Chikkathayamma- defendant No.1 and father of Smt. A.C. Lakshmi-plaintiff, Sri. A.C. Dhanashankar-defendant No.2, Smt. A. C. Geetha- defendant No.6, Smt. A.C.Sujatha-defendant No.7, Smt. A.C. Suneetha-defendant No.8. 7. Case of the plaintiff is; (a). That her paternal grandfather Sri.A.G. Shambu Gowda, had inherited landed properties and house properties from his ancestors. Upon his demise, his son Sri. B. S. Channappa inherited the same and was managing the said properties. Said Sri. B. S. Channappa was carrying on contract business, out of his earning from the said contract business, he had purchased Item Nos.1 and 2 house properties at Bengaluru and Item No.3 situated at Mandya. That landed properties described in Item Nos.5(j) to 5(r) were purchased in the name of defendant No.2 from and out of the joint family funds. Thus, plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 8 are in joint possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 (b). That the properties were managed and administered by said Sri. B.S. Channappa during his lifetime and upon his demise, Smt. K.B. Chikkathayamma-defendant No.1 was managing the affairs of the property till the year 1993. Thereafter, Sri. A.C. Dhanashankar-defendant No.2 took over the management of the joint family affairs as a Kartha of the Joint Hindu Undivided family. (c). That the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 to 8 are entitled for 1/7th share each in the suit schedule properties. They have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. The properties were let out and the defendant Nos.7 to 15 were the tenants. That in the month of January-March 2008 there was a oral request by Smt. N. Shalini-defendant No.3 and plaintiff for partition which was declined constraining the plaintiff to file the suit for partition and separate possession as above. 8. Defendant Nos.1 to 7 filed the written statement; (a). The relationship between the parties is admitted. Averments made in the plaint to the effect that Sri.A.G. Shambu Gowda, father of late Sri. B.S. Channappa had - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 inherited the landed and house properties, and that after his demise, his son B. S. Channapa inherited the landed and house properties have been admitted as true only to the extent of suit schedule properties at Item Nos.5(a) to 5(i). However, the averments with regard to other items of the suit schedule properties have been denied. (b). Averments regarding Sri. B.S. Channappa carrying on contract business is admitted. However, the contention of he acquiring item Nos.1, 2 and 3 of the suit schedule properties is denied. It is claimed that Sri. B.S. Channappa had suffered huge loss in his contract business, which he transferred to one Sri. Nagaraj in the year 1978 and subsequently Sri. B.S. Channappa died in the year 1980 leaving behind defendant Nos.1, 2, 6 to 8 along with plaintiff and late A. C. Sudhakar as his legal heirs. Since, Sri. B.S. Channappa had already closed his business, his wife defendant No.1 being a housewife, without any sources of income with great difficulties and with the help of family members was running the household. (c). That item Nos.5(j) to 5(r) of the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of Sri. A.C. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 Dhanashankar-defendant No.2, which he acquired out of his own earning from his own company which he started in the year 1992. (d). At paragraph No.6 of the written statement, it is pleaded that Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties was purchased by 'Stridhana' of defendant No.1 and Item No.2 of the suit schedule properties was purchased by the funds generated by late A. G. Shambu Gowda. Item Nos.5(a) to 5(i) was mutated in favour of defendant No.2 and late Sri. A. C. Sudhakar with consent of all the family members for the financial support rendered by defendant No.2 and late Sri. A. C. Sudhakar. Item Nos.5(j) to 5(r) of the suit schedule properties, which was purchased by defendant No.2 and out of his own earnings as such the khata of the said properties stood in their name. (e) That item No.5 of the suit schedule properties was purchased by the funds generated by defendant No.1, even though the khata of the said property was in the name of late Sri. B.S. Channappa. The said property has been released in the name of defendant No.1 by the family members including - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 the plaintiff without any claim over the same by issuing a 'No Objection' or transfer of khata in her name. Contending as above, sought for dismissal of the suit. 9. Defendant No.8 filed separate written statement supporting the contention of the plaintiff. 10. Based on the pleading, trial Court framed the following issues: '' 1. Whether plaintiff proves that all the suit schedule properties are joint family properties consisting of herself and defendant Nos. 1 to 8? 2. Whether plaintiff proves that she is entitled to a share in suit schedule properties and if so, to what share and in which of the suit schedule properties? 3.Whether defendant Nos.1 to 7 prove that item Nos.5(j) to (r) of suit schedule properties are self- acquired properties of defendant No. 2? 4 Whether defendant Nos. 1 to 7 prove that for the reasons stated in para No.5 of their written statement, defendant No.2 and late Sri.A.C.Sudhakar have become absolute owners of Item Nos.5(a) to 5(i) of suit schedule properties? 5. Whether defendant Nos. 1 to 7 prove that Item Nos. 1 and 3 of suit schedule properties are self- acquired properties of defendant No.1? 6. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought for? 7. What decree or order? '' - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 11. Plaintiff has examined herself as PW1 and has exhibited 97 documents, marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P97. Neither any oral evidence was led nor any documentary evidence was produced by the defendants inspite of several and sufficient opportunity. However, they got marked two documents i.e., Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 by confronting the same to the plaintiff during their cross-examination. 12. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court has answered Issue Nos.1, 2 and 6 partly in the affirmative, Issue Nos.4 and 5 in the negative, Issue No.3 has been held as did not arise for consideration. Consequently, the trial Court has decreed the suit as under: '' Suit of the plaintiff is decreed in part with cost. The plaintiff is entitled for 1/7th share in Item Nos.1 to 3 and Item No.5(a) to (i) properties and for separate possession of her share in the said properties by metes and bounds. The defendant No.1, defendant No.2, defendants No.6 to 8 are entitled for 1/7th share each and the defendants No.3 to 5 together are entitled for 1/7th share in the said properties. A separate enquiry is necessary as provided U/O XX Rule 12 of C.P.C. for determining the claim of the plaintiff for her share in the rents accrued from the schedule properties. Draw a preliminary decree accordingly. '' - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 13. Being aggrieved by rejection of prayer for partition in respect of Item Nos.4 and 5(j) to 5(r), plaintiff is before this Court in RFA No.1688/2013. 14. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree to the extent partitioning the properties in respect of Item Nos.1 and 2, defendant Nos.1, 2 and 7 are before this Court in RFA No.1856/2014. 15. It appears that during the pendency of the suit, Canara Bank had extended financial assistance to defendant Nos.1 and 2 against the security of Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties. Thus, Canara Bank being aggrieved by the judgment and decree to the extent of item No.1 of the suit schedule properties is before this Court in RFA No.782/2018. 16. Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 7 had filed an application in I.A.No.5/2022 under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC seeking production of certain documents. Since there was consensus, the said application came to be allowed on 22.01.2026 taking on record following documents: - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 Sl.No. Description of the document. Marked with consent as 1. Discharge Summary of Appellant No. 1. Ex.D3 2. Sale deed dated 14.05.1991. Ex.D4 3. Joint Affidavit executed by the appellant Nos.2, 7 and respondent Nos.1, 14, 15 along with the husband of respondent No.11 in favour of appellant No.1. Ex.D5 4. Tax Paid receipts in the name of appellant No.1 in respect of Item No. 1 of suit schedule property. Ex.D6 5. Khata in the name of appellant No.1. Ex.D7 6. Tax Paid receipts in the name of appellant No.1 in respect of item No.3 of suit schedule property. Ex.D8 7. Encumbrance Certificate in respect of item No.3 of suit schedule property. Ex.D9 8. Decree of the II Additional, Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya in O.S.No.81/2015 dated 12.04.2018. Ex.D10 9. Copy of the sale deed dated 15.02.2006. Ex.D11 10. Copy of the sale deed dated 20.05.2005 registered as document No.SRP-1-00449-2005-06 stored in C.D.No.SRPD 9 dated 25.02.2005. Ex.D12 11. Copy of the sale deed dated 20.05.2005 registered as Document No.SRP-1-00450-2005-06 stored in C.D.No.SRPD9 dated 25.02.2005. Ex.D13 12. Copy of the sale deed dated Ex.D14 - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 30.03.2007. 13. Copy of the sale deed dated 08.02.2006. Ex.D15 14. Copy of the sale deed dated 21.08.2006. Ex.D16 17 Similar application had been filed by plaintiff in I.A.No.1/2022 in RFA No.1688/2013, said application also came to be allowed with consent, permitting her to lead further evidence and to produce a document. Accordingly, document Ex.P98 has been produced. In addition defendant No.1 was permitted to lead evidence. Thus, she has been examined as DW1. She has also been cross-examined. Submissions: 18 Assailing the impugned judgment and decree to the extent of granting share in respect of Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties, Sri. Vikhar Ahmed. B, learned counsel appearing for defendant Nos.1, 2 and 7/appellants in RFA No.1856/2014 submitted; (a). that Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit properties are the self-acquired properties of Smt. K.B. Chikkathayamma- - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 defendant No.1. Referring to her affidavit-evidence and cross examination, learned counsel vehemently submits that the pleadings and the evidence led in by defendant No.1 proves her claim beyond any doubt of she being the absolute owner of the property, capable of disposition as she desired. Therefore, he insists that the trial Court was in error in holding that the item No.1 of the suit schedule properties to be the joint family property. (b). Referring to the provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, he submits that once a property acquired by and in the name of a Hindu woman, it becomes her self- acquired property, she becoming full and absolute owner thereof. Referring to the deed of sale date 14.05.1991 as per Ex.D4 produced along with the additional documents, he insists that a mere handwritten portion, found at page No.2 of the said document, to the effect that the item No.1 of the suit schedule properties was transferred to the name of Smt. K.B. Chikkathayamma-defendant No.1 would not take away the essence and core of her claim of she being the absolute owner of the property, when, according to him, overwhelming - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 evidence has been brought on record to show her source of income to purchase the said property. (c). As regards, Item No.2 of the suit schedule properties, he submits, neither of the parties have produced any documents, except document reflecting a revenue record showing the name of deceased Sri. B.S. Channappa. He submits that same would not take away the claim of Smt. K.B. Chikkathayamma-defendant No.1 to be the owner of the property of Item No.2. (d). As regards, item Nos.5(j) to 5(r), he submits that the challenge made by the plaintiff to the judgment of the trial Court holding the same to be the absolute property of defendant No.2 is unsustainable, as the defendant No.2 has now produced the deeds of sale in justification of the sustainability of the said findings and conclusions arrived at by the trial Court. Hence, he seeks for allowing of the appeal in RFA No.1856/2014. (e). That stray admission by the defendant No.2 in earlier proceedings in O.S.No.201/2008 is of no consequence and the plaintiff cannot derive any benefit. - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 19. He relies upon the following judgments in support of his aforesaid contentions: 1. Gangamma and Others Vs. Nagarathnamma and Others -2009 (15) SCC 756 - Paragraph Nos.13, 14. 2. Bhagwat Sharan (Dead thr. Lrs) Vs. Purushottam and Others - 2020 Supp. SAR (CIV) 657 - Paragraph 10 to 12 and 16 to 20 3. Ramappa Basappa Palled Vs. Basava - ILR 1993 Kar 1865 Paragraph 8 onwards 4. Marabasappa (dead) by Lrs and Others Vs. Ningappa (dead) by Lrs and Others -2011 (9) SCC 451 19, 20, 24 and 25 5. Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango Vs. Narayan Devji Kango and Others - AIR 1954 SC 379 6. Basant Singh Vs. Janki Singh - AIR 1967 SC 341 Paragraph 5 (last 4 lines). 7. Rakesh Wadhwan and Others Vs. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and Others - 2002 (5) SCC 440 Paragraph 7. 8. Geo-Group Communication Inc Vs. IOL Broadband Ltd- 2010 (1) SCC 562 -Paragraph 25 9. Jagdish Prasad Patel (Dead) Thr Lrs and Another Vs. Shivnath and Others -2019 SAR (Civil) 765 Para 15. 10. Naresh and Others Vs. Hemant and Others - 2019 SCC Online SC 1490-Paragraph 9. - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 11. Arjun Singh Vs. Mohindra Kumar and Others - AIR 1964 SC 993. 20. Sri. Vikram Unni Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Canara Bank in RFA No.782/2018, supplementing the submission made by Sri. Vikhar Ahmed. B, learned counsel appearing for defendant Nos.1, 2 and 7/appellants in RFA No.1856/2014, submits that since sale deed produced at Ex.D4, a registered document is in place, any argument contrary to the same cannot be accepted. Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, becomes applicable with full vigor, any restrictive right would blossom into full and absolute right in favour of defendant No.1. He submits alternatively even if it is held to be the joint family property, she being the widow would have a right of maintenance. Thus, on both the counts the said property is the absolute property of Smt. K.B. Chikkathayamma-defendant No.1. He submits that the trial Court has therefore could not have held the said property to be the joint family properties. Since the Canara Bank has lent the money, the decree passed would affect in recovery of the same. Therefore, he submits that the Bank has its interest to protect the property and to recover the amount lent against the - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 security of the same. He relies upon the following judgments in support of his contentions: 1. V. Tulasamma and others Vs. Sesha Reddy (Dead by LRs.) reported in (1977) 3 SCC 99; paragraph No.68 2. Jagannathan Pillai Vs. Kunjithapadam Pillai and others reported in (1987) 2 SCC 572; paragraph No.5 3. Gangamma and Others Vs. Nagarathnamma and Others reported in 2009 (15) SCC 756 - Paragraph Nos.10 to 13. 4. Meenambal and others Vs. Sharadamma and others reported in 2022:KHC:22916; Paragraph 11 to 13. 5. Mallamma and others Vs. Smt. Sharnabasamma, in RSA No.7334/2011 decided on 30.06.2023; paragraph No.13. 21. Sri. Mahesha A.S, learned counsel for the plaintiff/ appellant in RFA No.1688/2013, specifically bringing attention of this Court to the averments made in the plaint at paragraph Nos.3 and 5 submits; (a). that it is the specific case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule properties are the absolute self-acquired properties of her father, he juxtaposes the said averments of the plaint with the admission, according to him, made by defendants at paragraph Nos.3 and 6 of the written statement. - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 (b). That even by very own pleading of the defendants, the suit schedule properties are the properties acquired through and from the income generated from the family properties which was inherited by Sri. B.S. Channappa through his father. (c). Referring to the recitals of the document at Ex.D4, found at page Nos.1 and 2, he submits that the Item No.1 of suit schedule properties was purchased by Sri. B.S. Channappa as far back as on 13.02.1962 for a sum of Rs.15,450/-. (d). Referring to recitals at page No.2 of the said document he submits that upon his demise the said site has been transferred from the name of Sri. B. S. Channappa in favour of Smt. K.B. Chikkathayamma-defendant No.1 as per the order of the Secretary of the Bangalore Development Authority, dated 23.04.1991. (e). As regards, Item No.2 of the suit schedule properties, he refers to a joint affidavit marked as Ex.D5 and going through the contents of the same, he submits that upon the demise of Sri. B. S. Channappa, plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 7 being his children had given their No Objection or - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 consent for transferring the said property in the name of Smt. K.B. Chikkathayamma-defendant No.1. (f). That there has been no relinquishment of rights by any of the children of B.S. Chanappa in favour of defendant No.1 of their right, title and interest in respect of item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties in the manner known to law. (g). He also refers to the document at Ex.P39 produced before the trial Court which is an affidavit filed in lieu of examination-in-chief by Sri. A.C. Dhanashankar-defendant No.2, in a suit in O.S.No.201/2008 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mandya filed by certain Abhinava Bharathi Vidya, in which in the cross-examination, Sri. A.C. Dhanashankar-defendant No.2 has admitted that the property subject matter of the said suit namely Item No.3 of the suit schedule properties herein, and the land being the joint family property and not having been divided. (h). He also submits that though the defendant Nos.1 to 7 have claimed that the Item Nos.5(j) to 5(r) of the suit schedule properties being the self acquired properties of said - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 defendant No.2, no evidence in this regard has been produced. He submits though copies of deeds of sale have been produced here, the source of income have not been proved. He submits in the light of an unequivocal admission made by the defendant No.2 in the written statement that Sri. B. S. Channappa having inherited the land through his father late A. G. Shambu Gowda and Item Nos.3 and 5(a) to (r) of the suit schedule properties being the joint family properties, the plaintiff had discharged the initial burden of the said property being the joint family properties and acquisition of Item Nos.5(j) to 5(r) are undoubtedly from and out of the income generated from the said properties. (i). That in the absence of defendants, pleading and proving the source of income, he submits that the trial Court erred in holding Item Nos.5(j) to 5(r) to be the self-acquired properties of Defendant No.2. (j) Referring to the deposition made by defendant No.2 in the said suit in O.S.No.201/2008, he submits that in the written statement defendant Nos.1 to 7 have categorically admitted Item Nos.5(a) to 5(i) to be the joint family properties, while in - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 the deposition of defendant No.2 in O.S.No.201/2008 has categorically admitted that Item Nos.3 and 4 to be the joint family properties. (k) He also refers to the additional evidence led in before this Court, which is marked as Ex.P98 through plaintiff to contend that Item No.4 of the suit schedule properties stood in the name of Sri. B. S. Channappa, after his demise it was transferred in the name of defendant No.1. Thus, he submits that property never existed in the name of defendants as they claim. He submits that this admitted position of the matter has not been appreciated well by the trial Court warranting interference at the hands of this Court. 22. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.11 to 13, supplementing the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, submits that Item Nos.1 to 5 of the suit schedule properties are undoubtedly the properties belonging to and stood in the name of Sri. B. S. Channappa. He further submits that the defendants clandestinely created the encumbrance over the property by availing loan from the Canara Bank without the consent and concurrence of the - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 plaintiff and defendants, except for defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the said amount has now grown with interest and penal interest and the Bank is insisting the plaintiff and other defendants holding them accountable for the repayment and also threatening to take action against them. 23. Heard and perused the records. 24. The points that arise for consideration are: 1. "Whether the plaintiff has proved the suit schedule properties consisting of Item No.1 and Item No.2 are the absolute properties belonging to Sri. B.S Channappa and that item Nos.3 to 5 are the joint family properties and she being entitled for 1/7 th share therein? 2. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that she is the absolute owner of item Nos.1 and 2 having acquired from and out of her own sources ''Stridhana''? 3. Whether defendant No.2 proves that he is the absolute owner of Item No.4 and Item Nos.5(j) to 5(r) being his self-acquired properties? 4. Whether the appeal in R.F.A.No.782/2018 deserves to be allowed ? 5. What order? - 36 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 Discussion and analysis: 25. Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties is a house property. There is no dispute of the fact that the said property was allotted in the name of Sri. B. S. Channappa on 13.02.1962. There is also no dispute of the fact that upon his demise, a deed of sale dated 14.05.1991 as per Ex.D4 came to be executed by the Secretary, Bangalore Development Authority in favour of defendant No.1. Recital at page No.2 of Ex.D4 following is mentioned; '' …. Site has been transferred from the name of Sri. B. S. Channappa (late) to Smt. Chikkathayamma, as per the order of the Secretary dated 24.03.1991'' 26. The defendant No.1 who has been examined as DW.1, in her deposition has admitted that ''it is true to suggest that on 13.02.1962 my husband Sri. B. S. Channappa purchased item No.1 of the suit schedule properties in auction.'' 27. However, defendant No.1, supported by defendant Nos.2 to 7 contended that though the item No.1 of suit schedule properties was allotted in the name of deceased Sri. B. S. Channappa was indeed her absolute property. In the written statement, except stating that she acquired the same - 37 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 through her 'Stridhana', no details are forthcoming. Upon the opportunity provided by this Court to lead further evidence, she has filed her affidavit in lieu of her evidence, in which she has claimed that she got married to said Sri. B. S. Channappa on 17.07.1958 and during the time of her marriage her parents out of love and affection of she being the youngest daughter was given cash, gold ornaments and jewelries. No details of the cash, gold ornaments and jewelries is disclosed by her in the said affidavit. However, in the cross-examination she has deposed while answering to the questions posed on behalf of the plaintiff, that at the time of her marriage her father had given her Rs.60,000/- of cash in the year 1958. In addition, she was also given 25 tolas of gold ornaments and 1.5 kilograms of silver articles. The evidence in this regard is produced. She has admitted that her father was not alive when she was married and it was her mother who gave those items. She has pleaded ignorance about she having any document regarding she having sold the said gold ornaments. Though she has claimed that her father was having two rice mills and two jaggery manufacturing units, she has not given any details. Instead, she has pleaded ignorance regarding the details of the same. - 38 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 Though, she also claimed that her father was owning hundreds of acres of land, she has admitted she has no documents to prove the same. 28. The claim as made in the affidavit filed in lieu of her evidence, thus appears to be an attempt to justify her claim and to bring it within the consonance of the requirement of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act which reads as under: '' 14. Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property.— (1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. Explanation.—In this sub-section, “property” includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act. (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil court or under an award where the terms of the gift, will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such property.'' 29. What is emanating from the records and in the light of admitted position of fact is that the item No.1 of the suit schedule properties, having been allotted by the then CITB in the name of Sri. B. S. Channappa, was standing in his name as - 39 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 on the date of his demise. He had paid the entire sale consideration. Only deed of sale had not been executed in his name during his lifetime. That upon the demise of Sri. B. S. Channappa, owner of the said property, the consequences as contemplated under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act would follow, namely, his wife defendant No.1, children namely; plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 7, being the class 1 heirs would be entitled for equal share in the said property. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the plaintiff there has been no relinquishment of rights by the children in favour of mother in the manner known to law. 30. Though, as noted above, in the affidavit filed in lieu of evidence, defendant No.1 has claimed that she was paid cash and gold ornaments, except oral assertion, no cogent evidence in justification of said claim is produced. There is also no evidence of she having converted the said gold into cash by selling the same. 31. Allotment of item No.1 of the suit schedule properties, admittedly made on 13.02.1962 in the name of Sri. B.S. Channappa and the sale deed came to be executed in the - 40 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 name of defendant No.1 on 14.05.1991, i.e., after the demise of Sri. B.S. Channappa. No claim seem to have been made during his lifetime by defendant No.1 claiming her exclusive right, as sought to be made now, under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. 32. Reliance placed on by learned counsel for the defendants on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gangamma and Others (Supra) is of no avail. The facts involved in the said case are that the suit properties therein stood in the name of the appellant-widow, which was disputed by the respondents therein contending that the same was brought Benami in her name by her husband late Ganganna. It is under those circumstances, referring to Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that regardless whether such property was possessed by Hindu on the date of commencement of the Act or was subsequently possessed, she would be full owner of the property. 33. In the Judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant in RFA - 41 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 No.782/2018 in the case of Meenambal (Supra) decided on 19.07.2022, in RFA No.370/2008, schedule 'B' property therein was purchased in the name of defendant No.1 as such it was held that she became absolute owner by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. 34. Similar, is the fact situation in the judgment of the another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed on 30.06.2023 in R.S.A.No.7334/2011 between Mallamma (Supra), wherein the suit property was purchased in the name of the plaintiff by her father. 35. In the instant case, the very case of the defendants is that item No.1 of the suit schedule properties was though purchased by and in the name of Sri. B.S. Channappa, the sale consideration was paid from and out of ''Stridhana'' of defendant No.1. It is this factual aspect of the matter which differs and distinguished the present case from the cases being referred to by the learned counsel for the defendant No.1 to 3 seeking to apply the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. - 42 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 36. Needless to state, the object and purpose of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act is to enlarge the limited ownership/rights of a Hindu woman into a full and absolute ownership. Which is not the case at hand. Since the claim of defendant No.1 is that the at item No.1 of the suit schedule properties was purchased in the name of Sri. B.S. Chanappa from and out of the funds provided by her, the burden of proving the same lies on her, which as already noted above has not been discharged. 37. Similar is the situation in the item No.2 of the suit schedule properties. In this, defendants themselves have admitted in the written statement at paragraph No.6 that Item No.2 of suit schedule properties was purchased by the funds generated by late A. G. Shambu Gowda. 38. The defendant No.1 herself has produced the joint affidavit along with the application seeking permission to file additional document pertaining to Item No.2 of the suit schedule properties, which was marked by consent as Ex.D5, which reads as under: - 43 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 '' We, 1) A.C. Geetha, 2) A.C. Sudhakar, 3) A.C. Lakshmi, 4) A.C. Dhanashankar, 5) A.C. Sujatha and 6) A.C. Sunitha, all residing at No.187, Lower Palace Archard, B'lore-560 003, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows: We are the children of Sri. B. S. Channappa (late) who died on 01.12.1980, he has not left any WILL. The deceased was allotted site No.463, in Jayanagar III Block Extension. We request that the site may be allotted in favour of our mother namely; K.B. Chikkathayamma, we have no objection for the said allotment being made in favour K.B. Chikkathayamma'' 39. In addition, plaintiff herself has produced document at Ex.P2, a Katha Certificate reflecting the name of Sri. B. S. Channappa in respect to Item No.2 of the suit schedule properties. 40. It is not uncommon that when an allottee being the father passes on, it is normal tendency of the children expressing their no objection to have the property registered or the khata transferred in the name of their mother. Which appears to be the case at hand. This view stands fortified by the very Ex.D5, an joint affidavit which is filed by the plaintiff and admitted by the defendants as well. 41. The endorsement found at page No.2 of Ex.D4 auction sale deed to the effect that the site has been transferred from the name of Sri. B.S. Channappa (Late) to the - 44 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 wife Smt. Chikkathayamma, as per the order of Secretary, dated 24.03.1991, also indicate the circumstances similar to that of the execution of joint affidavit at Ex.D5, wherein the children of Sri. B.S. Channappa having indicated their consent for registration of deed of sale in the name of defendant No.1, as she was the immediate head of the family. 42. This cannot be the circumstance to accept the claim of defendant No.1 to be the absolute owner of the item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties, having acquired by paying the sale consideration out of her Stridhana. 43. Once rights accrue and vest with the legal heirs in respect of the estate of the deceased in terms of provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, creation, declaration, assignment, limitation or relinquishment of any such right, title or interest by non-testamentary means would fall within the ambit of Section 17(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, which is absent here. 44. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff has proved the item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties to be the self-acquired properties of Sri. B. S. Channappa and - 45 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 were available for partition and the trial Court has rightly accepted and concluded the said point in favour of the plaintiff. 45. As regards, Item No.3 of the suit schedule properties, again the averment made by the defendants in paragraph Nos.2 and 6 of the written statement would indicate that their father had inherited the properties through his father A. G. Shambu Gowda. In addition, in a suit in O.S.No.201/2008 that had been filed by certain Abhinava Bharathi Vidya Samste, in which defendant No.2 has filed affidavit in lieu of his chief examination on 04.03.2009, which read as under: '' I am the 1st defendant in the above case. My name is A.C.Dhanashankar and not A.C.Dhanashekar. I state that my father was the owner and was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property till his death. The 2nd defendant is a stranger to our family and she is not the L.R of my father. I state that the plaintiff took the plaint schedule property from me on a monthly tenancy. It is false that the plaintiff took the plaint schedule property on lease from my mother. I being the P.A. Holder of the L.Rs of my father, the plaintiff negotiated with regarding the tenancy of the plaint schedule property and the plaintiff took the plaint schedule property on the basis of monthly tenancy. The plaintiff paid Rs.2.50 lakhs as advance to me and I have issued Exhibit P-2 acknowledging the same. The rent of plaint schedule property in the beginning was Rs.18,000/- and subsequently raised to Rs.21,000/-. The plaint schedule property was taken by the plaintiff for the purpose of running the hostel for students and not for the purpose of running the Kannada primary School. The alleged lease karar dated 10.05.2008 is a concocted one for the purpose of filing of this suit and the same is not valid in the eye of law. The plaintiff - 46 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 has not rents to me. I did not make any attempts to throw away all the articles which alleged to have been kept inside the plaint schedule property and the allegations of the plaintiff in this regard are baseless and concocted. The allegation of the plaintiff that I have no respect for law is false. The cause of action pleaded in para-7 of the plaint is imaginary, baseless and concocted. The plaintiff is not entitled to continue as a tenant in the plaint schedule property, since the monthly tenancy between the plaintiff and me stands expired long ago and the plaintiff is in illegal occupation of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff is not entitled for the relief sought for. I pray for dismissal of the suit with costs, I swear to the above facts'' 46. Further, during his cross examination recorded on 18.03.2009, defendant No.2 has deposed as under: '' ಾವ ಒಡಹುದವರು ನನನು ೇ 6 ಜನ. ಇಬರು ಗಂಡು ಮಕಳ 4 ಜನ ೆಣು" ಮಕಳ. #ದಲೆಯವರು ಎ ' (ೕ)ಾ, 2ೇಯವರು ಎ ' ಸು+ಾಕ,, 3ೇಯವರು ಎ.'. ಲ-. 4ೇಯವರು ಎ ' ಧನ0ೇಖ,, 5ೇಯವರು ಎ ' ಸು2ಾತ, 6ೇಯವರು ಎ ' ¸ÀĤÃvÀ - ನಮ4 ಕುಟುಂಬದ67 8ಾಗೂ ಎರಡು ೆಸರುಗಳ ಇಲ7. zÁªÀ ಸ;ತು< ೇ ನಮ4 ಕುಟುಂಬ=ೆ CgÉPÀgÉAiÀÄ°è d«ÄãÀÄ, ªÀÄ£É EzÉ. ªÀÄAqÀåzÀ°è ±Á¯É £ÀqɸÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ eÁUÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°è ಎರಡು ಮೆ ಇ>ೆ. ನನ ಸ ೋದರ, ಸ ೋದಯರು ನನ )ಾ? ೇ ಮಂಡದ67ರುವ ¸ÀéwÛUÉ £Àನ@ೆ ¥Àವ, ಆ¥sÀ ಅCಾDE ಬFೆದು=ೊರು)ಾ<Fೆ. ನನ ಮತು< GಾHಯ ನಡುGೆ IೌTಕGಾ( ¨ÁK@ೆ ಕFಾgÀÄ ಆ(ಲ7, GಾH >ಾವ ಸ;L<ನ MಾK@ೆಯನು ನನ )ಾ?@ೆ =ೊಡುL<ರಬಹುದು. ನನ@ೆ =ೊಡುL<®è. >ಾವ ಸ;L<ನ MಾK@ೆಯನು ªÁH ನನ )ಾ?@ೆ =ೊಡುL<ರುವದರ ಬ@ೆN ನನ@ೆ vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ E®è. zÁವ ಸ;L<ನ67 ಾೆO ನPೆಸಲು IಾತQ IೌRಕ ಕFಾರು ಆ(ತು< 0ಾSೆ ೆಡು¸À®Ä ಆ(ರ6ಲ7 ಎಂದು =ೇTದ ಪQ0ೆ@ೆ ಾ-ಯು ಅPಾ;VW ಹಣ )ೆ@ೆದು=ೊಂಡರುವ ರXೕHಯ67 ಅಂದFೆ D¦ 2 ರ67 ಬFೆH>ೆ ಎಂದು ೇಳ)ಾ<Fೆ. 2004 ಂದಲೂ GಾHಗಳ >ಾವ ಸ;L<ನ67 ±Á¯É ಮತು< ಾೆOನು ೆPೆ'=ೊಂಡು ಬರುL<>ಾYFೆಂದು =ೇTದ ಪQ0ೆ@ೆ ಾ-ಯು >ಾವ ಸ;L<ನ67 0ಾSೆಯನು ನಮ4 ZFೋಧದ ನಡುGೆಯು GಾHಯರು ೆPೆಸುL<>ಾYFೆಂದು ೇಳ)ಾ<Fೆ. >ಾವ ಸ;L<ನ67 0ಾSೆ ೆPೆಸಲು ನಮ4 ZFೋಧ ಇ>ೆ ಎಂದು ಾನು GಾHಯ@ೆ 6RತGಾ( LT'®è. MಾK@ೆಯ ಅವ[ =ೇವಲ ಒಂದು Lಂಗಳ ಎಂದು IೌRಕ ಕFಾರು ಆ(ತು< 2ವFೆ ಲ\ ರೂ¥Á?ಯನು ಅPಾ;£Àìನು =ೇವಲ ಒಂದು Lಂಗಳ MಾK@ೆ@ೆ IಾತQ )ೆ@ೆದು=ೊಂK>ೆYವ ಎಂದFೆ ಸj. =ಾಲ =ಾಲ=ೆ ೆ]ಾ^ದ Mಾr@ೆ - 47 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 ಹಣವನು GಾHಗಳ ನನ )ಾ?ಯವ@ೆ =ೊಡುL<>ಾYFೆAzÀÄ =ೇTದ ಪQ0ೆ@ೆ ಾ-ಯು ¨ÁAQ£À°è ಕಟುL<>ಾYFೆಂದು ೇಳ)ಾ<Fೆ. >ಾವ ಸ;ತ<ನು _ಾ6 ªÀÄ……. ಎಂದು >ಾGೆ ಾಕುವ =ಾಲ=ೆ GಾHಗT@ೆ 6Rತ ೋಟ` =ೊnÖ®è ಾ- ಮುಂದುವzÀ >ಾವ ಾaದ ನಂತರ =ೊ>ೆYೕGೆಂದು ೇಳ)ಾ<Fೆ. ಸದ 6ೕಗO ೋೕ`ನ ಪQLಯನು ಾb:=ೆ ಾdgÀÄ¥ÀKಸಲು )ೊಂದFೆ ಏನು ಇಲ7, ಾb:Hಂದ GಾHಯರು >ಾವ ಸ;ತ<ನು _ಾ6 IಾಡMೇ=ೆಂದು ಆ>ೇಶ DಗುವವFೆಗೂ ಅವರು >ಾವ ಸ;L<ನ ಾ;[ೕನದ67, ಮುಂದುವಯಲು ನನ ಅಭbಂತರGೇನು ಇಲ7. J ' ೇಮ ಎನುವವರು ನಮ4 Zರುದg Mೆಂಗಳhನ67 Ziಾಗ=ಾ( >ಾGೆ ಾa>ಾYFೆಂದFೆ ಸಯಲ7. ಎ ' ೇಮ ನನ ಸ ೋದ ಎಂದFೆ ಸಯಲ7. ಎ ' ೇಮ GಾHಯ@ೆ MಾK@ೆ ಕFಾರು ಪತQ IಾK=ೊK=ೊ>ಾYFೆಂದFೆ ನನ@ೆ @ೊL<ಲ7. ಎ ' ೇಮ ಎನುವವರು GಾHಯ@ೆ >ಾವ ಸ;L<ನ ಬ@ೆN ಕFಾರು¥ÀತQ ಬFೆದು=ೊ>ಾYFೆಂದು ಅವರ Zರುದg =ಾನೂನು ಕQಮ )ೆ@ೆದು=ೊಂKHYೕFಾ ಎಂದು =ೇTದ ಪQ0ೆ@ೆ ಾ-ಯು ಎ ' ೇಮ ನಮ@ೆ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಇಲ7 ಆದYಂದ =ಾನೂDನ ಕQಮ )ೆ@ೆದು=ೊಳjವ ಸಂzsÀಬE ಇಲ7 ಎಂದು ೇಳ)ಾ<Fೆ. ಎ ' ೇಮ ನನ ಸ;ಂತ ಸ ೋದ8ಾ(ದYರೂ ಸಹ, D2ಾಂಶವನು ಒkl=ೊಂಡFೆ ಈ >ಾGೆಯ67 ಅಾನುಕೂಲGಾಗಬಹು>ೆಂದು ಸುಳj ೇಳL<>ೆYೕೆಂದFೆ ಸಯಲ7 ಾೆO ಮತು< 0ಾSೆ ಎರಡನು ೆPೆ'=ೊಂಡು ೋಗಲು ಒkl@ೆ =ೊಟು, GಾHಯFೊಂH@ೆ IೌTPÀ ಕgÁರು IಾK=ೊಂK>ೆYೕGೆಂದFೆ ಸಯ67676767 ನಮ4 ಒಟು ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಆ'<ಗಳ ಇನು Ziಾಗ ಆ(ಲ7. >ಾವ ಸತು< ನಮ4 ಒಟು ಕುಟುಂಭದ ಸ;ತು< ಎಂದFೆ ಸ. '' 47. Though, learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 7 relying upon the aforesaid judgments in the case of Basant Singh (Supra), Rakesh Wadhawan (Supra), Geo- Group Communications INC (Supra), Jagdish Prasad Patel (Supra), submits that the admission made by one of the parties is not binding on the other, what needs to be seen is that the said admission by defendant No.2 in the earlier proceedings in O.S.No.201/2008 regarding item No.3 of the - 48 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 suit schedule properties to be the joint family property. This admission becomes relevant in the light of the claim made by the plaintiff that Item Nos.3, 4 and 5(a) to 5(i) are the joint family ancestral properties. 48. It is settled principle of law that the initial burden of proof is on the person who claims a property to be a joint Hindu undivided family property. If initial burden is discharged, it shifts on to the person who claims otherwise. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagwat Sharan (supra) at paragraph Nos.10 and 12 has held as under: '' 10. At the outset we may note that a lot of arguments were addressed and judgments were cited on the attributes of HUF and the manner in which it can be constituted. In view of the facts narrated above, in our view, a large number of these arguments and citations need not be considered. The law is well settled that the burden is on the person who alleges that the property is a joint property of an HUF to prove the same. Reference in this behalf may be made to the judgments of this Court in Bhagwan Dayal v. Reoti Devi [Bhagwan Dayal v. Reoti Devi, AIR 1962 SC 287] . Both the parties have placed reliance on this judgment. In this case, this Court held that the general principle is that a Hindu family is presumed to be joint unless the contrary is proved. It was further held that where one of the coparceners separated himself from other members of the joint family there was no presumption that the rest of coparceners continued to constitute a joint family. However, it was also held that at the same time there is no presumption that because one member of the family has separated, the rest of the family is no longer a joint family. However, it is important to note that this Court in Bhagwati Prasad Sah v. Dulhin Rameshwari Kuer [Bhagwati Prasad Sah v. Dulhin Rameshwari Kuer, 1951 SCC 486 : 1951 SCR 603] , it held as follows : (SCC p. 491, para 10) - 49 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 “10. … Except in the case of reunion, the mere fact that separated coparceners chose to live together or act jointly for purposes of business or trade or in their dealings with properties, would not give them the status of coparceners under the Mitakshara law.” 12. In D.S. Lakshmaiah v. L. Balasubramanyam , (2003) 10 SCC 310] this Court held as follows : “18. The legal principle, therefore, is that there is no presumption of a property being joint family property only on account of existence of a joint Hindu family. The one who asserts has to prove that the property is a joint family property. If, however, the person so asserting proves that there was nucleus with which the joint family property could be acquired, there would be presumption of the property being joint and the onus would shift on the person who claims it to be self- acquired property to prove that he purchased the property with his own funds and not out of joint family nucleus that was available.” Similar view was taken in Rukhmabai v. Lala Laxminarayan. The law is thus well settled that the burden lies upon the person who alleges the existence of the Hindu Undivided Family to prove the same. '' 49. As noted above, plaintiff at paragraph No.6 of the plaint claimed that Item Nos.3 to 5 are the joint Hindu family properties inherited by Sri. B. S. Channappa through his father. At the cost of repetition, the said averment substantially admitted by the defendants as seen at paragraph No.6 extracted hereinabove. 50. It is necessary also to note that the nature and extent of Item Nos.3, 4 and 5(a) to 5(r) of the suit schedule properties to ascertain if they constitute a joint family nucleus generating income sufficient to acquire other properties. - 50 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 51. Item No.3 is a property measuring 450+446/2 ft X 36+192/2 feet and 400+395/2 ft X 9+35/2 ft, built up area [82 Square R.C.C. building, 40 squares R.C.C building, 60 Square A.C.C]. Admittedly, said property was let out to a tenant and was generating income. There is no dispute that the said property even admitted by the defendants to be the joint family ancestral properties inherited by Sri. B. S. Channappa. 52. Item No.4 of the suit schedule properties, is another house property. Item No.5(a) to 5(i) are the landed agricultural properties totally measuring approximately about 10 acres, which are admittedly the joint family properties generating income. 53. In the absence of defendant No.2 bringing on record evidence regarding his independent income, the case putforth by the plaintiff of Item Nos.5(j) to 5(r) having been acquired from and out of the joint family nucleus cannot be rejected. 54. Therefore, the plaintiff, in the considered view of this Court has discharged the initial burden of Item Nos.3 to 5 of the suit schedule properties being the joint family properties. Further, the very deposition of the defendant No.2 in the - 51 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 aforesaid suit in O.S.No.201/2008, categorically reveal that the item No.3 of the suit schedule properties to have been treated and considered as joint family property. Therefore, in view of the settled principles of law, burden now stands shifted to defendant No.2 to establish that Item Nos.4 and 5(j) to 5(r) to be his self acquired properties. 55. That in the written statement, it is contended that Item Nos. 5(j) to 5(r) are purchased by defendant No.2 out of his own earning in the year 2006 from his company. Except this, no details of any nature whatsoever including the name of the company is furnished either in the pleading or in the evidence led by the defendants. Defendant No.2 has not stepped into the witness box. Even in the evidence led by defendant No.1, who supports the case of the defendant No.2 has not whispered anything about this aspect. No doubt the sale deeds which are taken on record with consent and marked as Ex.D3 indicate name of defendant No.2 as purchaser. Since the plaintiff, as noted above has discharged the burden of the properties being the joint family properties, generating income, it was incumbent upon defendant No.2 to have discharge his - 52 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 burden of he being the absolute owner of the said properties, purchased from his independent source. 56. The trial Court, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the plaintiff has lost sight of this aspect of the matter. Thus, the plaintiff has proved that item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit properties are the self-acquired properties of Sri. B. S. Channappa and Item Nos.3 to 5(a) to (r) are the joint family properties. 57. Appellant-Canara Bank, who has filed an appeal in RFA No.782/2018, having limited interest to the extent of loan extended, cannot step into the shoes of the litigants. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the plaintiff it was incumbent upon the appellant-Bank to have conducted its due diligence before proceeding to grant financial assistance against the security of the property. Particularly, when even on prima facie perusal of the documents of title, prudent questions with regard to the claim of the defendant No.1 to be the owner of property being her stridhana ought to have been enquired into. In any event, this Court having coming into the conclusion of parties being entitled for share in all the items of the suit - 53 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10728 RFA No. 1856 of 2014 C/W RFA No. 1688 of 2013 RFA No. 782 of 2018 schedule properties, no interference can be shown at the instance of appellant-Canara Bank. 58. Points raised above are answered accordingly. 59. Accordingly, following: ORDER (i) Appeal filed by the plaintiff in RFA No.1688/2013 is allowed. (ii) Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court to the extent, declining share in Item No.4 and Item Nos.5(j) to 5(r) is set aside. (iii) The parties are held entitled for 1/7th equal share in Item No.4 and Item Nos.5(j) to 5(r) as well. (iv) In view of appeal in RFA No.1688/2013, having been allowed, appeal filed by defendant Nos.1, 2 and 7 in RFA No.1856/2014 is dismissed. (v). Appeal in RFA No.782/2018 is also dismissed. (vi). Draw decree accordingly. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11