Karnataka High Court
Prabhugouda S/O. Shankargouda vs Smt. Parvatewwa Alias Parvatemma W/O ... on 5 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3552
WP No. 100246 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.100246 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
PRABHUGOUDA S/O. SHANKARAGOUDA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. BOMMAPUR, PRATHAM SHETTI ONI,
HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. PARVATEWWA @ PARVATEMMA
W/O. RUDRAGOUDA POLICEPATIL,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
BASANAGOUDA RUDRAGOUDA POLICEPATIL,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
1. SMT. JAYADEVI W/O. VIJAGOUDA JAKKANAGOUDRA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
VIJAYALAKSHMI
R/O. RON, TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG-582102.
M KANKUPPI
2. SMT. VIJAYALAXMI W/O. NAGANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
Digitally signed by
VIJAYALAKSHMI R/O. BETAGERI, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG-582103.
M KANKUPPI
Date: 2026.03.12
11:08:43 +0530 3. SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. BASANAGOUDA POLICEPATIL,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. ASUNDI, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG-582103.
4. ARJUNAGOUDA S/O. BASANAGOUDA POLICEPATIL,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ASUNDI, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG-582103.
5. RUDRAGOUDA S/O. BASANAGOUDA POLICEPATIL,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ASUNDI, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG-582103.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3552
WP No. 100246 of 2026
HC-KAR
6. BANAPPAGOUDA S/O. BASANAGOUDA POLICE PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ASUNDI, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG-582103.
VEERANAGOUDA S/O. KOTRAPPAGOUDA PATIL
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
7. SMT. RATNAVA W/O. VEERANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 91, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. BOMMAPUR, PRATHAMA SHETTI ONI,
HUBBALLI, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580009.
8. KOTRAPPA S/O. VEERANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. BOMMAPUR, PRATHAMA SHETTI ONI,
HUBBALLI, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580009.
RUDRESH VEERANAGOUDA PATIL
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
9. KAMALAKSHI W/O. RUDRESH PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD,
R/O. BOMMAPUR, PRATHAMA SHETTI ONI,
HUBBALLI, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580009.
10. ABHISHEK S/O. RUDRESH PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. BOMMAPUR, PRATHAMA SHETTI ONI,
HUBBALLI, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580009.
11. AKSHAY S/O. RUDRESH PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. BOMMAPUR, PRATHAMA SHETTI ONI,
HUBBALLI, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580009.
12. SHIVANAGOUDA S/O. VEERANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. BOMMAPUR, PRATHAMA SHETTI ONI,
HUBBALLI, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580009.
13. SMT. RAJESHWARI W/O. BOODAPPA ANGADI,
AGED. MAJOR, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. BOMMAPUR, PRATHAMA SHETTI ONI,
HUBBALLI, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580009.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3552
WP No. 100246 of 2026
HC-KAR
14. SMT. PARVATTEWWA W/O. SHANKARAGOUDA PATIL,
AGED. MAJOR, OCC. HOUSE HOLD,
R/O. BOMMAPUR, PRATHAMA SHETTI ONI,
HUBBALLI, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580009.
SHISHILA W/O. GURANAGOUDA PATIL,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
15. MARIGOUDA S/O. GURUNAGOUDA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BOMMAPUR, PRATHAMA SHETTI ONI,
HUBBALLI, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580009.
16. SHANKARAGOUDA S/O. GURUNAGOWDA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BOMMAPUR, PRATHAMA SHETTI ONI,
HUBBALLI, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580009.
17. SMT. SUBHADRA W/O. SOMANAGOWDA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. NEAR TONTADARYA COLLEGE, GADAG-582205.
18. GIRIJA W/O. BASAVARAJ MUDHOL,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. NEAR TONTADARYA COLLEGE, GADAG-582205.
BASAVANTEWWA W/O. BASAVANAGOUDA PATIL,
SINCE DEAD. NO MALE ISSUE ONLY PLAINTIFF,
GANGAWWA S/O. MARIGOUDA PATIL,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
19. GURUPADAGOWDA S/O. HANUMANTAGOWDA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BOMMAPUR, PRATHAMA SHETTI ONI,
HUBBALLI, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580009.
20. MAHESHGOUDA S/O. HANUMANTHEGOWDA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BOMMAPUR, PRATHAMA SHETTI ONI,
HUBBALLI, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580009.
21. RAMESHGOUDA S/O. HANUMANTEGOUDA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BOMMAPUR, PRATHAMA SHETTI ONI,
HUBBALLI, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580009.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3552
WP No. 100246 of 2026
HC-KAR
SHANTAWWA S/O. SHIVAPPA ANGADI,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
22. SARVAMANGALA W/O. GURUNAGOUDA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HALAGERI, TQ. DIST. KOPPAL-583238.
23. VIJAYALAXMI W/O. GURUNAGOUDA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NEAR BANNIKATTI, TQ. DIST. KOPPALA-583238.
24. BOODAPPA S/O. SHIVAPPA ANGADI,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BOODISHWAR, HOSALLI, TQ. DIST. GADAGA-582205.
25. SANGANABASAPPA S/O. SHIVAPPA ANGADI,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BOODISHWAR, HOSALLI, TQ. DIST. GADAGA-582205.
26. SMT. SUMANGALA @ LALITA W/O. KAJJAPPA AJUR,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/AT :BISANALLI, TQ. SHIGGAON, DIST. HAVERI-581106.
27. SHIVALILA D/O. RUDRAGOUDA RABBANAGOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. NEAR BURABURE HOSPITAL, MASARI,
TQ. DIST. GADAG-582205.
28. SMT. MANJULA W/O. CHANDRAGOUDA POLICEPATIL,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. C/O. S.B. AVARADI BANKER COLONY,
NEAR VRUDHASHRAMA, NEAR MULAGUNDA NAKA,
GADAG, TQ. DIST. GADAG-582205.
29. SMT. PRAJNA D/O. CHANDRAGOUDA POLICEPATIL,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O. VANAGERI, TQ. VALABURGA, DIST. KOPPAL-583236.
30. ANAKETAGOUDA S/O. CHANDRAGOUDA POLICEPATIL,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O. VANAGERI, TQ. YALABURGA, DIST. KOPPAL-583236.
...RESPONDENTS
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3552
WP No. 100246 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14-10-2025
PASSED ON I.A.NO.21 IN FDP NO.13/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUBBALLI, FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-J. B) GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS
THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 14.10.2025 passed on IA No.XXI in FDP No.13/2014 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi.
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:
2.1. One Parvatevva filed a suit for partition and separate possession regarding the suit schedule property in OS No. 87 of 2003 before the Trial Court. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and preliminary decree dated -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3552 WP No. 100246 of 2026 HC-KAR 20.01.2007. The petitioner and respondent Nos.14 to 16, aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court, preferred an appeal in RFA No. 854 of 2007, and respondent Nos.8 to 13 filed another appeal in RFA No.1119/2007 before this Court. This Court, vide judgment dated 16.07.2013, modified the judgment and preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court and granted 1/18th share to the plaintiff in the suit in OS No. 87 of 2003.
Respondent Nos.1 to 6 have filed a final decree proceedings in FDP No. 13 of 2014 before the learned II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 have also filed an application in IA No. XXI seeking modification of the share as 1/6th as against 1/18th share granted by this Court. The said application was opposed by the petitioner. The FDP Court allowed the application and modified the share as 1/6th share in the suit schedule properties vide order dated 14.10.2025.
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3552 WP No. 100246 of 2026 HC-KAR
3. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated 14.10.2025 on IA No.XXI in FDP No.13 of 2014, filed this writ petition.
4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the impugned order passed by the FDP Court is arbitrary, capricious, and against the principles of law. He submits that, Section 152 and 151 of CPC are not applicable in the instant case. Respondent Nos.1 to 6, without seeking the modification of the judgment in the aforesaid appeals, filed an application to modify the shares in the final decree proceedings. The judgment passed in the aforesaid appeals has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 17633-17634 of 2015. Hence, the impugned order passed by the FDP Court is contrary to the judgment passed by this -8- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3552 WP No. 100246 of 2026 HC-KAR Court in the aforesaid appeals. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6 submits that, as of the date of disposal of the appeals by this Court, judgment granting notional share to the daughters was passed. He submits that, in view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and Others1, the daughters are entitled to an equal share with that of a son. He further submits that, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prema Vs. Nanje Gowda and Others2, held that, as of the date of amendment to Section 6A by the Karnataka Act No. 23 of 1994, final decree proceedings were pending; the appellant had every right to seek enlargement of her share by pointing out that the discrimination practiced against the unmarried daughter had been removed by the legislative intervention and there 1 (2020) 9 SCC 1 2 (2011) 6 SCC 462 -9- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3552 WP No. 100246 of 2026 HC-KAR is no reason why the Court should hesitate in giving effect to an amendment made by the State legislature in exercise of the power vested in it under Article 15(3) of the Constitution. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.
7. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
8. It is undisputed that one Parvatevva filed a suit for partition and separate possession in OS No. 87 of 2003. The said suit was decreed and a preliminary decree was drawn vide judgment dated 20.01.2007. The petitioner and respondent Nos.14 to 16 preferred an appeal in RFA No. 854 of 2007, and respondent Nos.8 to 13 filed another appeal in RFA No.1119/2007. This Court partly allowed the appeal and modified the judgment and preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court and held that, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/18th share in all the plaint schedule properties on the ground that the daughters born prior to the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3552 WP No. 100246 of 2026 HC-KAR Amendment Act are not entitled for equal share. The judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid appeal was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP(C) No. 17633-17634 of 2015. The said SLP came to be dismissed vide order dated 23.01.2024. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 filed a final decree proceedings in FDP No. 13 of 2014. During the pendency of the FDP, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma (supra), has conferred the status of a coparcener on the daughter born prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 filed an application in IA No.XXI under Section 152 read with Section 151 of CPC before the FDP Court for modification of share as 1/6th instead of 1/18th in view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma (supra). The FDP Court, considering the same, has allowed the application of respondent Nos.1 to 6.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3552 WP No. 100246 of 2026 HC-KAR
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prema Vs. Nanje Gowda and Others3, has held in paragraph Nos.17 to 19 as follows:
"17. In this case, the Act was amended by the State Legislature and Sections 6-A to 6-C were inserted for achieving the goal of equality set out in the Preamble of the Constitution. In terms of Section 2 of Karnataka Act 23 of 1994, Section 6-A came into force on 30-7-1994 i.e. the date on which the amendment was published. As on that day, the final decree proceedings were pending. Therefore, the appellant had every right to seek enlargement of her share by pointing out that the discrimination practised against the unmarried daughter had been removed by the legislative intervention and there is no reason why the court should hesitate in giving effect to an amendment made by the State Legislature in exercise of the power vested in it under Article 15(3) of the Constitution.
18. The issue which remains to be considered is whether the learned Single Judge of the High Court was justified in refusing to follow the law laid down in S. Sai Reddy v. S. Narayana Reddy [(1991) 3 SCC 647] on the ground that the same was based on the judgment of the three-Judge Bench in Phoolchand v. Gopal Lal [AIR 1967 3 (2011) 6 SCC 462
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3552 WP No. 100246 of 2026 HC-KAR SC 1470] and a contrary view had been expressed by the larger Bench in Venkata Reddy v. Pethi Reddy [AIR 1963 SC 992] .
19. In Phoolchand v. Gopal Lal [AIR 1967 SC 1470] this Court considered the question whether the preliminary decree passed in a partition suit is conclusive for all purposes and the court before whom final decree proceedings are pending cannot take note of the changes which may have occurred after the passing of the preliminary decree. The facts of that case were that appellant, Phoolchand had filed a suit in 1937 for partition of his 1/5th share in the plaint scheduled properties. Sohanlal (father of the appellant), Gopal Lal (brother of the appellant), Rajmal [minor adopted son of Gokalchand (deceased), who was another brother of the appellant] and Smt Gulab Bai (mother of the appellant) were impleaded as the defendants along with two other persons. The suit was contested up to Mahkma Khas of the former State of Jaipur and a preliminary decree for partition was passed on 1-8-1942 specifying the shares of the appellant and the four defendants. Before a final decree could be passed, Sohanlal and his wife Smt Gulab Bai died. Gopal Lal claimed that his father Sohanlal had executed a will in his favour on 2-6-1940 and bequeathed all his property to him. Appellant Phoolchand challenged the genuineness of the will. He also claimed that Smt Gulab Bai had executed a sale deed dated 19-10-1947 in his favour, which was
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3552 WP No. 100246 of 2026 HC-KAR duly registered on 10-1-1948. Gopal Lal challenged the sale deed by contending that Gulab Bai had executed the sale deed because she was a limited owner of the share in the ancestral property. The trial court held that the will allegedly executed by Sohanlal in favour of Gopal Lal had not been proved but the sale deed executed by Gulab Bai in favour of Phoolchand was valid. As a sequel to these findings, the trial court redistributed the shares indicated in the preliminary decree. As a result, Phoolchand's share was increased from one-fifth to one-half and Gopal Lal's share was increased from one-fifth to one-fourth and that of Rajmal from one-fifth to one-fourth. The High Court allowed the appeal filed by Gopal Lal and held that Gulab Bai was not entitled to sell her share in favour of appellant Phoolchand. The High Court also held that the will executed by Sohanlal in favour of Gopal Lal was genuine. One of the points considered by this Court was whether there could be more than one preliminary decree."
From the perusal of paragraph No.17 of the above judgment, it clearly indicates that, the State Legislature has amended the Act, where Sections 6A to 6C were inserted in terms of Section 2 of the Karnataka Act 23 of 1994, which came into force on 30.07.1994, i.e., on the date when the
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3552 WP No. 100246 of 2026 HC-KAR amendment was published. As on that date, the final decree proceedings were pending. The petitioner/appellant had every right to seek enlargement of her share by pointing out that the discrimination practiced against the unmarried daughter had been removed by the legislative intervention and there is no reason why the Court should hesitate in giving effect to an amendment made by the State Legislature in exercise of the power vested in it under Article 15(3) of the Constitution. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma (supra), has also referred to its judgment in the case of Phoolchand and Another Vs. Gopal Lal4.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ganduri Koteshwaramma and Another Vs. Chakiri Yanadi and Another5, has held that there can be more than one preliminary decree, and that the law is well settled. Considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case 4 1967 SCC OnLine SC 266 5 (2011) 9 SCC 788
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3552 WP No. 100246 of 2026 HC-KAR of Ganduri Koteshwaramma (supra), the Trial Court has rightly passed the order enlarging the share of respondent Nos.1 to 6.
11. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the respondents have filed an application under Section 151 and Section 152 of the CPC. He submitted that, Section 152 of the CPC applies for amendment of judgments, decrees or orders, where there is a clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the judgment. The said provision is not applicable for the enlargement of share. It is well settled that, mere mentioning of an incorrect provision is not fatal to the application if the power to pass such an order is available with the Court. Hence, the Trial Court was justified in passing an impugned order. Accordingly, I do not find any error in the impugned order.
12. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3552
WP No. 100246 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORDER
i. The petition is dismissed;
ii. Pending IA(s) in this petition, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
PA
CT: UMD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49