Karnataka High Court
Sri. Venkata Ramaiah vs Padma on 9 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:39719
RSA No. 1265 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1265 OF 2013 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. VENKATA RAMAIAH
S/O LATE GANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT KODIPALYA
MUTHAHALLI POST,
DASANPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE-562123
2. SMT. JAYAMMA
Digitally
signed by SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS.
SUNITHA K S ALREADY ON RECORD AS
Location:
HIGH COURT APPELLANTS No.3 TO 5
OF
KARNATAKA
3. GIRIRAJ
S/O LATE SIDDAGANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT NAGARUR VILLAGE,
DASANAPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE-562123
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:39719
RSA No. 1265 of 2013
HC-KAR
4. SURESH
S/O LATE SIDDAGANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT NAGARUR VILLAGE,
DASANAPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE-562123
5. SOWBAGYA
W/O LATE SIDDAGANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT NAGARUR VILLAGE,
DASANAPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE-562123
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHANTHKUMAR.N, ADV.)
AND:
1. PADMA
W/O SRI. NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT HOUSE NO.11,
ALUR ROAD, MAKALI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE
2. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE MUNIRAJU
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:39719
RSA No. 1265 of 2013
HC-KAR
D/O LATE GANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT KODIPALYA,
DASANAPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE-562123
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVIKUMAR B.R., ADV. FOR R1;
SRI. B.S.KRISHNA, ADV. FOR R2)
RSA FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.4.2013 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.333/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE,DISMISSING THE
APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED3.9.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.144/2009 ON THE FILE OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., NELAMANGALA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:39719
RSA No. 1265 of 2013
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
ORAL JUDGMENT
This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2013 passed in R.A.No.333/2010 by the learned Prl. District Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore and the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2010 passed in O.S.No.144/2009 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, as per their rankings before the trial Court. Appellant No.1 was defendant No.2, appellant Nos.2 to 5 are the legal representatives of defendant No.1. respondent No.1 was the plaintiff and respondent No.2 was defendant No. 3. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:39719 RSA No. 1265 of 2013 HC-KAR
3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows:
The plaintiff filed suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession. It is the case of the plaintiff that Gangaiah was the original propositus. He had four children. The plaintiff and defendant No.3 are the daughters, and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the sons of Gangaiah. It is contended that he was the absolute owner of the properties measuring 5 acres 17 guntas, bearing Sy.No.2 situated at Kodipalya village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore and the other suit properties. The plaintiff was not given any share in the suit schedule properties. It is contended that to deprive the legitimate right of the plaintiff. The other defendants have executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.3. Till the death of Gangaiah, Gangaiah was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. It is contended that the plaintiff and the defendants are members of the Hindu undivided joint family and the suit schedule properties are the joint -6- NC: 2025:KHC:39719 RSA No. 1265 of 2013 HC-KAR family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants, and no partition is effected. The plaintiff demanded partition and separate possession, but the defendants refused to effect a partition. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to award 1/4th share to the plaintiff.
3.1. The defendants filed a common written statement contending that the suit schedule A and B properties were cultivated by late Gangaiah since 1940 as a tenant under the landlord, as the said lands were inam lands. After advent of the Inam Abolition Act, Gangaiah got registered himself as an occupant of the said lands.
The Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 24.07.1970 registered Gangaiah as an occupant of the suit A and B properties. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were cultivating the suit schedule properties along with Gangaiah jointly. Defendant No.2 constructed a residential house in suit schedule properties out of his earnings. 'B' -7- NC: 2025:KHC:39719 RSA No. 1265 of 2013 HC-KAR schedule property bearing Sy.No.1/4 measuring 9 guntas do not have a residential house on it. During the lifetime of Gangaiah, he effected a partition between defendant Nos.1 and 2. Based on the partition, Panchayat Parikath was executed in between defendant Nos.1 and 2 on 05.05.1975. Based on the Panchayat Parikath, the names of defendant Nos.1 and 2 were entered in the revenue records. It is contended that there was a prior partition in between defendant Nos.1 and 2. Hence, the question of plaintiff claiming a partition in the suit schedule properties does not arise. It is also contended that defendant No.1 sold the portion of the property in Sy.No.2 of Kodipalya Village in favour of defendant No.3 under a registered sale deed dated 15.05.1997. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties. It is contended that there is no cause of action to file a suit for partition and separate possession. The cause of action shown in the plaint is false and imaginary. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the suit.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:39719 RSA No. 1265 of 2013 HC-KAR 3.2. The Trial Court, based on the above said pleadings, framed the following issues:
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that suit properties are joint family properties as on the date of suit?
2) Whether the defendants prove that partition was effected earlier and partition deed was executed on 05.05.2007 and properties are already distributed?
3) Whether the plaintiff entitled for partition? If so what is her share?
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought?
5) What order or decree?
3.3. The plaintiff, to substantiate her case examined herself as PW1, examined three witnesses as PW.2 to PW.4, and marked 16 documents as Exs.P1 to P16. In rebuttal, defendant No.2 was examined as DW.1, examined two witnesses as DW.2 to DW.3, and marked 5 documents as Exs.D1 to D5. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides, and after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered -9- NC: 2025:KHC:39719 RSA No. 1265 of 2013 HC-KAR issue Nos.1, 3 and 4 in the affirmative, issue No.2 in the negative and issue No.5 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed with costs vide judgment dated 03.09.2010 and it is decreed that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds, and there shall be an enquiry on mesne profit.
3.4. The defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.144/2009 preferred an appeal in R.A.No.333/2010 on the file of the learned Prl. District Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore.
3.5. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration:
1) Whether the judgment of the trial Court is arbitrary and opposed to law and probabilities of the case?
2) Whether the 2nd respondent/plaintiff shall be permitted to adduce further evidence?
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39719 RSA No. 1265 of 2013 HC-KAR 3.6. The First Appellate Court, on hearing both sides and after re-appreciating the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point Nos.1 and 2 in the negative. The appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 24.04.2013. The defendants, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal.
4. This Court, on 14.07.2014, admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial question of law:
1) Whether in a suit for partition of the properties based on inheritance and succession, is the source of acquisition of properties by the propositus a decisive factor?
2) In view of Section 24 of the Land Reforms Act that grant of occupancy rights/tenancy is heritable, could the person seeking partition be non suited only on the ground that he does not become a member of the family as defined in the Land Reforms Act in view of the decision in the case of Nimbavva & Others Vs. Channaveerayya & Others (ILR 2013 Kar 6202)?
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39719 RSA No. 1265 of 2013 HC-KAR
5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for defendant Nos.1 and 2, and the learned counsel for the plaintiff.
6. Learned counsel for defendant Nos.1 and 2 submit that during the lifetime of Gangaiah, there was a prior partition between Gangaiah and defendant Nos.1 and 2 on 05.05.1975 and subsequently, based on Panchayath Parikath, the names of defendant Nos.1 and 2 were mutated and the revenue records were changed in the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2. To prove the prior partition, the defendants examined DW.2 and DW.3, who are witnesses to the Panchayath Parikath. He submits that both the Court below have not properly appreciated the evidence of DW.2 and DW.3 to prove the contents of Ex.D4 i.e., Panchayath Parikath. He submits that when there was a prior partition between Gangaiah and defendant Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiff is not entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties. He also contended
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39719 RSA No. 1265 of 2013 HC-KAR that as per Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, (for short 'the Act of 2005') if a partition was effected prior to 20.12.2004, the said partition is saved. He submit that admittedly, the partition was effected in 1975 and same was reduced into writing and was styled as Panchayath Parikath. He submit that both the Courts below have failed to consider the proviso to Section 6 of the Act, 2005.
7. To buttress his argument, he has placed a reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of VINEETA SHARMA VS. RAKESH SHARMA, reported in AIR 2020 SC 3717. He also submit that the land was granted in favour of Gangaiah. The plaintiff does not fall within the definition of a "Family" as per the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.
8. To buttress his argument, he has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39719 RSA No. 1265 of 2013 HC-KAR Court in the case of NIMBAVVA AND OTHERS VS. CHANNAVEERAYYA AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2013 KAR 6202. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submit that, admittedly, the suit schedule properties are owned and possessed by Gangaiah. He died intestate. The plaintiff and defendant No.3 are the daughters and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the sons of Gangaiah. He submits that the plaintiff and the defendants are the members of a Hindu undivided joint family and no partition is effected in the family of the parties to the suit. He submits that the alleged partition was effected in 1975, however the mutation was effected in 1993. That itself goes to show that the parties have not acted upon the alleged partition. He also submitted that, as of the date of the alleged partition, the plaintiff was unmarried and no explanation was offered by defendant Nos.1 and 2 and no
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39719 RSA No. 1265 of 2013 HC-KAR share was allotted to the plaintiff and also to the father of defendant Nos.1 and 2, i.e., Gangaiah. He submit that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have created Panchayath Parikarth at the time of filing a written statement. He submits that the trial Court has rightly disbelieved the evidence of DW.1 to DW.3 and held that there is no partition effected by the propositus and the plaintiff is entitled to her share. He submit that the Ex.D4 is an unregistered partition, as there was a prior partition. From the perusal of Ex.D4, it does not disclose as to when the alleged oral partition was effected. Hence, the trial court was justified in declining to consider Ex.D4. There is no reference about the alleged oral partition effected between Gangaiah, defendant Nos.1 and 2. Further, DW.2 has stated that partition deed was effected and not the Panchayath Paarikath. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
10. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39719 RSA No. 1265 of 2013 HC-KAR
11. Reg. Substantial Question of Law No.1: The plaintiff to substantiate her case examined herself as PW.1. She deposed that the suit schedule properties are owned and possessed by late Gangaiah. Gangaiah died leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendants as his legal heirs. The plaintiff and defendants are the members of a Hindu undivided joint family, and no partition is effected between the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff requested the defendants to effect a partition, however the defendants refused to effect a partition. The plaintiff to prove that the suit schedule properties were owned and possessed by Gangaiah produced the documents i,e., Ex.P1 is the affidavit of the plaintiff (PW.1), Ex.P2 is the family genealogy which discloses that Gangaiah was the original propositus and the plaintiff and the defendants are the children of Gangaiah, Ex.P3 is a RTC extract of the land bearing Sy.No.2 standing in the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2, Ex.P4 is the RTC extract of the land bearing Sy.No.1/4 standing in the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2,
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39719 RSA No. 1265 of 2013 HC-KAR Ex.P5 is the letter dated 22.01.2003, wherein the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the Sub-Registrar not to register or accept sale deed of the land bearing Sy.No.2 measuring 5.17 guntas situated at Kodipalya Village, Dasanapura, Hobli, Bangalore. It discloses that the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the Sub-registrar calling the Sub-registrar not to register the sale deed, and the mortgage deed regarding the suit schedule properties, Ex.P6 is the notice issued to the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore on 11.04.2003. Ex.P7 is the RTC extract of the land bearing Sy.No.2, which discloses that the said land stood in the name of Gangahiah, Ex.P8 is the RTC extract of the land bearing Sy.No.1/4 stood in the name of Gangaiah, Exs.P9 to P11 are the unserved postal covers, Ex.P12 is the tax paid receipt, Ex.P13 is the affidavit of PW.2, Ex.P14 is the affidavit of PW.3, Ex.P15 is the hakku patra, Ex.P16 is a copy of land tax assessment, which discloses that defendant No.1 is the owner of the said property. During the course of cross-examination of PW1, it is
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39719 RSA No. 1265 of 2013 HC-KAR suggested that there was a prior partition between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2. The said suggestion was denied by PW.1.
12. The plaintiff also examined one Channappa as PW.2, who deposed that he is the resident of Heggadavdevanapura, Aluru Road, Bengaluru and deposed that the plaintiff's father was living in Kodipalya and the distance is hardly 2 kms, and the suit lands are the inam lands and was given to Mr.Gangaiah. Gangaiah along with his wife and daughters were doing the agriculture work in the field. After Lakshmamma's marriage, Padma used to work in the land. Gangaiah constructed a house in the land allotted to him. The suit schedule properties belonged to Gangaiah, but there was no partition effected between Gangaiah and his sons. After the demise of Gangaiah, Siddagangaiah left lot of debts and went from the house. Hence, there is no partition effected between the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff also examined one Venkatesh as PW.3, who has reiterated the averments of
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39719 RSA No. 1265 of 2013 HC-KAR examination-in-chief of PW.2, and also examined one G.Nagendra as PW.4 and he deposed that he is the relative of the plaintiff and the defendants. He knows late Gangaiah, who is the father of plaintiff and the defendants and the suit schedule properties belonged to Gangaiah, and it was the Inamathi land and no partition effected between the sons and daughters of late Gangaiah. Nothing has been elicited in the course of cross-examination of these witnesses to disbelieve the evidence of PW.2 to PW.4.
13. In rebuttal, defendant No.2 was examined as DW.1 and he reiterated the written statement averments in the examination-in-chief. He has admitted the relationship of the plaintiff with the defendants and deposed that since 1940, late Gangaiah was cultivating the suit schedule A and B properties as a tenant under the landlord. After coming into force of the Inam Abolition Act, Gangaiah and other defendants made an application to the Land Tribunal to register their names as the occupants of
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39719 RSA No. 1265 of 2013 HC-KAR the said land. Accordingly, the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 24.07.1970 registered the names of Gangaiah and the other defendants as the occupants of the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. He deposed that during the lifetime of Gangaiah, a partition was effected regarding the suit land before the Panchayathdars, and effected a division of properties. The said oral partition was reduced into writing under the name and style as Panchayath Parikath on 05.05.1975. On the basis of said Panchayath Parikath, the names of defendant Nos.1 and 2 were entered in the revenue records vide MR.No.1 of 1993-94. In support of his defence, he has produced documents i.e., Ex.D1 is the tippani regarding land bearing survey No.71, Ex.D2 is a certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 15.10.1966 which discloses that Gangaiah had purchased the suit schedule properties, Ex.D3 is the original registered sale deed dated 15.05.1997, which discloses that defendant No.1 sold the portion of the suit schedule A
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39719 RSA No. 1265 of 2013 HC-KAR property in favour of defendant No.3, Ex.D4 is the original panchayath parikath alleged to have been executed in between Gangaiah and defendant Nos.1 and 2, Ex.D5 is a copy of mutation, which discloses that based on Ex.D4 the properties were mutated in the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2. In the course of cross-examination of DW.1, it is elicited that he has studied up to SSLC and he had elder brother by name Siddagangaiah and he is the BTS driver. He was working as a General Worker at Himalaya Drugs House, Makali, on Tumkur Road. He admit that the suit property bearing Sy.No.2 measuring 5 acres 17 guntas and Sy.No.1/4 measuring 9 guntas were granted in favour of Gangaiah by the Government Authorities, and also Gangaiah used to cultivate the lands during his lifetime and the father had not purchased any other properties under the registered sale deed, and however, his father had land at Pillahalli to an extent of 37 guntas. He admit that the father and mother resided in their own house at Kodipalya and after their demise, defendant No.1 started
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39719 RSA No. 1265 of 2013 HC-KAR to reside in the said house along with parents. It is also admitted that the plaintiff used to reside in the said house at Kodipalya along with the parents till her marriage. Defendant No.1 executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No. 3 to an extent of 5 guntas in Sy.No.2 and Sy.No.2 was acquired by the father of Gangaiah, and denied that Gangaiah had not affixed his LTM to Ex.D4. He admit that the plaintiff and defendant No.3 have not affixed their signature on Ex.D4. He admit that the Authorities of Taluk Panchayath issued a Hakku Patra certificate in his name as per the certificate dated 18.02.1976 as per Ex.D3 and he admits that his father suffered paralysis during his last days. It is suggested that no partition was effected as alleged by the defendants in the written statement. The said suggestion was denied by DW.1.
14. The defendants also examined one Timmarayappa as DW.2, who has deposed that Gangaiah was the resident of Kodipalya, and he had 2 sons and 2
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39719 RSA No. 1265 of 2013 HC-KAR daughters i.e., the plaintiff and defendant No.3 are the daughters, and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the sons. In the month of February 1975, to avoid future dispute among the family members of Gangaiah, effected a partition between the sons of Gangaiah i.e., defendant Nos.1 and 2 and he was one of the Panchayathdars and having evidenced/witnessed partition, and the partition deed was executed on 05.05.1975 and the Panchayat Parikath was executed in the presence of other Panchayathdars and Gangaiah died in the month of August, 1994. During the course of cross-examination, he admit that he is not the resident of Kodipalya, and also admit that whereabouts of the deceased defendant No.1 is not known, however he came to know that he was residing at Nagaroor and he do not know the date of marriage of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and he do not know the extent of the suit schedule properties as well as survey numbers. He admit that as of the date of the alleged partition, the plaintiff was unmarried, and she resided along with her father
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39719 RSA No. 1265 of 2013 HC-KAR Gangaiah, and he do not know as to why the plaintiff was not a party to the partition deed. He admit that he has not seen the partition deed before he entered the witness box, and he admit that there was no arrangement in the alleged partition for the expenses of the marriage of the plaintiff nor allotted any property and also admit that no properties were allotted to Gangaiah. It is elicited that he do not know item No.3 was not the subject of the partition. He admit that item No.3 is in the joint possession of defendant Nos.1 and 2. The defendants also examined one Parashuramaiah as DW.3. He has deposed in the same line of DW.2. In the cross-examination, he admit that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of Gangaiah, and he do not have the personal knowledge regarding the acquisition of the said properties.
15. From the perusal of the entire evidence on record placed by the parties, it is clear that the suit schedule properties were owned and possessed by late Gangaiah. It is the contention of the defendants that,
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39719 RSA No. 1265 of 2013 HC-KAR during the lifetime of Gangaiah, there was a partition effected between Gangaiah, defendant Nos.1 and 2. To prove the partition, the defendants have produced Ex.D4 i.e., Panchayat Parikath, which discloses that the alleged partition was effected on 05.05.1975 and the defendant has produced Ex.D5-mutation extract, which discloses that the mutation was effected in 1993-94. The defendants have not explained, if really there was a partition effected between defendant Nos.1 and 2 during the lifetime of Gangaiah, the defendants could have transferred the properties in their names immediately after the execution of alleged Panchayath Parikath. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have not taken steps to get their names mutated for almost more than 16 years from the alleged partition. Further, from the perusal of the evidence of DW.2, it is clear that DW.2 has not stated as to why he has admitted that the plaintiff was unmarried as of the date of the alleged partition i.e., on 05.05.1975 and why the share was not allotted to the plaintiff and also that, no share was
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39719 RSA No. 1265 of 2013 HC-KAR allotted to Gangaiah in the alleged partition. Admittedly, the Panchayath Parikath is an unregistered document. The trial Court, placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of KUBERAPPA AND OTHERS VS. T.C.GOPAL reported in 2009(5) KCCR 3969, wherein this Court has held that unregistered partition deed can be used for collateral purpose, recorded a finding. In the instant case, the defendants relies upon the unregistered partition deed marked as Ex.D4, and contended that they have acquired the title based on Ex.D4. An unregistered partition deed cannot be taken into consideration in a suit for partition to prove the alleged partition. The alleged partition is surrounded by suspicious circumstances like the plaintiff was unmarried, no share was allotted to the plaintiff, and also no properties were allotted to the share of late Gangaiah. The defendants have not removed the suspicious circumstances surrounding Ex.D4. Further, the alleged document was executed on 05.05.1975 and the mutation was effected in 1993-94. All these aspects clearly
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39719 RSA No. 1265 of 2013 HC-KAR discloses that no partition was effected during the lifetime of Gangaiah between Gangaiah and defendant Nos.1 and
2. The trial Court has rightly held that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have failed to establish that there was a prior partition between Gangaiah and defendant Nos.1 and 2, and held that the plaintiff is the member of the Hindu Undivided Joint Family, and no partition is effected, and the plaintiff, being the daughter is a co-partner as per Section 6 of the Act, 2005. The plaintiff is entitled to an equal share.
16. The plaintiff has contended that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties, whereas the defendants have taken a defence in a written statement that the suit schedule properties were granted lands. Even if it is believed that the suit schedule properties are not the ancestral properties. If the suit schedule properties are granted in favour of Gangaiah, after his demise the suit schedule properties devolves upon the legal heirs as per Section 8 of the Hindu
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39719 RSA No. 1265 of 2013 HC-KAR Succession Act, 1956. The plaintiff, being the Class 1 legal heir, is entitled to an equal share in the suit schedule properties. The trial Court was justified in granting 1/4th share to the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties. The First Appellate Court was also justified in affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question law No.1 in the affirmative.
17. Reg. Substantial Question of Law No.2:
In view of the proposition of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of SMT. KAMALAMMA VS. SHIVAPPA in RFA.NO.100189/2020 disposed off on 31.05.2023, the Division Bench of this Court has referred the judgment in the case of SRI. ARVIND & ANOTHER VS. SUNANDA & OTHERS IN RFA.NO.100149/2014 disposed off on 13.01.2020, wherein the word 'Family' defined under Section 2(12) of the Land Reforms Act, 1961, also Section 24 and Section 4(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was considered.
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39719 RSA No. 1265 of 2013 HC-KAR The Division Bench in the case of ARAVIND (Supra) has referred to the judgment in NIMBAVVA AND OTHERS VS. CHABBAVEERAYYA & OTHERS reported in ILR 2013 KAR 6202 in para No.25 of the judgment, wherein the Division Bench has distinguished the judgement in NIMBAVVA (Supra). It is stated that in the cited case, the propositus died on 04.01.1974 i.e., prior to 01.03.1974, which was the appointed date under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.
One of the sons of the original tenant sought and obtained occupancy right regarding the land. It was therefore pointed out that in the cited judgment, the person who was registered as an occupant became the absolute owner as the married daughters were not entitled to seek occupancy right as they were not members of the family.
18. Admittedly, in the instant case, Gangaiah died after the appointed date and the occupancy rights were granted in favour of Gangaiah and as of the date of the grant of occupancy rights, the plaintiff was unmarried. Hence, the case of NIMBAVVA (Supra) is not applicable to
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39719 RSA No. 1265 of 2013 HC-KAR the present case on hand. In view of the above discussion, the substantial question of law No.2 does not survive for consideration.
19. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.
ii. The judgments and decree passed by the courts below are hereby confirmed.
iii. No order as to the cost.
In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SSB