Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sharayu W/O. Sharad Patnekar vs Shridhar S/O. Gopal Patnekar on 22 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5289-DB
RFA No. 100023 of 2025
C/W RFA No. 100472 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100023 OF 2025 (PAR/POS)
C/W
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100472 OF 2018
In RFA NO.100023/2025:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHARAYU W/O. SHARAD PATNEKAR
AGE. 80 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. CTS NO.3540/B, GOPAL SMRUTI, BEHIND SBI,
RISALDAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.
Digitally signed
by
MOHANKUMAR 2. SHRI. SANDEEP S/O. SHARAD PATNEKAR
B SHELAR
Location: HIGH AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA R/O. CTS NO.3540/B, GOPAL SMRUTI, BEHIND SBI,
DHARWAD RISALDAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.
BENCH
Date: 2025.03.29
10:22:14 +0530
3. SMT. SAMITA W/O. PARAG BORKAR
AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
R/O. FLAT NO.404, BUILDING NO.A3,
KANCHAN BAN APARTMENT, SHIVATIRTH NAGAR,
KOTHRUD, PUNE-30411041.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5289-DB
RFA No. 100023 of 2025
C/W RFA No. 100472 of 2018
AND:
SHRIDHAR S/O. GOPAL PATNEKAR
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
1. SMT. SHUBHA WD/O. SHRIDHAR PATNEKAR
AGE. 87 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BLOCK NO.2, "NUTAN SOCIETY",
KOPRI ROAD, NAUPADA, THANE WEST-400602.
2. GOPAL S/O. SHRIDHAR PATNEKAR
AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
R/O. BLOCK NO.2, NUTAN SOCIETY,
KOPRI ROAD, NAUPADA, THANE WEST-400602.
3. SANGITA W/O. SANJEEV GINDE
AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. DOSTI VIHAR VIJETA, B-WING,
VARTAK NAGAR, THANE-400606.
4. SHILPA W/O. DATTAPRASAD DALVI
AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KAMDHENU, BUILDING NO.7,
FLAT NO.44, HARIOM NAGAR,
MULUND EAST-400081.
5. JAYASHREE W/O. RAMESH PATNEKAR
AGE. 79 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. BLOCK 401, SHRI SAMARTH KRUPA SANKUL
LANE, NO.30-31, NEAR ABHIRUCHI
SWEET MART DHAYRI, SINHAGAD ROAD, PUNE-41.
6. ROHAN S/O. RAMESH PATNEKAR
AGE. 36 TEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
R/O. BLOCK 401, SHRI SAMARTH KRUPA SANKUL,
LANE NO.30-31, NEAR ABHIRUCHI SWEET MART
DHAYRI, SINHAGAD ROAD, PUNE-41.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5289-DB
RFA No. 100023 of 2025
C/W RFA No. 100472 of 2018
THIS RFA FILED UNDER SEC. 96 READ WITH ORDER 41
RULE 1 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC BELAGAVI IN O.S.NO.249/2014 DATED
19.07.2018 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SUIT OF
PLAINTIFF AS PRAYED FOR IN COUNTER CLAIM IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN RFA NO.100472/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHARAYU W/O. SHARAD PATNEKAR
AGE. 74 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD
R/O. CTS NO.3540/B, GOPAL SMRUTI
BEHIND SBI, RISALDAR GALLI,
BELAGAVI 590001.
2. SRI. SANDEEP S/O. SHARAD PATNEKAR
AGE:49 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS
R/O. CTS NO.3540/B, GOPAL SMRUTI
BEHIND SBI, RISALDAR GALLI,
BELAGAVI 590001.
3 SMT. SAMITA W/O. PARAG BORKAR
AGE:44 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE
R/O. FLAT NO.404, BUILDING NO.A3
KANCHAN BAN APARTMENT
SHIVATIRTH NAGAR,
KOTHRUD, PUNE 411041.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALLIGWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRIDHAR S/O. GOPAL PATNEKAR
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5289-DB
RFA No. 100023 of 2025
C/W RFA No. 100472 of 2018
1A) SMT. SHUBHA WD/O. SHRIDHAR PATNEKAR
AGE. 82 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BLOCK NO.2, "NUTAN SOCIETY",
KOPRI ROAD, NAUPADA,
THANE WEST-400602.
1B) GOPAL S/O. SHRIDHAR PATNEKAR
AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
R/O. BLOCK NO.2, NUTAN SOCIETY,
KOPRI ROAD, NAUPADA,
THANE WEST-400602.
1C) SANGITA W/O. SANJEEV GINDE
AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. DOSTI VIHAR VIJETA, B-WING,
VARTAK NAGAR, THANE-400606.
1D) SHILPA W/O. DATTAPRASAD DALVI
AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KAMDHENU, BUILDING NO.7,
FLAT NO.44, HARIOM NAGAR,
MULUND EAST-400081.
2. JAYASHREE W/O. RAMESH PATNEKAR
AGE. 78 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. BLOCK 401,
SHRI SAMARTH KRUPA SANKUL LANE
NO.30-31, NEAR ABHIRUCHI
SWEET MART DHAYRI,
SINHAGAD ROAD, PUNE-41.
3. SRI. ROHAN S/O. RAMESH PATNEKAR
AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
R/O. BLOCK 401,
SHRI SAMARTH KRUPA SANKUL, LANE NO.30-31,
NEAR ABHIRUCHI SWEET MART DHAYRI,
SINHAGAD ROAD, PUNE-41.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5289-DB
RFA No. 100023 of 2025
C/W RFA No. 100472 of 2018
THIS RFA FILED UNDER SEC. 96 CPC., PRAYING TO, SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE LEARNED
IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BELAGAVI IN
O.S.NO.249/2014 DATED 19.07.2018 AND CONSEQUENTLY
DISMISS THE SUIT OF PLAINTIFF AS PRAYED FOR IN COUNTER
CLAIM IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) These two captioned appeals are by defendants No.1 to 3. RFA No.100472/2018 is filed assailing the preliminary decree drawn in O.S.No.249/2014, granting the plaintiffs their legitimate share in the suit scheduled property. Connected RFA No.100023/2025 is filed assailing the rejection of counter-claim of defendants No.1 to 3. These two appeals are taken up together for consideration. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5289-DB RFA No. 100023 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 100472 of 2018
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.
3. Before we proceed further, we deem it fit to take cognizance of the family tree, which is as under:
Gopal (31.01.1970) Saraswati Shridhar (P1) Sharad Ramesh Arun died issueless 2006 Sharayu Sandeep samita Jayashree Rohan (D1) (D2) (D3) (P2) (P3
4. The present suit for partition is filed by two branches, namely by the elder son Shridhar, who is arrayed as plaintiff No.1 and the branch of Ramesh represented by his wife and son, who are arrayed as plaintiffs No.2 and 3. Plaintiffs have filed the present suit claiming that the suit scheduled properties are joint family ancestral properties. Plaintiffs claim that the propositus, Gopal Yashwant Patnekar purchased Schedule-A property under a registered sale deed dated 19.04.1934. Plaintiffs further claim that, pursuant to the purchase by the -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:5289-DB RFA No. 100023 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 100472 of 2018 propositus Gopal, his name was duly mutated in the revenue records for the said property and he was the absolute owner. Plaintiffs further contend that the daughters of the deceased Gopal have relinquished their rights in the Schedule-A property in favour of the first plaintiff and his brothers under a registered relinquishment deed dated 19.02.1970. Plaintiffs also claim that the Scheduled-B property was jointly purchased by all the three brothers, namely first plaintiff, the husband of plaintiff No.2 namely Sharad and Ramesh, under a registration sale deed dated 21.05.1980 and therefore, plaintiffs contend that they are the joint holders insofar as Schedule-B property is concerned. The present suit is filed, alleging that after demise of their father, Gopal Yashwant Patnekar, who had established a wholesale and retail ghee business and other dairy products, the defendants are refusing to furnish the accounts of the firm. The plaintiffs have further alleged that despite several demands to make partition by metes and bounds, defendants No.1 to 3 have -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:5289-DB RFA No. 100023 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 100472 of 2018 declined to effect the partition and allot the plaintiffs their legitimate share. Therefore, the present suit is filed. 5. On receipt of summons, defendants No.1 to 3 tendered appearance and filed written statement, stoutly denying the entire averments made in the plaint. Defendants No.1 to 3 have specially pleaded that the present suit is bad for non-inclusion of other joint family ancestral properties. By way of counter-claim, the defendants are claiming that the properties purchased by the first plaintiff at Thane and the property purchased in the name of plaintiff No.3 at Pune are also joint family ancestral properties and these properties were purchased by pooling in the joint family corpus and therefore, defendants ascertain that these properties are also joint family ancestral properties. The defendants also specifically claim that the Schedule-B property was exclusively purchased by their father Sharad and therefore, request the Court to dismiss the suit insofar as Schedule-B property is concerned. The plaintiffs and -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:5289-DB RFA No. 100023 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 100472 of 2018 defendants, in support of their respective claims, led both oral and documentary evidence. The Trial Court, having examined the pleadings along with oral and documentary evidence, answered issue No.1 in the 'affirmative' and additional issue No.3 in the 'negative'.
6. While answering issue No.1 in the affirmative, the Trial Court held that the Schedule-A property is an ancestral property, while Schedule-B property was jointly purchased by all three brothers. While answering additional issue No.3 in the 'negative', the Trial Court held that defendants failed to substantiate that counter-claim properties, namely Block No.2 and the property bearing No.401, are joint family properties and held that those properties are self-acquired property of plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.3 respectively.
7. These two appeals have been filed by defendants No.1 to 3, questioning the grant of 1/3rd share to plaintiff No.1 and 1/3rd share to plaintiffs No.2 and 3 jointly in Schedule-A and Schedule-B properties. An
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5289-DB RFA No. 100023 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 100472 of 2018 independent appeal has also been filed by defendants No.1 to 3, questioning the dismissal of counter-claim.
8. The counsel appearing for defendants No.1 to 3 has fairly conceded that counter-claim item No.2, bearing Block No.401 situated at Pune and purchased in the name of plaintiff No.3 is self-acquired property of plaintiff no.3. Therefore, the second item of the counter-claim is not the subject matter of this appeal. There is serious challenge only to the Schedule-B property and the property held by first plaintiff at Thane.
9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for defendants No.1 to 3 and learned counsel appearing for plaintiffs.
10. We have given our anxious consideration to the pleadings and oral and documentary evidence, the following points that would arise for our consideration are as under.
1. Whether the finding of the Trial Court that the suit Schedule-B property is a
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5289-DB RFA No. 100023 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 100472 of 2018 joint property of the plaintiffs and defendants is perverse and palpable evidence and warrants interference at the hands of this Court? 'Negative'
2. Whether the finding of the Trial Court that counter-claim No.1, property bearing Block No.2 situated at Thane, purchased by first plaintiff is self-
acquired property of plaintiff No.1 is perverse and warrants interference?
'Negative'
3. Whether additional evidence now sought to be produced by defendants can be looked into? 'Negative' FINDING ON POINT NO.1:-
11. The defendants, namely defendants No.1 to 3, who are the children of Sharad, the second son of Gopal, assert that the Schedule-B property, bearing CTS No.3540/B and measuring 115.94 square meters, is the self-acquired property of their father, Sharad. On the other hand, the plaintiffs contend that the said property
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5289-DB RFA No. 100023 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 100472 of 2018 was jointly purchased by the first plaintiff, Sridhar, along with Sharad and Ramesh. The plaintiffs firmly maintain that since all three brothers Sridhar, Sharad, and Ramesh jointly purchased the property, they are entitled to their respective legitimate shares in it, and therefore, the defendants cannot deny their claim.
12. Both parties have presented oral evidence to support their conflicting assertions regarding the ownership of Schedule-B property. However, upon careful consideration, we find that such oral evidence, regardless of the claims it seeks to establish, holds no significant evidentiary value in light of the documentary proof available. The registered sale deed, marked as Exhibit P5, is a conclusive piece of evidence that decisively determines the nature of ownership of the Schedule-B property. A thorough examination of this registered sale deed unequivocally reveals that the property was jointly purchased by the first plaintiff, Sridhar, along with Sharad the father of defendants No.1 to 3 and Ramesh. The sale
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5289-DB RFA No. 100023 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 100472 of 2018 deed, dated 21.05.1980, explicitly records the names of these three individuals as joint purchasers of the property.
13. Moreover, since the sale consideration for acquiring Schedule-B property was collectively contributed by all three brothers, the defendants' claim that the property was the exclusive, self-acquired asset of their father, Sharad, cannot be accepted. As per Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, any oral evidence or pleading that contradicts the express recitals of a registered document is neither admissible nor legally sustainable. In the present case, apart from making a mere assertion that Schedule-B property belonged solely to Sharad, the defendants have failed to provide any substantial rebuttal evidence to refute the contents of Exhibit P5. Therefore, the registered sale deed, dated 21.05.1980, serves as the ultimate and conclusive piece of documentary evidence that resolves the entire dispute regarding ownership.
14. Given that it is clearly established that Sridhar, Sharad, and Ramesh jointly purchased the property, it
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5289-DB RFA No. 100023 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 100472 of 2018 follows that each of them held an equal one-third share in it. Although the property does not fall within the category of ancestral joint family property, it nevertheless remains a jointly acquired asset of the three brothers. Consequently, the first plaintiff, Sharad (father of defendants No.1 to 3), and Ramesh (who was the husband of the second plaintiff and the father of the third plaintiff) were equal co-owners of the Schedule-B property. In light of this conclusion, the issue under consideration is answered in the negative.
FINDING ON POINT NO.2:-
15. The defendants have raised a serious and substantial challenge regarding the ownership of counter- claim item No.1, which pertains to a property bearing Block No.2, situated at Thane. Their contention is that the first plaintiff lacked the necessary financial resources in the year 1973 to independently purchase this property. Instead, the defendants assert that the acquisition was made using the corpus of the joint family, thereby making
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5289-DB RFA No. 100023 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 100472 of 2018 it a joint family asset rather than the exclusive property of the first plaintiff. Given the nature of this dispute and the counter-claim put forth by the defendants, it becomes crucial to carefully scrutinize the documentary evidence presented by the plaintiffs to ascertain the legitimacy of the competing claims over counter-claim item No.1.
16. Although the first plaintiff has not personally deposed as a witness in this matter, plaintiff No.3, acting under proper authorization on behalf of the first plaintiff, has submitted relevant financial documents to establish the source of funds for the purchase of counter-claim item No.1. Specifically, plaintiff No.3 has produced passbooks from the relevant time period, which serve as key pieces of documentary evidence supporting the plaintiffs' case. These passbooks, which have been marked as Exhibits P12 and P13, unequivocally demonstrate that the first plaintiff made payments towards the purchase of the disputed property. The entries in these passbooks show withdrawals corresponding to the issuance of a cheque by the first
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5289-DB RFA No. 100023 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 100472 of 2018 plaintiff in favour of Nutan Society, the entity responsible for the sale of the property.
17. Furthermore, corroborating this financial transaction, the receipts issued by Nutan Society, marked as Exhibit P10, provide explicit confirmation that the society acknowledged the receipt of the sale consideration amounting to Rs. 25,000/-. The combined evidentiary value of these documents namely, the passbooks (Exhibits P12 and P13) and the receipts from Nutan Society (Exhibit P10) irrefutably establishes that the purchase of counter- claim item No.1 was made by the first plaintiff using his own funds. This effectively negates the defendants' assertion that joint family funds were utilized for the acquisition.
18. In addition to these documentary proofs, the plaintiffs have successfully elicited crucial admissions during the cross-examination of DW.1, which further support their claim regarding the payments made by the first plaintiff at the time of securing the property. This
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5289-DB RFA No. 100023 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 100472 of 2018 Court finds it pertinent to extract and consider the relevant portion of the cross-examination of DW.1, as it serves to reinforce the plaintiffs' position in this dispute.
¢£ÁAPÀ 24.03.2018 rJ§Æèöå-1 ¸ÁQëUÉ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ªÀZÀ£À ¨ÉÆâü¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀ ¥Ánà ¸ÀªÁ®Ä ²æà ªÁ¢AiÀÄ ¥ÀgÀªÁV JfPÉ ªÀQîjAzÀ 1£Éà ªÁ¢AiÀÄ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è xÁ£ÁzÀ°è 25 ¸Á«gÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÄÀ ß PÉÆlÄÖ ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß Rjâ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¢.30.06.1973 gÀAzÀÄ 1£Éà ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä SÁvÉUÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖAvÉ 10 ¸Á«gÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÄÀ ß ZÉPï £À ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ £ÀÆvÀ£ï PÉÆà D¥ÀgÉÃnªï ¸ÉƸÉÊnUÉ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¢.27.04.1973 gÀAzÀÄ 1£Éà ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ G½zÀ 15 ¸Á«gÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ZÉPï£À ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÉƸÉÊnUÉ ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. 1£Éà ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÄÀ ß PÉÆAqÀÄPÉÆAqÀ ¢£À¢AzÀ E°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀévÄÀ Û EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. 1£Éà ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ £ÀÆvÀ£ï PÉÆà D¥ÀgÃÉ nªï ¸ÉÆøÉÊnUÉ ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ ¸ÀéwÛ£À PÀAzÁAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß CªÀgÀÄ M§âgÉà ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÄÀ vÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £ÀÆvÀ£ï PÉÆà D¥ÀgÉÃnªï ¸ÉÆøÉÊAiÀĪÀgÀÄ 1£Éà ªÁ¢ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃ¯ï ¸Ànð¦üPÉÃl£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀéwÛUÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖAvÉ 1£Éà ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ zÁR¯ÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹zÀÄÝ CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤¦.10 jAzÀ 12 JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ £ÉÆÃrgÀÄvÉÃÛ £É.
19. The oral evidence presented in this case further substantiates that plaintiff No.1 was a highly qualified individual, having successfully completed his Ph.D. The documentary record reflects that he was gainfully
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5289-DB RFA No. 100023 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 100472 of 2018 employed in Mumbai, where he had been working since 1962 at the prestigious Tata Research and Development Centre. Given his academic achievements and professional credentials, plaintiff No.1 held a managerial position in this reputed institution. His long-standing employment at such an esteemed organization indicates that he had a stable and substantial source of income, which would have enabled him to independently acquire counter-claim item No.1 without any financial contribution from the joint family. This aspect of the case is of considerable significance as it directly counters the defendants' assertion that the property in question was purchased using joint family funds.
20. In contesting the counterclaim made by the defendants, the plaintiffs have not only presented rebuttal evidence but have also successfully elicited key admissions from the defendants during cross-examination. These admissions, which have already been extracted and discussed earlier, further reinforce the plaintiffs' claim that
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5289-DB RFA No. 100023 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 100472 of 2018 counter-claim item No.1 is the self-acquired property of plaintiff No.1. The evidence collectively demonstrates that the purchase of the said property was solely financed by plaintiff No.1 without any contribution from the joint family funds. In the absence of any substantive proof to the contrary, the defendants' contention that joint family assets were utilized for this purchase stands unsubstantiated and lacks merit.
21. The counsel representing defendants No.1 to 3 made a feeble attempt to suggest that an amount of Rs.10,000/- had been credited to the bank account of plaintiff No.1 in the year 1973, implying that this sum was derived from joint family resources and was ultimately used to purchase counter-claim item No.1. However, such a claim remains unproven, as the defendants have failed to produce any credible documentary evidence, such as bank records or transaction details, to establish that the said amount of Rs.10,000/- was transferred by their father, Sharad, for the purpose of acquiring the property.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5289-DB RFA No. 100023 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 100472 of 2018 In the absence of any concrete proof linking this alleged transaction to the purchase of counter-claim item No.1, the argument advanced by the defendants appears to be a mere afterthought, lacking any evidentiary foundation. Consequently, we find no reason to accept this contention. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered in the negative. FINDING ON POINT NO.3:-
22. After giving our anxious consideration to the application seeking permission to introduce additional evidence at this stage, we find that the documents now sought to be produced are neither necessary nor relevant for the effective adjudication of the core issues in dispute between the parties. Upon careful scrutiny, it is evident that these additional documents do not have any direct bearing on the primary questions that have arisen for determination in this case. The introduction of such documents at this juncture would serve no material purpose in altering the nature or outcome of the present proceedings. Since the documents fail to add any
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5289-DB RFA No. 100023 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 100472 of 2018 substantive value to the adjudication of the dispute, we find no justifiable reason to allow their production. Accordingly, the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) stands rejected. Consequently, point No.3 is answered in the negative.
23. Before concluding our discussion, it is imperative to highlight that the plaintiffs have successfully established their claims regarding both suit Schedule 'A' and Schedule 'B' properties. They have convincingly demonstrated that suit Schedule 'A' property constitutes a joint family ancestral asset, while suit Schedule 'B' property was jointly purchased by the three brothers Sridhar, Sharad, and Ramesh. Furthermore, the plaintiffs have also succeeded in proving that there has been no severance of the joint family in relation to these properties, thereby reinforcing their entitlement to a legitimate share in them.
24. A crucial aspect that supports the plaintiffs' case is the admissions secured during the cross-
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5289-DB RFA No. 100023 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 100472 of 2018 examination of the defendants. Notably, DW.1, in his testimony, has unambiguously conceded that no partition by metes and bounds has ever taken place within the family. This categorical admission lends substantial weight to the plaintiffs' contention that the joint family status has remained intact concerning the properties in question. Given its significance, we find it appropriate to extract and consider the relevant portion of DW.1's cross-examination, as it further corroborates the plaintiffs' claim and underscores the absence of any formal division of the properties.
"zÁªÁ ¸ÀéwÛUÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖAvÉ ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÁªÀÅ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà «¨sÁUÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. zÁªÁ ¸ÀéwÛ£À°è £ÀªÄÀ UÀÆ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄjUÀÆ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÀ ªÁ¢AiÀÄjUÉ zÁªÉ ¸ÀéwÛ£À°è MAzÀÄ ¨sÁUÀ«gÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
25. For the foregoing reasons, we pass the following:
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5289-DB RFA No. 100023 of 2025 C/W RFA No. 100472 of 2018 ORDER
i) Both the appeals being devoid of merits stand dismissed.
ii) In view of disposal of appeals, the plaintiffs are at liberty to proceed with the final decree proceedings.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE RHR/AM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 10