Karnataka High Court
Rajshekar vs Shantavva on 12 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3993
RSA No. 100471 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100471 OF 2015 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
RAJSHEKAR
A/F VEERUPAXAPPA HARAKUNI,
AGED 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MUTTALI, TALUK: SHIGGAON-581205,
DIST: HAVERI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K.H. BAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SHANTAVVA
W/O. BASAPPA BALIKAYI,
AGED 66 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: MATTIGATTI,
TALUK: KUNDGOL-581113,
Digitally signed
by SAROJA
DHARWAD DISTRICT.
HANGARAKI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA, 2. SMT. DRAXAYANAVVA
DHARWAD
BENCH W/O. MALAKAJAGOUDA PATIL,
AGED 61 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: DYAVANUR,
TALUK: KUNDGOL-581113,
DHARWAD DISTRICT.
3. SMT. SHOBHA
W/O. SAHADEVAPPA KAMANAHALLI,
AGED 40 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: MUGALI,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3993
RSA No. 100471 of 2015
HC-KAR
TALUK: SHIGGAON-581205,
HAVERI DISTRICT.
4. YALLAPPA
S/O. NAGAPPA HUBBALLI,
AGED 34 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MUTTALI,
TALUK: SHIGGAON-581205,
HAVERI DISTRICT.
5. BASAPPA
S/O. NAGAPPA HUBBALLI,
AGED 32 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MUTTALI,
TALUK: SHIGGAON-581205,
HAVERI DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
NOTICE TO R3, R4 & R5 IS SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING
TO CALL FOR RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC SHIGGAON O.S.NO.90/2009; SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, HAVERI R.A.NO.57/2014 DATED 19.02.2015 AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE
CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,
SHIGGAON IN O.S.NO.90/2009 DATED 21.06.2014 BY
ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3993
RSA No. 100471 of 2015
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Even though the case is posted for admission, with the consent of both sides, heard arguments.
2. This appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2015 passed in R.A. No.57/2014 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Haveri (for short 'the First Appellate Court'), confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.06.2014 passed in O.S. No.90/2009 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Shiggaon (for short 'the trial Court').
3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties are referred by their ranks as they were before the Trial Court.
4. The plaintiffs have filed the suit before Trial Court seeking partition and separate possession of their share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds.
5. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties, and the plaintiffs, being the daughters of deceased Virupakshappa, are entitled to share in the same. Plaintiffs further contended that defendant No.1 is -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3993 RSA No. 100471 of 2015 HC-KAR the adopted son of their father and defendant No.2 is their sister.
6. After service of summons, defendants appeared through their counsel; defendant No.1 filed his written statement, which is adopted by defendant No.2. In the written statement, defendant No.1 contended that he is the adopted son of Virupakshappa and that the adoption took place on 21.12.1987 as per the customs prevailing in their community; the adoption deed was also registered before the Sub-Registrar, Shiggaon; the suit schedule properties were the self-acquired properties of his adopted father. It is also contended that at the time of the plaintiffs' marriage, gold and utensils were given to them, and therefore they are not entitled to any share in the suit schedule properties. It is further contended that the plaintiffs had executed Kabuli Patra relinquishing their rights in the suit schedule properties. Hence, defendant No.1 prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.
7. Based on these pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule properties are the joint family and -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3993 RSA No. 100471 of 2015 HC-KAR ancestral properties of plaintiffs and defendants and they are in joint possession?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for shares in the suit schedule properties?
3. Whether the defendants prove that the plaintiffs have received their shares in the Gold and Cash?
4. What order or decree?
8. During pendency of the suit, defendant No.2 died and her legal representatives were brought on record. After framing the issues, recording evidence, and hearing the arguments, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants, and that they were in joint possession and enjoyment. Accordingly, the Trial Court held that the plaintiffs are entitled to half share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds, and decreed the suit.
9. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant No.1 and the legal representatives of defendant No.2 filed an appeal which was registered as R.A. No.57/2014. After hearing -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3993 RSA No. 100471 of 2015 HC-KAR both sides, the said appeal was dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.
10. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the appellant/defendant No.1 has filed the present appeal.
11. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant Sri K.H. Bhagi and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 Sri Lakshman T. Mantagani. After service of notice of the appeal, respondent Nos.3 to 5 (LRs of defendant No.2) remain unrepresented.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the plaintiffs have not stepped into the witness box and only the GPA holder was examined as PW-1, who has no personal knowledge of the family affairs and therefore his evidence cannot be relied upon.
13. The learned counsel further submits that the plaintiffs had executed a consent deed and relinquished their rights in the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant No.1 during lifetime of their father and had taken gold and other utensils in lieu of their share. Therefore, according to the appellant, a partition had already taken place among the plaintiffs, -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3993 RSA No. 100471 of 2015 HC-KAR defendant No.1, defendant No.2, and their father during his lifetime, and hence the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share.
14. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 Sri Lakshman T. Mantagani would submit that the original propositus-Virupakshappa died on 06.05.1991, leaving behind plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.2 as his daughters and defendant No.1 as his adopted son.
15. He further submits that even if the contention of defendant No.1 that the suit schedule properties were the self- acquired properties of their father is accepted, the plaintiffs are still entitled to equal share along with defendant No.1 and defendant No.2.
16. It is also submitted that the plaintiffs are not disputing the adoption deed and the fact that defendant No.1 is the adopted son of their father. Defendant No.2 is the natural mother of defendant No.1. Hence, considering these aspects, the Trial Court has rightly decreed the suit.
17. On perusal of the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and the appeal papers, the following facts are admitted by both sides.
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3993 RSA No. 100471 of 2015 HC-KAR
18. Plaintiffs and defendant No.2 are the daughters of Virupakshappa. Since he had no male issues, he adopted defendant No.1 on 21.12.1987, and the adoption deed was also registered. Defendant No.2 is the natural mother of defendant No.1.
19. There is no dispute that the suit schedule properties, namely Southern side of Sy.No.68/2B measuring 3 acres 20 guntas, Southern side of Sy.No.136/1B measuring 1 acre 19 guntas, Southern side of Sy.No.325 measuring 3 acres 6 guntas, Southern side of Sy.No.324 measuring 2 acres 25 guntas were in possession and enjoyment of the father of the plaintiffs and defendants. It is the contention of defendant No.1 that these were self-acquired properties of his father. However, no sale deed or other document has been produced to establish that they were self-acquired properties.
20. On the other hand, the documents produced in the case establish that these properties were ancestral properties of Virupakshappa, wherein he was in possession of the southern portion and his brother's wife was in possession of the northern portion.
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3993 RSA No. 100471 of 2015 HC-KAR
21. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma, reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1, the coparcener need not be alive as on the date of commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, and the daughters of the deceased coparcener cannot be denied their share in the coparcenary property.
22. In paragraphs 55 and 56 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the provisions contained in Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, as amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, confer the status of coparcener on the daughter in the same manner as son, and the daughter shall by birth become coparcener with the same rights and liabilities as that of son. It is further held that it is not necessary that the father-coparcener should be alive on the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, 2005.
23. In view of the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the daughters of a coparcener are entitled to claim equal share in the coparcenary properties.
24. Admittedly, in the present case, the plaintiffs are the daughters of deceased Virupakshappa. Therefore, they cannot be denied their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3993 RSA No. 100471 of 2015 HC-KAR Even if it is assumed that the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of the deceased, in the absence of any gift deed or Will, defendant No.1 alone cannot claim exclusive ownership and possession over the suit schedule properties.
25. On the other hand, the plaintiffs being daughters are entitled to equal share along with their brother i.e., defendant No.1 and defendant No.2, their sister.
26. Considering these aspects, the Trial Court has rightly decreed the suit granting half share to the plaintiffs, which has been confirmed by the First Appellate Court. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal filed under Section 100 CPC is dismissed, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 19.02.2015 passed in R.A. No.57/2014 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Haveri, and the Judgment and Decree dated 21.06.2014 passed in O.S. No.90/2009 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Shiggaon.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3993 RSA No. 100471 of 2015 HC-KAR
ii) Registry is directed to transmit the TCRs to the concerned Court.
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE VB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39