Shri Sanganagouda S/O Veeranagouda ... vs Smt Parvati W/O Shivayogi ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 11503 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Shri Sanganagouda S/O Veeranagouda ... vs Smt Parvati W/O Shivayogi ... on 17 December, 2025

Author: R.Devdas

Bench: R.Devdas

                            -1-
                                   RFA No.100563 of 2023




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
                       PRESENT

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
                          AND
     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

      REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100563/2023 (PAR/POS)

BETWEEN:

1.     SHRI. SANGANAGOUDA
       S/O. VEERANAGOUDA PATIL,
       AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
       /RETIRED BANK EMPLOYEE,
       R/O. VEERABHADRASESHWAR NILAYA,
       POLICEGOUDAR ONI, KELAGERI,
       DHARWAD-580007.

2.     SHRI. VEERABHADRAGOUDA
       S/O. VEERANAGOUDA PATIL,
       AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE/SERVICE,
       R/O. VEERABHADRASESHWAR NILAYA,
       POLICEGOUDAR ONI, KELAGERI,
       DHARWAD-580007.

3.     SHRI. RUDRAGOUDA
       S/O. VEERANAGOUDA PATIL,
       AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
       /POSTAL DEPARTMENT,
       R/O. VEERABHADRASESHWAR NILAYA,
       POLICEGOUDAR ONI, KELAGERI,
       DHARWAD-580007.
                                           -   APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. C.V.ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
                             -2-
                                    RFA No.100563 of 2023




AND:

1.     SMT. PARVATI
       W/O. SHIVAYOGI BUDAYYANAVARMATH,
       AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
       R/O. K.C. NAGAR, 3RD CROSS ROAD,
       BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591102.

2.     SMT. SAVITRI
       W/O. MADIWALAYYA SHIRAHATTIMATH,
       AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
       R/O. POLICEGOUDAR ONI, KELAGERI,
       DHARWAD-580007.

                                          -   RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. HANAMANT R.LATUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
 NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

       THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 96
READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 26.09.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.62/2022 ON
THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD, DECREED THE SUIT FILED
FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION AND ETC.


       THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 10.12.2025, COMING ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT
OF JUDGMENT' THIS      DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:

CORAM:     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
           AND
           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
                                     -3-
                                              RFA No.100563 of 2023




                          CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS)

This Regular First Appeal is filed at the hands of the

defendants in O.S.No.62/2022 being aggrieved of the

impugned judgment and decree on the file of the Principal

Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall

be referred to in terms of their ranking before the trial

court.

3. The propositus is Sri.Veerabhadragouda who

died on 19.10.1986 leaving behind his widow

Smt.Neelamma and five children. The last of the children,

Smt.Parvati filed the suit against her mother, her sister

and the three brothers seeking 1/5th share in the suit

schedule properties and for partition and separate

possession of the suit schedule properties. In the suit

schedule, six items of immovable properties are shown.

Written statement was filed by defendant No.1, the eldest

brother, and the same was adopted by defendant Nos.2

and 3, the two brothers of defendant No.1. It was

contended in the written statement that during the

wedding of the plaintiff, 20 tolas of gold, approximately

valued at Rs.10,00,000/- were given; an amount of

Rs.25,00,000/- were given to the plaintiff during

construction of her house and various other financial

assistance were rendered to the plaintiff by the brothers.

It was contended that in all, a sum of Rs.53,50,000/- have

been paid to the plaintiff and the plaintiff had waived her

rights in the suit schedule properties, consequent to which

the mutation entries were effected in the revenue records.

It was contended that during the course of the suit,

defendant No.4, the other daughter came forward to

amicably settle the matter by accepting 5 guntas of land

out of 3 acres 4 guntas in Block No.562/2, i.e., item No.6

of the suit schedule property. It was contended that in

R.S.No.570/3, item No.1 of the suit schedule measuring 1

acre 27 guntas, various lessees were in occupation under

lease deeds executed by late Sri.Veeranagouda. It was

further contended that item No.6 of the suit schedule, i.e.,

Block No.562/2 measuring 3 acres 4 guntas were

purchased by defendant Nos.1 to 3 under registered sale

deed dated 14.10.1996 for a sum of Rs.75,000/- and

therefore, the said property is the self-acquired property

of defendant Nos.1 to 3 and therefore, the same is not

available for partition. The trial court decreed the suit

while granting 1/5th share to each of the parties to the suit

in all the suit schedule properties. Consequently, this

appeal is filed by the three brothers.

4. Learned counsel for the defendants contended

that the defendants are seriously contesting the appeal

insofar as suit item No.6 is concerned. Learned counsel

submitted that Sri.Veeranagouda, the propositus died on

19.10.1986 and defendant No.1 joined a bank in the year

1986. Defendant No.2 was appointed as Lecturer/Professor

in the year 1992 and defendant No.3 was also appointed

in the postal department. No evidence is placed on record

by the plaintiff to show that there was any income derived

from the other five items of the properties, to claim that

item No.6 was purchased from the nucleus of the other

joint family properties. On the other hand, by pointing out

to the cross-examination of defendant No.1, who was

examined as D.W.1 that there was admission regarding

the sale of two immovable properties in Block Nos.88 and

473, the plaintiff cannot contend to have proved that suit

item No.6 was purchased from the sale consideration of

the two immovable properties. Learned counsel would

therefore submit that the impugned judgment and decree

is required to be modified while dismissing the suit as

against item No.6 of the suit schedule property.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff

submitted that in the written statement filed at the hands

of the defendants, it is clearly stated that defendant No.4

agreed to receive 5 guntas, out of 3 acres and 4 guntas in

suit item No.6, which clearly shows that the defendants

were prepared to share item No.6 of the suit schedule

property. If such is the contention as put-forth in the

written statement, then the defendants cannot be

permitted to contend that item No.6 of the suit schedule is

the self-acquired property of defendant Nos.1 to 3.

Moreover, during the course of this appeal defendant No.5

claims to have executed a relinquishment deed,

relinquishing her 1/5th share granted by the trial court, in

favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3. This again shows that the

defendants have accepted the judgment and decree

passed by the trial court and thereafter defendant No.4

has relinquished her rights in the suit schedule properties

in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3. Therefore, defendant

Nos.1 to 3 should not be permitted to approbate and

reprobate at the same time.

6. However, to a pointed question put to the

learned counsel for the plaintiff as to when the two items

of the properties in Block No.88 and 473 were sold and

what material is available on record to show that the sale

proceeds received from the said sale was the basis for the

purchase of item No.6 of the suit schedule property, the

learned counsel submitted that if opportunity is given,

relevant material will be placed before the court.

7. Having regard to the above, this court is

required to consider the issue whether the plaintiff has

proved that item No.6 of the suit schedule was purchased

by defendant Nos.1 to 3 from the income derived from the

other joint family properties, more particularly, the sale of

Block Nos.88 and 473, which earlier belonged to the joint

family.

8. It would be profitable to notice the decision of

the Apex Court in BHAGWAT SHARAN (DEAD THROUGH LEGAL

REPRESENTATIVES) VS PURUSHOTTAM AND OTHERS reported

in (2020) 6 SCC 387, where a decision of a Privy Counsel

in the case of RANDHI APPALASWAMI VS RANDHI

SURYANARAYANAMURTHI reported in 1947 SCC ONLINE PC

42 was noticed. The relevant portion is extracted, which

read as follows:

"......the Hindu Law upon this aspect of the case is well settled. Proof of the existence of a joint family does not lead to the presumption that property held by any member of the family is joint, and the burden rests upon anyone asserting that any item of property was joint to establish the fact. But where it is established that the family possessed some joint family property which from its nature and relative value may have formed the nucleus from which the property in question may have been acquired, the burden shifts to the party alleging self-acquisition to establish affirmatively

that the property was acquired without the aid of the joint family property."

9. While applying the said principles, the Apex

Court held that an admission made by a party is only a

piece of evidence and not conclusive proof of what is

stated therein. Having applied the principles to the facts of

the case, it was held that it is clear that not only jointness

of the family has to be proved but burden lies upon the

person alleging existence of a joint family to prove that

the property belongs to the joint Hindu family unless there

is material on record to show that the property is a

nucleus of the joint Hindu family or that it was purchased

through funds coming out of this nucleus. It was further

held that having regard to the evidence on record, it was

clear that the plaintiff failed to prove the same.

10. Having regard to the principles enunciated in

the case of RIDDI APPALASWAMI and BHAGWAT SHARAN

(supra), this court is of the considered opinion that a mere

admission of D.W.1 that Block Nos.88 and 473 were sold

by them, will not be sufficient to prove that the sale

- 10 -

consideration paid by defendant Nos.1 to 3 during the

purchase of item No.6 of the suit schedule, came from the

sale proceeds of Block Nos.88 and 473. Such admission is

only a piece of evidence and not conclusive proof that item

No.6 of the suit schedule was purchased from the nucleus

of the joint family properties. The court cannot loose sight

of the fact that defendant No.1 was working in a bank

from the year 1986, defendant No.2 was working as a

Lecturer/Professor from 1992 and at the same time,

defendant No.3 was working in the postal department. The

contention of the defendants, that they had sufficient

independent income to purchase item No.6 of the suit

schedule, could not have been brushed aside by the court.

In that view of the matter, this court is of the considered

opinion that this appeal filed at the hands of defendant

Nos.1 to 3 should succeed partly, insofar as item No.6 of

the suit schedule property is concerned. Item No.6 of the

suit schedule property, since purchased by defendant

Nos.1 to 3 in the year 1996, should be held as self-

acquired property of defendant Nos.1 to 3.

- 11 -

11. Consequently, this court proceeds to pass the

following:

ORDER

i) The Regular First Appeal is allowed in part.

ii) 1/5th share granted to the plaintiff and defendants is restricted to item Nos.1 to 5 of the suit schedule properties.

iii) The suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.62/2022 stands dismissed as against item No.6 of the suit schedule properties.

iv) The decree is accordingly modified.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

(R.DEVDAS) JUDGE

Sd/-

(B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE MBS CT: VH