Karnataka High Court
Smt.Ratnawa W/O Parappa Belagali vs Shri.Raosaheb Sangappa Buralatti on 16 July, 2025
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8811
RSA No. 100781 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100781/2015 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SMT.RATNAWA W/O. PARAPPA BELAGALI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS.
1. SHRI. PARAPPA KADAPPA BELAGALI,
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BANAHATTI - 587 311,
TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
2. SHRI. BASAVARAJ PARAPPA BELAGALI,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BANAHATTI - 587 311,
TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
3. SHRI. SHANKAR PARAPPA BELAGALI,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BANAHATTI - 587 311,
TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
Digitally signed by
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
4. SHRI. SHRISHAIL PARAPPA BELAGALI,
Location: High
Court of
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench, R/O: BANAHATTI - 587 311,
Dharwad
TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
5. SMT. MAHANANDA W/O. PANDIT RADDERHATTI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: BUDNI - 587 121,
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.
6. SMT. SUNANDA W/O. SURESH BURLI,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: SHEDBAL - 591 315,
TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8811
RSA No. 100781 of 2015
HC-KAR
7. SMT. DHANAWWA W/O. IRAPPA DHARIGOUDAR,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: SANKONATTI - 591 304,
TQ:ATHANI, DIST:BELAGAVI.
8. SMT. INDRAWWA W/O. MAHADEV ISAPURE,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: ISAPURE GALLI, MIRAJ - 416 410,
DIST:SANGLI, MAHARASHTRA STATE.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. D.V.PATTAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. RAOSAHEB SANGAPPA BURALATTI,
AGE:58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O:SIDDAPUR - 591 317,
TQ:RAIBAG, DIST:BELAGAVI.
2. SHRI. PARAMANAND SANGAPPA BURALATTI,
AGE:64 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O:SANKRATTI - 591 220,
TQ:ATHANI, DIST:BELAGAVI.
3. SMT. MAHADEVI S/O. SANGAPPA BASARAGI,
AGE:48 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: KHEMLAPUR - 591 311,
TQ:RAIBAG, DIST:BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRIYANKA H. PAWAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SANTOSH B RAWOOT, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;
SRI M.M.KHANNUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R3 IS SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLII RULE 1 R/W SECTION
100 CPC, 1908 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 01.09.2015 PASSED BY THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI SITTING AT CHIKODI IN
R.A.NO.263/2012; SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
25.07.2012 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ATHANI
IN O.S.NO.123/1998 INSOFAR AS REJECTING THE CLAIM OF
APPELLANTS INSOFAR AS ITEM NO.2 AND 3 GIVING LESSOR SHARE
IN ITEM NO.1 IS CONCERNED; ALLOW THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS
THROUGHOUT BY DECREEING THE SUIT IN O.S.NO.123/1998 ON THE
FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ATHANI BY AWARDING
EQUAL SHARE TO THEM AND ETC.,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8811
RSA No. 100781 of 2015
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL)
1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs, being
aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 25th July 2012
passed in O.S. No.123/1998 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge,
Athani (for short, "the trial Court"), which is confirmed by
the judgment and decree dated 1st September 2015, passed
in R.A. No.263/2014 by the VII-Addl. District and Sessions
Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Chikkodi (for short, "the First
Appellate Court")
2. The above suit in O.S.No.123/1998 was filed by
the appellants / plaintiffs seeking partition and separate
possession of the following immovable properties:
Area Asstt. Market
Village Sy. Nos.
A-Gs. Rs.Ps. Value
Sankrati 173/2B+1B+2A 5-28 9-97 1,00,000/-
Tq: Athani
Siddapur 34/1 5-03 13-30 2,00,000/-
Tq: Raibag
-do- 33/2 2-32 7-39 40,000/-
(Only 1-20 Gs of western side) 3,40,000/-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8811
HC-KAR
3. The case of the plaintiffs is that one Sangappa
Chanabasappa Buralatti was the owner of the suit
properties and he passed away on 15.07.1998, leaving
behind his four daughters, namely, plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and
defendant No.3 as well as two sons, namely, defendant
Nos.1 and 2 as his legal heirs. His wife, Siddalingawwa, the
mother of plaintiffs and defendants, had passed away in the
year 1992.
4. The said Sangappa Chanabasappa Buralatti had
purchased the land bearing Sy.No.173/2B+1B+2A on
13.02.1978, and similarly, he had purchased an extent of 1
acre 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.33/2 on 18.12.1989. The
land in Sy.No.34/1 was ancestral property, inherited by the
said Sangappa Chanabasappa Buralatti.
5. That after the demise of Sangappa
Chanabasappa Buralatti, the plaintiffs and the defendants
being his legal heirs, became entitled to shares in the suit
properties. The name of defendant No.3 had been mutated
in respect of 15 guntas of land in Sy.No.33/2 and 25 guntas
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8811
HC-KAR
of land in Sy.No.34/1. However, the suit properties
remained in the joint possession and enjoyment of the
plaintiffs and defendants as joint family properties. Since
the request of the plaintiffs for partition and separate
possession of the suit properties was rejected, they filed the
suit seeking partition and their rightful 3/18th share in the
suit properties.
6. Defendant No.1 filed written statement admitting
the relationship between the parties and also admitting that
Sangappa Chanabasappa Buralatti had purchased properties
bearing Sy.No.173/2B+1B+2A and Sy.No.33/2. However, it
was contended that the said purchases were made from
and out of the income derived from the joint family
property, namely the land in Sy.No.34/1. It was further
contended that during the lifetime of the said Sangappa
Chanabasappa Buralatti, there was a family arrangement
between him and his sons, defendant Nos.1 and 2. In terms
of which the suit properties have been divided and
separated and they have been residing and cultivating in
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8811
HC-KAR
their respective shares. That the plaintiffs, who are given in
marriage affluent families prior to the year 1994 by
spending huge amounts, by the family, had thereby lost
their claim to any share in the suit properties.
7. That pursuant to this family arrangement,
defendant Nos.1 and 2 were stated to be in possession and
enjoyment of the suit properties. On these grounds, the
defendant sought dismissal of the suit.
8. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed
the followings issues for its consideration:
1. Whether the Plaintiffs proves that themselves
and defendants are the joint family members?
2. Whether the plaintiffs further proves that, suit
schedule properties are their joint family
properties?
3. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that, they
are in possession of their respective shares, as
per family arrangement held in the year 1996?
4. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that, they
are absolute owners of their respective strips
allotted to their share in the family
arrangement?
5. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that, this
court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the
suit?
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8811
HC-KAR
6. Whether the plaintiffs is entitle for the relief of
partition as sought for?
7. What order or decree?
9. Plaintiff No.2 examined herself as PW1 and also
examined two other witnesses as PW2 and PW3. Six
documents were exhibited on behalf of the plaitniffs,
marked as Exs.P1 to P6. No oral or documentary evidence
was adduced on behalf of the defendants.
10. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the
trial Court answered issue Nos.1 to 4 in the affirmative,
issue No.6 partly in the affirmative, and issue No.5 in the
negative. Consequently, the trial Court decreed the suit
holding that plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 are entitled to partition and
separate possession of 1/18th share each in the land bearing
Sy.No.173/2B+1B+2A, measuring 5 acres 28 guntas.
However, their prayer for partition in respect of the land
bearing Sy.No.34/1, measuring 5 acres 3 guntas consisting
of a house, and Sy.No.33/1 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas of
Siddapur Village, was rejected. It was further held that
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8811
HC-KAR
defendant No.3 is also entitled to partition and separate
possession of a 1/18th share, while defendant Nos.1 and 2
are entitled to 7/18th share each.
11. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the
trial Court, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal in R.A.
No.263/14 before the First Appellate Court.
12. The First Appellate Court, framed the following
points for its consideration.
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove the impugned
judgment and decree of the learned trial judge
is illegal, perverse and capricious?
2. What order?
13. On re-appreciation of the evidence, the First
Appellate Court answered the point No.1 in the negative
and, by its judgment and order, dismissed the appeal,
confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
14. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the
First Appellate Court, the plaintiffs have filed this Regular
Second Appeal before this Court.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8811
HC-KAR
15. This Court, by order dated 19.06.2017 framed
the following substantial question of law for its
consideration:
"Whether the judgment of the Courts below
upholding the family arrangements made by the
father before filing of the suit is in conflict with
explanation so Section 6(5) of the Hindu Succession
Act, 1956?"
16. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs,
while reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal, submitted
that both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court erred
in partly decreeing the suit by wrongly applying the law as
which prevail even at the relevant time. It was contended
that, however in the light of the law now settled by the
Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh
Sharma1, the plaintiffs, being daughters, are entitled to
equal shares in the suit properties. Accordingly, he submits
that substantial question of law be answered in favour of
the appellants and the appeal be allowed by decreeing the
suit in its entirity.
AIR 2020 SC 3717
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8811
HC-KAR
17. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents,
on the other hand, submitted that the judgment and decree
passed by the trial Court are based on proper appreciation
of facts. It was contended that the plaintiffs, being the
daughters, who were married prior to 1994, are not entitled
to an equal share in the suit properties. The trial Court has
rightly decreed the suit by applying the concept of notional
partition in respect of item No.1 of the properties and
rejected the suit in respect of other properties as there was
a oral partition. As such the findings do not warrant any
interference.
18. It was also submitted that there was a family
arrangement during the lifetime of the father of the parties,
pursuant to which defendant Nos.1 and 2 have been in
possession of the suit properties. Therefore, it is contended
that the provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act
are not applicable, and no partition can be claimed under
the said provision. Accordingly, learned counsel prays for
dismissal of the appeal.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8811
HC-KAR
19. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Perused the records.
20. It is necessary at the outset to note that the
properties bearing Sy.No.173/2B+1B+2A and Sy. No.33/2
measuring 1 acre 20 guntas being item Nos.1 and 3 of the
suit properties, were admittedly purchased by Sangappa
Chanabasappa Buralatti under registered deeds of sale
dated 13.02.1978 and 18.12.1989, respectively. Though,
defendant No.1 in his written statement contended that
these properties were acquired from and out of the income
generated from the joint family properties, and from the
contribution made by them nothing further either pleaded
nor proved as such the manner and mode of acquisition of
the said items of the suit properties from the purported
joint family funds. Nothing is brought on record as to
whether there was sufficient joint family nucleus or the
source / income available sufficient enough to acquire the
suit properties. It is trite law that a presumption of family
being joint cannot be extended to hold that all the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8811
HC-KAR
properties are the joint family properties. In the instant
case, in the light of admitted position of the aforesaid two
items of the properties having been purchased by the father
of the parties, in the absence of any contra material, it
cannot be held that the said two properties were acquired
from and out of the joint family funds. The trail Court and
the First Appellate Court have not adverted to this aspect of
the matter.
21. The trial Court while answering issue No.3, which
pertains to the alleged family arrangement in respect of the
suit properties, at paragraph No.15 of its judgment, though
observed that the burden of proving the family arrangement
was on the defendants, however it has opined that
defendant Nos.1 and 2 despite not adducing any evidence
in their defence, had successfully proved their case by
eliciting the admissions during the cross-examination of
PW1, whereby PW1 admitted that she and other daughters
of Sangappa Channabasappa Buralatti had been married
prior to 1994 and were residing separately and that during
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8811
HC-KAR
his lifetime, the sons, defendant Nos.1 and 2 were residing
separately cultivating certain portions of the land
purportedly given to them by their father. The trial Court
referring to this part of the deposition has held that the
factum of family arrangement having taken place during the
lifetime of their father as proved.
22. Further, the trial Court concluded that the said
prior partition is saved in terms of sub-section (5) of
Section 6 of Amended Hindu Succession Act. That apart, in
terms of the provisions of Section 6A of the Karnataka
Amendment Act, 1994 to the Hindu Succession Act,
daughters married prior to the commencement of the
amendment were not entitled to a share in the joint family
property.
23. The entire discussion and reasoning assigned by
the Trial Court is based on the aforesaid premise. What the
Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have not noticed
and appreciated is that admittedly properties in
Sy.No.173/2B+1B+2A and Survey No.33/2 were the self-
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8811
HC-KAR
acquired properties of the Sangappa Chanabasappa
Buralatti and in the absence of any evidence with regard to
the said properties having been acquired from and out of
the joint family income or out of the joint family proceeds,
the same could not have been considered / held as forming
part of the joint family properties as sought to be done in
the instant case.
24. As already noted above, defendants have not
entered the witness box, no evidence is led on their behalf.
The plea of oral partition cannot be accepted as statutory
recognised mode of partition effected by deed of partition
duly registered unless and until, the plea is supported by
public document and partition evinced in same manner as
effected by a decree of Court (Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh
Sharma). Exs.P1 to P3, RTC extracts produced by the
plaintiffs in respect of the suit properties reflect the name of
their father till the date of filing of the suit and there is no
reference to any family arrangement or partition. Though,
the name of defendant No.3 is reflected in respect of
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8811
HC-KAR
Sy.Nos.33/2 and 34/1, the same cannot be read to hold
that there was a partition or the family arrangement as
contemplated under law.
25. The plaintiffs and defendant No.3 being the
daughters and defendants No.1 and 2 being the sons and
they forming part of class-I heirs would in normal
circumstances be entitled for equal shares in terms of
Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act in respect of the self
acquired properties.
26. The application of provisions of Section 6A of the
Karnataka Amendment Act by the trial Court and the First
Appellate Court was erroneous and uncalled for. The only
other property which is admittedly inherited by the
Sangappa Chanabasappa Buralatti is land in Survey
No.34/1 measuring 5 acres 3 guntas. In the absence of any
evidence with regard to there being a family partition which
is saved under sub-section (5) of Section 6 of the Hindu
Succession Act, the plaintiff and the defendants are entitled
for equal share even in the said property in terms of the law
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8811
HC-KAR
declared by the Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma
vs. Rakesh Sharma (supra). The substantial question of
law is answered accordingly.
27. The plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 3 are thus
held entitled for equal share in all the suit properties.
28. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed.
ii. Judgment and decree dated 25th July 2012,
passed in O.S. No.123/1998 by the Prl.
Senior Civil Judge, Athani and the
judgment and decree dated 1st September
2015, passed in R.A. No.263/2014 by the
VII-Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Belagavi sitting at Chikkodi are modified.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8811
HC-KAR
iii. Plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 3 are held
entitled for equal share in all the suit
properties.
iv. Draw decree accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE
VNP & SH / CT-ASC
