Ranganatha R vs Praveen Kumar T M
2025 Latest Caselaw 10452 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Ranganatha R vs Praveen Kumar T M on 20 November, 2025

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

                        PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

                           AND

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

      REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2147 OF 2024 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

RANGANATHA R.
S/O RANGANATHA R
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/O DOOR NO.35,
CHANNEL LEFT SIDE,
6TH CROSS, HOSMANE,
SHIVAMOGGA 577 201.
                                          ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI. LEELESH KRISHNA, ADV.,)

AND:

1.    PRAVEEN KUMAR T M
      S/O MADANNA B
      AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
      OCC. EMPLOYEE PRIVATE BANK,
      RESIDING AT SIDDARTHA HOUSE,
      KAVYA DC BANGLOW STREET,
      SIRA GATE, TUMKUR 572 106.

2.    RAJU G R
      S/O G RANGANATH
      AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
      RESIDING AT RENUKA NILAYA,
      KUVEMPU ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA 577201.
      (MENTALLY UNSOUND PERSON)
      REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND
      B. MADANNA
                              2




     S/O LATE BHARMAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT SIDDARTHA HOUSE,
     "KAVYA",
     D.C. BANGLOW DOWN STREET,
     SIRA GATE, TUMAKUR 572 106.

3.   SHANKARA H T
     S/O H S THIPPANNA,
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
     EMPLOYEE IN FOOT WEAT SHOP,
     RESIDING AT NO.6,
     6TH CROSS,
     MADDURAMMA LAYOUT,
     SUNKADAKATTE,
     VISHWA NIDAM, BANGALORE NORTH 560 091.

4.   KAVYASHRI T M
     W/O NANDISH E
     D/O MADANNA
     AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT SIDDARTHA HOUSE,
     KAVYA, DC BANGALOW DOWN STREET,
     SIRA GATE, TUMKUR 572 106.
                                              ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANAPATHI C.V., ADV. FOR R1 TO R4)

     THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER
41 RULE 1 OF THE CPC, 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 27.09.2023 PASSED IN OS.NO.100/2020 ON THE
FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, SHIVAMOGGA,
PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE
POSSESSION.

      THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT     ON   12.11.2025  AND  COMING   ON   FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM:   HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
         and
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
                              3




                      CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

This Regular First Appeal is filed challenging the

judgment 27.09.2023 passed by the Principal Senior Civil

Judge and CJM, Shivamogga in Original Suit No.100/2020.

2. We have heard Shri. Leelesh Krishna, learned

counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri. Ganapathi C.V,

learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 4.

3. The suit was filed by respondent No.1 herein

seeking partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share in

the suit schedule properties. The plaint averments were that

Late Yallamma w/o Late G. Ranganath was a grandmother of

the plaintiff. She had three children, namely, G.R Manjula,

G.R. Raju and G.R. Pushpa. The plaintiff is the son of G.R.

Pushpa.

4. It was contended that the suit schedule property

was the self-acquired property of Yallamma. The plaintiff's

mother G.R. Pushpa and aunt - G.R. Manjula had passed

away. Since, Yallamma died on 09.08.2008 and G.R. Pushpa

died on 27.09.2009, leaving behind the plaintiff and

defendant No.3 as her only legal representatives, it was

contended that G.R. Pushpa being the daughter of Yallamma

was entitled to 1/3rd share in the property which would

devolve on the plaintiff and defendant No.3.

5. The appellant herein who was respondent No.4 in

the suit had filed a written statement admitting that

Yallamma was the grandmother of the plaintiff and that

Yallamma's daughter G.R Manjula and G.R. Pushpa are no

more and that G.R. Raju is a mentally unsound person. It is

further stated that G. Ranganath had purchased the suit

schedule property in the name of his late wife Yallamma on

16.12.1977 and that G. Ranganath had executed a will in

favour of G.R Manjula, his elder daughter. It was further

contended that G.R Manjula, in turn, had executed a Will in

favour of the appellant herein and that she died on

31.05.2020 and that the defendant had succeeded to the

entire property on the strength of the will of G. Ranganath in

favour of G.R Manjula and of G.R Manjula in favour of the

appellant.

6. The trial Court framed the following issues on the

basis of the rival pleadings of the parties:-

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule property is the self acquired property of Yallamma i.e. the grand mother of the plaintiff, as such it is the joint family property?

2. Whether the defendant no.4 proves that late G. Ranganth i.e.. the husband of Smt. Yallamma executed registered Will bearing document No.533/16-17 dated: 01-12-2016 of the suit schedule property in favour of his daughter Manjula?

3. Whether the defendant no.4 proves that Manjula executed Will in his favour dated:06-

04-2020 bequeathing the suit schedule property to the defendant no.4?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property as sought for?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for?"

7. The trial Court, after considering the pleadings

and evidence on record found that the suit schedule

property was purchased in the name of Yallamma. It was

further found that since Yallamma died intestate, G.

Ranganath would have succeeded only to 1/4th interest in

the property and even if his Will were to be proved, it will

not give G.R Manjula, the right over the entire property.

8. Further, the trial Court went on to hold at

paragraph No.24, as follows:-

"24. Therefore, whatever may be the length of oral evidence or whatever may the documents produced on behalf of defendant No.4, as per Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act, the husband of late. Yallamma has no exclusive right over the suit schedule property and it will not devolve only upon him on the death of his wife. The sons and daughters are also equally entitled. Such being the case, when the late. Ranganath G himself had no right to execute a Will in respect of suit property, the will executed by him in favour of his daughter Manjula has no legal sanctity in the eye of law. Under such circumstances any Will executed by Smt. Manjula in favour of defendant No.4 has also no legal sanctity in the eye of law. Hence, defendant No.4 cannot claim any right over the suit schedule property is the self acquired property of late Yallamma and as she died intestate it is the joint family property of plaintiff, defendant No.1 and

3. For the above said reasons and discussions, I answer Issue No.1 in the affirmative and Issue No.2 and 3 in the negative."

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant

submits that the said finding was completely untenable. It is

stated that admittedly G.R Manjula was the daughter of

Yallamma, she is also entitled to a share in the property. So

also, G. Ranganath, who is the husband of Yallamma would

also be entitled to 1/4th share. Since Yallamma had died

intestate, even if it is found that the property was purchased

in the name of Yallamma; G. Ranganath and G. R. Manjula

would be entitled to 1/4th share each in the property. Had

the Will of G. Ranganath been proved, G. R. Manjula would

become the owner of 1/2 share in the property. However,

we notice that the Will of G.R. Manjula had not been

produced or proved before the trial Court. However, the Will

of G.R. Manjula was produced and proved by examining two

attesting witnesses. If that be so, the finding of the trial

Court that G.R. Manjula could not have executed a Will in

favour of the appellant and that the Will executed by

G.R.Manjula in favour of defendant No.4 also has no legal

sanctity in the eye of law is an incorrect statement. G.R.

Manjula being a co-owner of the property, who was

admittedly entitled to 1/3rd share even if the Will of G.

Ranganath is not considered, could have bequeathed her

share to the appellant herein, who was defendant No.4

before the trial Court.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the

respondents submits that the suit has been decreed only by

allotting 1/3rd share to the plaintiff and therefore the

appellant is not aggrieved by the decree. However, we are of

the opinion that since the trial Court has clearly held that

the appellant's claim on the basis of G.R Manjula's Will

cannot be considered at all, the appellant is aggrieved to

that extent and the appeal is maintainable.

11. Having considered the contentions advanced and

in the light of what is stated above, we are of the opinion

that the appellant is entitled to succeed in the appeal to the

limited extent of getting the observations made in paragraph

No.24 of the trial Court judgment, vacated.

12. In the result:-

      (i)     The appeal is allowed in part.

      (ii)    The observation made in paragraph No.24

of the Judgment dated 27.09.2023 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Shivamogga in Original Suit No.100/2020, is vacated.

(iii) The appellant is also held entitled to 1/3rd share in the property in view of the fact that the Will of G. R. Manjula stands duly proved before the trial Court.

(iv) The decree is modified accordingly granting 1/3rd right in the suit schedule property to the appellant as well.

There will be no order as to costs.

All pending interlocutory applications shall stand

disposed of.

Sd/-

(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

Sd/-

(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE cp*