Karnataka High Court
Mr S Ravi Kumar vs Sri R Sambhasivan on 25 November, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48709
RFA No. 283 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 283 OF 2024 (PAR/DEC)
BETWEEN:
MR.S. RAVI KUMAR,
S/O LATE B.R.SHIVAPRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/A NO. 46, 9TH CROSS,
MAGADI ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 023.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. AMSHITH HEGDE H.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. R. SAMBHASIVAN,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
Digitally
signed by
NAGAVENI 1. S. ARUNAGIRI,
Location: AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
High Court of
Karnataka S/O LATE R.SAMBHASIVAN,
R/A NO. 12/52-31 (1ST FLOOR),
2ND CROSS, 6TH BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 010.
2. S. MUTHUKUMAR,
S/O LATE R. SAMBHASIVAM,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/A NO. 47, 9TH CROSS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48709
RFA No. 283 of 2024
HC-KAR
MAGADI ROAD,
BENGALURU - 23.
3. SMT.S. SHANBAGAVALLI,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
W/O J. ASHOK,
S/O LATE R. SAMBHASIVAN,
R/A NO. 483, 2ND STAGE,
RHCS LAYOUT, NARASAPURA,
60 FEET ROAD, SRIGANDHADA KAVAL,
BENGALURU - 91.
4. SRI.R. KARUNAKARAN,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
S/O LATE T.V. RAJU.
5. SRI.R. SRINIVASAN,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
S/O LATE T.V. RAJU.
SMT. RANGANAYAKAMMA,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
W/O LATE T.V. RAJU,
6. SMT. R. JAYALAKSHMI,
W/O K. JAYAKUMAR,
D/O LATE T.V. RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NOS.4, 6 AND 7 ARE
REPRESENTED BY PA HOLDER
R.SRINIVASAN (RESPONDENT NO.5)
R/A ETA STAR, THE GARDEN APARTMENTS,
FLAT NO. 1001, 10TH FLOOR,
'B' TOWER, NO. 09,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:48709
RFA No. 283 of 2024
HC-KAR
K.P.AGRAHARA, MAGADI ROAD,
NEAR BINNY MILL CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 560 023.
7. SMT.R. SARASWATHI,
W/O P.T. RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/A DOOR NO. 1/6,
GANIGARA STREET,
ARASIKERE,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 103.
SRI.R. PARAMESHWARAN
SINCE DEAD BY LRs,
8. SMT.HEMAVATHI,
W/O LATE R. PARAMESHWARAN,
AGED ABOUT 95 YEARS.
9. SMT.R.P.RAJESHWARI
D/O LATE R.PARAMESHWARAN,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
W/O KOTEESWARAN.
10. SRI. P. GANESHA SUNDAR,
S/O LATE R. PARAMESHWARAN,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
11. SRI. P. SHANMUGA SUNDAR,
S/O LATE R. PARAMESHWARAN,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
12. SRI. R. KUMAR SUNDAR,
S/O LATE R. PARAMESHWARAN,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:48709
RFA No. 283 of 2024
HC-KAR
RESPONDENT NOS.8 TO 12 ARE
R/A NO. 573/594,
SREE MEENAKSHI NILAYAM,
11TH 'A' CROSS, II PHASE,
GIRINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 085.
SRI. B.R.SHIVAPRAKASH,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS,
MRS.DANAKOTI @ DINAMANIAMMAL,
W/O LATE B.R. SHIVAPRAKASH,
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS.
13. MRS. S. SHANTHA KUMARI,
D/O LATE B.R. SHIVAPRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.
14. MR. S. SAI KUMAR
S/O LATE B.R. SHIVAPRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NOS.13 AND 14 ARE
R/A NO. 46, 9TH CROSS,
MAGADI ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 085.
APPELLANT, RESPONDENT NO.13 AND 14 ARE THE
LRs OF MRS.DANAKOTI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY K., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R7
(R4, R6, R7 ARE REPRESENTED BY R5);
SRI. H.N. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R14;
NOTICE TO R8 TO R12 ARE DISPENSED WITH VIDE
ORDER DATED 25.11.2025)
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:48709
RFA No. 283 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS RFA IS FILED U/S. 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.11.2023 PASSED IN FDP
NO. 161/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XLI ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal by the defendant No.2(b) in FDP
No.161/2014 (O.S.No.1527/1988) is directed against the
impugned order dated 04.11.2023 whereby the Final
Decree Court declared that defendant No.2(d)-Mr.S.Sai
Kumar was legatee under the WILL dated 29.11.2014
alleged to be executed by defendant No.2(a)-Mrs.Danakoti
@ Dinamaniammal in his favour.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record.
NC: 2025:KHC:48709
HC-KAR
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate
that the original plaintiffs who are respondent Nos.1 to 7
herein instituted a suit in O.S.No.1527/1988 against
Mr.B.R.Shivaprakash the original defendant No.2 and
others for partition and separate possession of their
alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties
and for other reliefs. The suit schedule properties
comprised of four items of immovable properties described
as Schedule 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D' to the plaint. By judgment
and decree dated 01.07.2014, the Trial Court declared
that the plaintiff and legal representatives of defendant
Nos.1 and 2 were entitled to partition and separate
possession of their 1/7th share in the suit schedule
properties including property sold in favour of T.V.Raju
Mudaliar by defendant No.2. The said preliminary decree
had attained finality and became conclusive and binding
upon the parties.
4. In pursuance of the aforesaid preliminary
decree passed in O.S.No.1527/1988, the respondent Nos.1
NC: 2025:KHC:48709
HC-KAR
to 7/plaintiffs instituted the instant Final Decree
Proceedings in FDP No.161/2014. In the said Final Decree
Proceedings, the original defendant No.2
Sri.B.K.Shivaprakash's wife, Mrs.Danakoti @
Dinamaniammal was arrayed as the defendant No.2(a)
while their children were arrayed as defendant Nos.2(b),
2(c) and 2(d). During the pendency of the Final Decree
Proceedings, the aforesaid defendant No.2(d) Mr.S.Sai
Kumar propounded an alleged WILL dated 29.11.2014
inter alia contending that Mrs.Danakoti @ Dinamaniammal
had bequeathed her undivided share in the suit schedule
property in his favour and as such, the preliminary decree
deserves to be modified and the Final Decree is to be
drawn up in terms of the modified preliminary decree by
taking into account the alleged WILL said to have been
executed by Mrs.Danakoti @ Dinamaniammal in favour of
defendant No.2(d) as contended by him. The legality,
validity and correctness of the aforesaid alleged WILL was
denied and disputed by the remaining parties, as a result
NC: 2025:KHC:48709
HC-KAR
of which the Trial Court framed the following issues for
consideration:
"(1) Whether the respondent No.2(d) has
made out grounds to allow the application filed
under Section 151 of C.P.C.?
(2) Whether the respondent No.2(d) has
proved the Will executed by respondent No.2(a)
namely Dhanakoti in his favour?
(3) Whether the respondent No.2(d) is
entitled for the share of respondent No.2(a)?
(4) What order?"
After permitting all parties to adduce oral and
documentary evidence, the Trial Court answered all the
points formulated above in favour of defendant No.2(d)
i.e., Mr.S.Sai Kumar by upholding the WILL propounded by
him and consequently passed the impugned order as
hereunder:
"O R D E R
The respondent No.2(d) is entitled to 2/21st
share in 'A', 'B' and 'C' schedule properties and 2/3rd
share in 'D' schedule property.
Similarly, the respondent No.2(b) is entitled to
st
1/21 share in 'A', 'B' and 'C' schedule properties
and 1/3rd share in 'D' schedule property.
NC: 2025:KHC:48709
HC-KAR
Accordingly the office is directed to draw
preliminary decree in terms of the above order."
5. Aggrieved by the impugned order upholding the
alleged WILL dated 29.11.2014, defendant No.2(b)-Mr.S.
Ravi Kumar is before this Court by way of the present
appeal.
6. Learned counsel appearing for defendant
No.2(d) who is arrayed as respondent No.14 in the present
appeal, has filed a Memo inter alia stating that respondent
No.14 (defendant No.2(d)-Mr.S.Sai Kumar) does not claim
the benefit under the registered WILL dated 29.11.2014
alleged to have been executed by his mother
Mrs.Danakoti @ Dinamaniammal and that her share may
be allotted equally between the appellant and defendant
No.2(d)-Mr.S.Sai Kumar . The said Memo reads as under:
"The Respondent No.14 does not claim the benefit
under the Registered will dated 29-11-2014
executed by his mother Smt. Dhanakoti. In the
circumstances it is prayed that the share of Smt.
Dhanakoti may be allotted equally between the
Appellant and this respondent."
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48709
HC-KAR
Respondent No.14 filed one more Memo to the effect that
defendant No.2(c)-Mrs.S.Shantha Kumari died as a
spinster/unmarried leaving behind defendant No.2(b)-
Mr.S.Ravi Kumar and defendant No.2(d)-Mr.S.Sai Kumar
as her only heirs and legal representatives. The said Memo
reads as under:
"The Respondent No.14 is hereby producing the
death certificate of Smt. Shanthakumari who
expired as spinster on 17-12-2014 and her name is
shown as Respondent No.13 in this appeal."
The aforesaid facts and circumstances and the memos
filed on behalf of defendant No.2(d)-Mr.S.Sai Kumar
(respondent No.14) will indicate that he has given up his
claim over the undivided share of his mother
Mrs.Danakoti @ Dinamaniammal and as well as his claim
under the alleged WILL dated 29.11.2014. It is also
relevant to state that it is an undisputed fact that the
defendant No.2(c)-Mrs.S.Shantha Kumari died as
spinster/unmarried leaving behind defendant No.2(b)-
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48709
HC-KAR
Mr.S.Ravikumar and defendant No.2(d)-Mr.S.Sai Kumar as
her only heirs and legal representatives. It follows
therefrom that in the absence of any WILL executed by
Mrs.Danakoti @ Dinamaniammal and upon defendant
No.2(c)-Mrs.S.Shantha Kumari having died intestate, their
undivided share would devolve upon defendant No.2(b)-
Mr.S.Ravi Kumar and defendant No.2(d)-Mr.S.Sai Kumar
and apart from them, no one else would have any right
over the undivided share of Mrs.Danakoti @
Dinamaniammal and defendant No.2(c)-Mrs.S.Shantha
Kumari.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the
impugned order passed by the Trial Court deserves to be
set aside and the trial Court before whom FDP
No.161/2014 is pending, is to be directed to pass a final
decree by allotting the undivided share of Mrs.Danakoti @
Dinamaniammal as well as the undivided share of
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48709
HC-KAR
defendant No.2(c)-Mrs.S.Shantha Kumari equally to
defendant No.2(b)-Mr.S.Ravi Kumar and defendant
No.2(d)-Mr.S.Sai Kumar by passing final decree
accordingly.
8. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
[i] Appeal is hereby allowed.
[ii] Impugned order dated 04.11.2023 passed in
FDP No.161/2014 passed by XLI Addl. City Civil
Judge and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby set
aside.
[iii] It is hereby declared that the appellant
(defendant No.2(b)-Mr.S.Ravi Kumar) and defendant
No.2(d)-Mr.S.Sai Kumar would be entitled to both
the undivided share of Mrs.Danakoti @
Dinamaniammal as well as the undivided share of
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:48709
HC-KAR
defendant No.2(c)-Mrs.S.Shantha Kumari in the suit
schedule property.
[iv] The Trial Court is directed to proceed further
and conclude the Final Decree Proceedings and draw
final decree by allotting the undivided share of
Mrs.Danakoti @ Dinamaniammal and undivided share
of defendant No.2(c)-Mrs.S.Shantha Kumari in favour
of both defendant No.2(b)-Mr.S.Ravi Kumar and
defendant No.2(d)-Mr.S.Sai Kumar, as expeditiously
as possible.
[v] The Trial Court is directed to conclude the final
decree proceedings within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
CBC
