1. RFA No.161 of 2014 is filed by one Ravi, (not a
and decree dated 22.07.2013 passed in O.S. No. 2611
2. RFA No.101 of 2014 is filed by the defendant
22.07.2013 passed in O.S. No.2611 of 2010 on the file
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties in these
and ranking before the trial Court.
4. The brief facts leading to the suit, as averred in
defendant No.1. It is further stated in the plaint that,
defendants. It is also stated that the defendant No.1
nucleus. It is also stated that the defendants have
KIADB. It is also stated that, at the time of
5. After service of summons, defendant Nos. 3 and
4 remained absent. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 entered
contested the matter by filing written statement.
denying the averments made in the plaint. It is the
have no right in respect of the suit schedule property.
Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit.
6. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial
4. Whether the first defendant proves that the suit
schedule properties are her self acquired
properties and neither the plaintiff nor the other
defendants have any manner of right?
NC: 2025:KHC:42310
HC-KAR
5. Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief claimed in
the suit?
6. What order or decree?"
7. In support of their case, the plaintiff examined
herself as PW1 and marked 03 documents as Exhibits
P1 to P3. The defendants examined 03 witnesses as
DW1 to DW3 and marked 02 documents as Exhibits
D1 and D2.
8. The Trial Court, after appreciating the pleadings
and evidence on record, by its judgment and decree
dated 22.07.2013 decreed the suit of the plaintiff in
part, holding that, the plaintiff is entitled for 1/5th
share in suit schedule properties. Being aggrieved by
the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court,
the defendant No.1 has preferred RFA No.101 of 2014
and one Sri. Ravi, claims to be the son late
Puttaswamaiah and defendant No.1 and brother of the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42310
HC-KAR
plaintiff, has preferred RFA No. 161 of 2014, under
Section 96 of CPC.
9. I have heard Sri. Nataraj H.C., learned counsel
for the appellants and Sri. Prakash M.H., learned
counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.
10. Sri. Nataraja H.C., learned counsel for the
appellants contended that, since the suit schedule
properties are the self acquired properties of
defendant No.1 and as such, the Trial Court has
ignored the scope and ambit of Section 14 of the
Hindu Succession Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act')
and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. It
is also argued by the learned counsel for the
appellants by referring to the averments made in the
plaint, at paragraphs 3 and 4 that plaintiff has utterly
failed to establish that, the suit schedule properties
have been acquired by the defendant No.1 through
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42310
HC-KAR
the joint family income and that apart, the defendant
No.1 was working with one Kanaka Silk Mills as per
Ex.D1, and was drawing a salary of Rs.4,000/- per
month and therefore, submitted that the finding
recorded by the Trial Court requires to be set aside. It
is also argued by the learned counsel for the
appellants that, the defendant Nos.3 and 4 are same
parties before the Trial Court proceedings, and plaintiff
has not arraigned the appellant in RFA No.161 of 2014
(Sri. Ravi) as a party before the Trial Court and
therefore, the Trial Court has not properly appreciated
the material on record and as such, sought for
interference of this court.
11. Per contra, Sri M.H. Prakash, learned counsel for
the contesting respondents submits that the Trial
Court after considering the material on record as the
suit schedule properties have been acquired through
the joint family nucleus and that apart, the husband of
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42310
HC-KAR
the defendant No.1 and father of the plaintiff-
Puttaswamaiah was working as 'D' group employee in
the Government and having taken note of the entire
material on record, the Trial Court has decreed the
suit holding that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/5th share
in the suit schedule properties and the said finding
requires to be confirmed in these appeals.
12. In the light of the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, the points
for determination in the present appeals are as
follows:
i) Whether the defendant No.1 proved that the
suit schedule properties have been acquired
through her independent income?
ii) Whether the judgment and decree passed by
the Trial Court requires interference in these
appeals.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42310
HC-KAR
13. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties, I have perused the original records. In
order to understand the relationship between the
parties, the Genealogical Tree of the parties is
reproduced as follows:
PUTTASWAMY
W/O BHAGAYAMMA
SHOBHA JANAKI MAHADEVA RAVI
14. Perusal of the family tree would indicate that the
plaintiff, defendant No.2, defendant No.3, and Sri.
Ravi (appellant in RFA No.161 of 2014) are the
children of Puttaswamaiah and Bhagyamma
(Defendant No.1). Perusal of the records would
indicate that, the husband of the defendant No.1
Puttaswamaiah died on 07.02.2002 (Ex.D2). It is the
case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule properties
have been acquired through the joint family income,
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42310
HC-KAR
however, same was denied by the defendant No.1. In
the cause title before the Trial Court, the name of the
defendant Nos.3 and 4 are one and the same.
Appellant-Sri. Ravi in RFA No.161 of 2014 has not
been arraigned as party before the Trial Court,
however, the Trial Court after the considering the
examination-in-chief, particularly, paragraph 2 of DW1
and DW3, arrived at a conclusion that, the appellant in
RFA No.161 of 2014-Ravi, was son of the deceased
Puttaswamaiah and defendant No.1. It is also
forthcoming from the records that, the address of the
cause title of defendant No.1, defendant No.3 and the
appellant-Ravi in RFA No. 161 of 2014 are one and the
same, which fortifies the fact that, both defendant
No.3 and Sri. Ravi (appellant in RFA No.161 of 2014)
are residing along with defendant No.1. Perusal of the
evidence of the DW1, wherein the DW1 had
purchased, the schedule 'A' property as per the
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42310
HC-KAR
registered Sale Deed dated 13.10.2003 (Ex.P1), and
the Schedule 'B' property as per the registered Sale
Deed dated 28.01.2004 (Ex.P2). Evidence on record
would also indicate that Puttaswamaiah was working
as 'D' group employee in the Department of Survey
and had immovable properties and same was acquired
by KIADB. The compensation was released in respect
of the such acquisition and thereafter, distributed
between the family members of deceased
Puttaswamaiah and his brothers. DW1, has deposed in
paragraph 5 of the Cross-Examination that she was
working in Kanaka Silk Mills and was earning
Rs.4,000/- per month. However, the said aspect is not
reflected in the written statement as she was working
and earning Rs.4,000/- per month as stated in her
deposition. Except for paragraph 10 of the written
statement, wherein it is stated that the properties are
self-acquired, there is no material or explanation
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42310
HC-KAR
provided in the written statement as to the source of
income or means by which Defendant No.1 acquired
the suit schedule properties. However, in the
Examination-in-Chief DW1 further deposed that she
availed Rs. 5 lakhs from one Sri. Kempegowda, who is
father in law of defendant No.3. It is also to be noted
that defendant No.3, is a witness to the registered
Sale Deeds produced at Exhibit P1 and P2. It is also
not forthcoming from the records as to defendant No.1
has examined the employer to prove Exhibit D1
strangely it is to be noted that, no date is mentioned
in the Exhibit D1 as to ascertain the employment
details of DW1 (defendant No.1). It is also to be noted
that at the time of filing of the suit, age of defendant
No.1, was 56 years. Taking into consideration the
aforementioned aspects, on record fortifies that, the
defendant No.1 has failed to prove with regard to
income derived from her in employment or through
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42310
HC-KAR
any other source of income as to purchase the suit
schedule property as per Exhibits P1 and P2, and
therefore, I am of the view that, the Trial Court, after
appreciating the material on record, rightly arrived at
a conclusion with regard to the issue No.4, which
requires to be confirmed in these appeals. The Trial
Court also took into account the genealogy of the
parties and noted that Sri. Ravi (the appellant in RFA
No.161 of 2014) had been omitted from the array of
parties, however, considering the undisputed fact, as
stated in the written statement, regarding protecting
the interest of Sri. Ravi's share, the Trial Court
decreed the suit by holding that the plaintiff and
defendants Nos.1 to 3, along with Sri. Ravi, are
entitled for a one-fifth (1/5th) share each in the suit
schedule properties. It is well established principle in
law that, in a suit for partition and separate
possession, if the plaintiff had taken a plea that the
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42310
HC-KAR
suit schedule properties are the joint family properties
and on the other hand the defendants took up a
specific plea with regard to self acquisition, then it is
the duty of the defendants to prove that such self
acquisition is based on independent income of the
defendants and not through the joint family nucleus.
In that view of the matter, taking into consideration
the finding recorded by the Trial Court, I am of the
view that, the Trial Court has properly assessed the
material on record and rightly arrived at a conclusion
as to the fact that the defendant No.1 has no
independent income to purchase the suit schedule
properties and on the other hand, it is not disputed
that, the father of the plaintiff -Puttaswamaiah had
immovable properties and same were acquired by
KIADB and in furtherance of the same, the
compensation has been released in favour of
Puttaswamaiah and his family. Therefore, I am of the
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42310
HC-KAR
view that, the points for consideration referred to
above, favours the plaintiff and accordingly, the
appellants have not made out a case for interference
as to the finding recorded by the Trial Court. In the
result, the Regular First Appeals are dismissed.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SB
