[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt Janaki vs Paniraja Hebbar on 12 January, 2026
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:1639
RSA No. 309 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 309 OF 2023 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. JANAKI
D/O LATE NARAYANA HEBBAR
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
R/AT THEKKATTE VILLAGE AND POST,
KUNDAPURA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICTT-576 231.
2. SMT. GANGA BHAGEERATHI
D/O LATE NARAYANA HEBBAR
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
R/AT THEKKATTE VILLAGE AND POST,
KUNDAPURA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICTT-576 231.
3. SMT. K NAGARATHNA
D/O LATE NARAYANA HEBBAR
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT THEKKATTE VILLAGE AND POST,
KUNDAPURA TALUK
Digitally signed
by ANUSHA V UDUPI DISTRICTT-576 231.
...APPELLANTS
Location: High
Court of [BY SRI SHIVARAMA BHAT O., ADVOCATE (PH)]
Karnataka
AND:
1. PANIRAJA HEBBAR
S/O LATE NARAYANA HEBBAR
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
2. KRISHNA HEBBAR
S/O LATE NARAYANA HEBBAR
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
3. BHARATHI
W/O LATE VAIDRAJ HEBBAR
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:1639
RSA No. 309 of 2023
HC-KAR
4. ARJUN
S/O LATE VAIDRAJ HEBBAR
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
5. VIBHAS
S/O LATE VAIDRAJ HEBBAR
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5 ARE
R/AT THEKKATTE VILLAGE AND POST,
KUNDAPURA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICTT-576 231.
6. GOPAL POOJARY
S/O BASAVA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT THEKKATTE VILLAGE AND POST,
KUNDAPURA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICTT-576 231.
7. SMT. LEELAMMA
W/O LATE SHANKARANARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
R/AT KOME THEKKATTE VILLAGE ,
KUNDAPURA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICTT-576 231.
8. CHANDRASHEKAR HOLLA
S/O LAXMINARAYANA HOLLA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT KADPADI, GUJJADI VILLAGE,
KUNDAPURA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT-576 231.
9. SHANKAR MOGAVEERA
S/O SIDDE HENGSU
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT KOME, THEKKATTE VILLAGE
KUNDAPURA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICTT - 576 231.
10. SMT RADHA
W/O NARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:1639
RSA No. 309 of 2023
HC-KAR
R/AT KOME THEKKATTE VILLAGE
KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 231.
11. KARIYA MARAKALA
S/O GANAPA MARAKALA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
12. SANJEEVA MARAKALA
S/O BABU MARAKALA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
13. MUTHA MOGERA
S/O NARAYANA MOGERA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.11 TO 13 ARE
R/AT KOME THEKKATTE VILLAGE
KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT-576 231.
14. DWARAKANATH VAIDHYA
S/O VENKAPPA VAIDHYA
AGED ABOUT 79 YEAS,
R/AT KOME THEKKATTE VILLAGE
KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT-576231.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.11.2022 PASSED IN
RA.NO.7/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
KUNDAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.11.2016 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.84/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, KUNDAPUR.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:1639
RSA No. 309 of 2023
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and decree dated 02.11.2022
passed by Senior Civil Judge, Kundapura, in R.A.no.7/2017 and
judgment and decree dated 08.11.2016 by Principal Civil Judge
and JMFC, Kundapur, in O.S.no.84/2009, this second appeal is
filed.
2. Sri Shivarama Bhat O., learned counsel for
appellants submitted that appeal was by plaintiffs in
O.S.no.84/2009 filed for partition and separate possession of
suit 'A' Schedule Properties. In plaint, it was stated that
plaintiffs and defendants no.1 to 7 were governed by Hindu
Mithakshara Law of inheritance and that 'A' Schedule Properties
were ancestral joint family properties belonging to Narayana
Hebbar - Propositus. It was stated that Narayana Hebbar
through his wife - Seethamma had 4 sons and 3 daughters. In
October 1986, Narayana Hebbar died. On his death, 'A'
Schedule Properties held by Narayana Hebbar were required to
be divided into 8 shares i.e., his wife and 4 sons and 3
daughters. It was stated that though they had demanded
partition, defendants' brothers kept on postponing same.
NC: 2026:KHC:1639
HC-KAR
Ultimately, plaintiffs came to know that by a registered
partition deed on 04.11.1986, properties were partitioned
between Seethamma and his sons only leaving plaintiffs -
daughters. Immediately on realising same, suit was filed.
3. On appearance, written statement was filed
admitting Narayana Hebbar as Propositus and properties held
by him being ancestral joint family properties. It was however
stated that partition had already taken place on 04.11.1986
under a registered deed of partition and same was prior to
amendment to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 by
Amended Act, 2005 and cut-off date mentioned in proviso to
Section 6 i.e. 20.12.2004 and therefore, plaintiffs did not have
any right. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed rejoinder.
4. Based on pleadings, trial Court framed following:
ISSUES
1) Whether the plaintiffs proves that the
suit 'A' schedule properties are joint
family properties of plaintiffs and
defendants No.1 to7?
2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the
partition deed dated 04-11-986 is not
binding upon them?
3) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the
alienation in respect of item No.9 to
NC: 2026:KHC:1639
HC-KAR
18 in favour of defendants No.8 to 16
as stated in para 4 of the plaint is not
binding upon them?
4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for
3/8th share in the suit schedule
properties?
5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for
3/8th share out of the income from the
'A' schedule properties?
6) What order or decree?
ADDITIONAL ISSUE FRAMED ON 08-08-2012:
1) Whether the defendant No.10 proves
the Will dated 05-06-2008 said to be
executed by late Smt.Manjula Hebbar
in favour of Mr.Chandrashekar Holla?
5. On behalf of plaintiffs, plaintiff no.1 was examined
as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits-P1 to P29. While on behalf of
defendants, defendant no.10 along with 4 others were
examined as DW.1 to DW.5, but no documents were marked.
6. On consideration, trial Court answered issues no.1
to 5 and additional issue no.1 in negative and issue no.6 by
dismissing suit. Aggrieved, plaintiffs' preferred R.A.no.7/2017
on various grounds. Based on which, first appellate Court
framed following points for its consideration:
NC: 2026:KHC:1639
HC-KAR
1) Whether the plaintiff proved that they
are in joint possession of A suit
schedule properties?
2) Whether the plaintiff proved that the
partition deed and various sale deed
right from 1987 and till 2008 effected
amongst the defendant No.12 to 16
deed are not binding on them?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the
relief which they sought in the
plaintiffs?
4) Whether suit is hit by point of
limitation?
5) Whether impugned judgment of trial
Court is required to be set aside or
calls for any interference?
6) If so what order?
7. On consideration, it answered points no.1 to 3 and
5 in negative; point no.4 in affirmative and point no.6 by
dismissing appeal. Against concurrent findings, this second
appeal was filed.
8. It was submitted, trial Court dismissed suit mainly
on two grounds. Firstly, Propositus -Narayana Hebbar had died
prior to coming into force of Amendment to Section 6 of Hindu
Succession Act in year 2005 and secondly on ground that there
was prior partition under a registered deed which was saved by
NC: 2026:KHC:1639
HC-KAR
proviso to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act. It was submitted,
said findings were contrary to ratio laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh
Sharma, reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1. Even dismissal of
appeal on ground of limitation was also contrary to law and
therefore following substantial question of law arose for
consideration.
"Whether impugned judgments were
contrary to Section 6 of Amended Hindu
Succession Act and ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vineeta
Sharma's case?"
9. Heard learned counsel for appellants and perused
impugned judgment and decree.
10. From above, it is seen, there is no dispute between
parties about relationship and nature of Suit Properties.
Plaintiffs' suit for partition was opposed mainly on two grounds.
One of them was prior partition. At para 60 of decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma's case held:
"60. The amended provisions of Section 6(1)
provide that on and from the commencement of
the Amendment Act, the daughter is conferred
NC: 2026:KHC:1639
HC-KAR
the right. Section 6(1)(a) makes daughter by
birth a coparcener "in her own right" and "in the
same manner as the son". Section 6(1)(a)
contains the concept of the unobstructed
heritage of Mitakshara coparcenary, which is by
virtue of birth. Section 6(1)(b) confers the same
rights in the coparcenary property "as she would
have had if she had been a son". The conferral
of right is by birth, and the rights are given in
the same manner with incidents of coparcenary
as that of a son and she is treated as a
coparcener in the same manner with the same
rights as if she had been a son at the time of
birth. Though the rights can be claimed, w.e.f.
9-9-2005, the provisions are of retroactive
application; they confer benefits based on the
antecedent event, and the Mitakshara
coparcenary law shall be deemed to include a
reference to a daughter as a coparcener. At the
same time, the legislature has provided
savings by adding a proviso that any
disposition or alienation, if there be any
testamentary disposition of the property or
partition which has taken place before 20-
12-2004, the date on which the Bill was
presented in the Rajya Sabha, shall not be
invalidated."
(emphasis supplied).
11. Further, in para 134 it held:
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1639
HC-KAR
"134. The protection of rights of daughters as
coparcener is envisaged in the substituted
Section 6 of the 1956 Act recognises the
partition brought about by a decree of a court or
effected by a registered instrument. The
partition so effected before 20-12-2004 is
saved."
12. Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly stated that right
given to daughters as coparceners envisaged under
amendment to Section 6 of Hindu Success Act, 1956, would not
invalidate any partition brought about by a decree of Court or
effected by a registered instrument, prior to 20.12.2004. In
instant case, admittedly there is registered partition on
04.11.1986, which is prior to cut-off date. Both Courts have
concurrently and rightly decided effect of said proviso. In view
of above, no substantial question of law arises for
consideration. Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
GRD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40
