[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Rajshekar vs Shantavva on 12 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3993
RSA No. 100471 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100471 OF 2015 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
RAJSHEKAR
A/F VEERUPAXAPPA HARAKUNI,
AGED 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MUTTALI, TALUK: SHIGGAON-581205,
DIST: HAVERI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K.H. BAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SHANTAVVA
W/O. BASAPPA BALIKAYI,
AGED 66 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: MATTIGATTI,
TALUK: KUNDGOL-581113,
Digitally signed
by SAROJA
DHARWAD DISTRICT.
HANGARAKI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA, 2. SMT. DRAXAYANAVVA
DHARWAD
BENCH W/O. MALAKAJAGOUDA PATIL,
AGED 61 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: DYAVANUR,
TALUK: KUNDGOL-581113,
DHARWAD DISTRICT.
3. SMT. SHOBHA
W/O. SAHADEVAPPA KAMANAHALLI,
AGED 40 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: MUGALI,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3993
RSA No. 100471 of 2015
HC-KAR
TALUK: SHIGGAON-581205,
HAVERI DISTRICT.
4. YALLAPPA
S/O. NAGAPPA HUBBALLI,
AGED 34 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MUTTALI,
TALUK: SHIGGAON-581205,
HAVERI DISTRICT.
5. BASAPPA
S/O. NAGAPPA HUBBALLI,
AGED 32 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MUTTALI,
TALUK: SHIGGAON-581205,
HAVERI DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
NOTICE TO R3, R4 & R5 IS SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING
TO CALL FOR RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC SHIGGAON O.S.NO.90/2009; SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, HAVERI R.A.NO.57/2014 DATED 19.02.2015 AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE
CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,
SHIGGAON IN O.S.NO.90/2009 DATED 21.06.2014 BY
ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3993
RSA No. 100471 of 2015
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Even though the case is posted for admission, with the
consent of both sides, heard arguments.
2. This appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure
Code, 1908 challenging the judgment and decree dated
19.02.2015 passed in R.A. No.57/2014 on the file of the
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Haveri (for short 'the First
Appellate Court'), confirming the judgment and decree dated
21.06.2014 passed in O.S. No.90/2009 on the file of the Civil
Judge and JMFC, Shiggaon (for short 'the trial Court').
3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties are
referred by their ranks as they were before the Trial Court.
4. The plaintiffs have filed the suit before Trial Court seeking
partition and separate possession of their share in the suit
schedule properties by metes and bounds.
5. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule
properties are ancestral properties, and the plaintiffs, being the
daughters of deceased Virupakshappa, are entitled to share in
the same. Plaintiffs further contended that defendant No.1 is
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3993
HC-KAR
the adopted son of their father and defendant No.2 is their
sister.
6. After service of summons, defendants appeared through
their counsel; defendant No.1 filed his written statement, which
is adopted by defendant No.2. In the written statement,
defendant No.1 contended that he is the adopted son of
Virupakshappa and that the adoption took place on 21.12.1987
as per the customs prevailing in their community; the adoption
deed was also registered before the Sub-Registrar, Shiggaon;
the suit schedule properties were the self-acquired properties
of his adopted father. It is also contended that at the time of
the plaintiffs' marriage, gold and utensils were given to them,
and therefore they are not entitled to any share in the suit
schedule properties. It is further contended that the plaintiffs
had executed Kabuli Patra relinquishing their rights in the suit
schedule properties. Hence, defendant No.1 prayed for
dismissal of the suit with costs.
7. Based on these pleadings, the Trial Court framed the
following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit
schedule properties are the joint family and
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3993
HC-KAR
ancestral properties of plaintiffs and
defendants and they are in joint possession?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for shares in
the suit schedule properties?
3. Whether the defendants prove that the
plaintiffs have received their shares in the
Gold and Cash?
4. What order or decree?
8. During pendency of the suit, defendant No.2 died and her
legal representatives were brought on record. After framing the
issues, recording evidence, and hearing the arguments, the
Trial Court came to the conclusion that the suit schedule
properties are ancestral and joint family properties of the
plaintiffs and defendants, and that they were in joint
possession and enjoyment. Accordingly, the Trial Court held
that the plaintiffs are entitled to half share in the suit schedule
properties by metes and bounds, and decreed the suit.
9. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant
No.1 and the legal representatives of defendant No.2 filed an
appeal which was registered as R.A. No.57/2014. After hearing
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3993
HC-KAR
both sides, the said appeal was dismissed confirming the
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.
10. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Trial Court
and the First Appellate Court, the appellant/defendant No.1 has
filed the present appeal.
11. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant
Sri K.H. Bhagi and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 Sri
Lakshman T. Mantagani. After service of notice of the appeal,
respondent Nos.3 to 5 (LRs of defendant No.2) remain
unrepresented.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
plaintiffs have not stepped into the witness box and only the
GPA holder was examined as PW-1, who has no personal
knowledge of the family affairs and therefore his evidence
cannot be relied upon.
13. The learned counsel further submits that the plaintiffs
had executed a consent deed and relinquished their rights in
the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant No.1 during
lifetime of their father and had taken gold and other utensils in
lieu of their share. Therefore, according to the appellant, a
partition had already taken place among the plaintiffs,
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3993
HC-KAR
defendant No.1, defendant No.2, and their father during his
lifetime, and hence the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share.
14. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and
2 Sri Lakshman T. Mantagani would submit that the original
propositus-Virupakshappa died on 06.05.1991, leaving behind
plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.2 as his daughters and
defendant No.1 as his adopted son.
15. He further submits that even if the contention of
defendant No.1 that the suit schedule properties were the self-
acquired properties of their father is accepted, the plaintiffs are
still entitled to equal share along with defendant No.1 and
defendant No.2.
16. It is also submitted that the plaintiffs are not disputing
the adoption deed and the fact that defendant No.1 is the
adopted son of their father. Defendant No.2 is the natural
mother of defendant No.1. Hence, considering these aspects,
the Trial Court has rightly decreed the suit.
17. On perusal of the judgments of the Trial Court and the
First Appellate Court and the appeal papers, the following facts
are admitted by both sides.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3993
HC-KAR
18. Plaintiffs and defendant No.2 are the daughters of
Virupakshappa. Since he had no male issues, he adopted
defendant No.1 on 21.12.1987, and the adoption deed was also
registered. Defendant No.2 is the natural mother of defendant
No.1.
19. There is no dispute that the suit schedule properties,
namely Southern side of Sy.No.68/2B measuring 3 acres 20
guntas, Southern side of Sy.No.136/1B measuring 1 acre 19
guntas, Southern side of Sy.No.325 measuring 3 acres 6
guntas, Southern side of Sy.No.324 measuring 2 acres 25
guntas were in possession and enjoyment of the father of the
plaintiffs and defendants. It is the contention of defendant No.1
that these were self-acquired properties of his father. However,
no sale deed or other document has been produced to establish
that they were self-acquired properties.
20. On the other hand, the documents produced in the case
establish that these properties were ancestral properties of
Virupakshappa, wherein he was in possession of the southern
portion and his brother's wife was in possession of the northern
portion.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3993
HC-KAR
21. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vineeta
Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma, reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1,
the coparcener need not be alive as on the date of
commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act,
2005, and the daughters of the deceased coparcener cannot be
denied their share in the coparcenary property.
22. In paragraphs 55 and 56 of the said judgment, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the provisions contained
in Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, as amended by the
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, confer the status of
coparcener on the daughter in the same manner as son, and
the daughter shall by birth become coparcener with the same
rights and liabilities as that of son. It is further held that it is
not necessary that the father-coparcener should be alive on the
date of commencement of the Amendment Act, 2005.
23. In view of the principles laid down in the aforesaid
judgment, the daughters of a coparcener are entitled to claim
equal share in the coparcenary properties.
24. Admittedly, in the present case, the plaintiffs are the
daughters of deceased Virupakshappa. Therefore, they cannot
be denied their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3993
HC-KAR
Even if it is assumed that the suit schedule properties are the
self-acquired properties of the deceased, in the absence of any
gift deed or Will, defendant No.1 alone cannot claim exclusive
ownership and possession over the suit schedule properties.
25. On the other hand, the plaintiffs being daughters are
entitled to equal share along with their brother i.e., defendant
No.1 and defendant No.2, their sister.
26. Considering these aspects, the Trial Court has rightly
decreed the suit granting half share to the plaintiffs, which has
been confirmed by the First Appellate Court. Therefore, no
substantial question of law arises for consideration in this
appeal. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal filed under Section 100 CPC is dismissed,
confirming the Judgment and Decree dated
19.02.2015 passed in R.A. No.57/2014 on the file of
the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Haveri, and the
Judgment and Decree dated 21.06.2014 passed in
O.S. No.90/2009 on the file of the Civil Judge and
JMFC, Shiggaon.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3993
HC-KAR
ii) Registry is directed to transmit the TCRs to the
concerned Court.
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
VB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39
