IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 440 OF 2019 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. B RENUKAMMA W/O. MAHESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDENT OF KENCHAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, HADAGALI TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT-582 102.

2. SMT. KARIBASAMMA W/O. SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS KOLLUR VILLAGE, BELLARY DISTRICT-583 102.

Digitally signed 3. SRI. B SIDDAPPA by PANKAJA S S/O. SRI. VAMADEVAPPA, Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS COURT OF KARNATAKA RESIDENT OF KANCHIKERE VILLAGE, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-583 131.

4. SMT. MALAMMA W/O. BASAVARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDENT AT YELLAPURA VILLAGE, KURUGUDU TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT-583 116

5. SMT. D. MANJAMMA W/O. PRADEEP, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT GIRIYAPURA VILLAGE, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 548.

6. SMT. B NAGAMMA W/O. THIRUPATHI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT NAGALAPURA VILLAGE, SANDOOR TALUK, BELLARY DISTRICT-586 119.

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAVI PRAKASH V, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. B KOTRAMMA W/O. HEMANNA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT KANCHIKERE VILLAGE, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-583 131.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RUDRAPPA P, ADVOCATE)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.12.2018 PASSED IN RA NO 7/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HARAPANAHALLI ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.07.2018 PASSED IN OS NO 178/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARAPANAHALLI.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This is defendants' second appeal.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit 'B' schedule property is the ancestral property and joint family property of herself and defendants. Originally said property belongs to one Bidari Kotrabasappa. After his death, his only son Bidari Vamadevappa continued in possession. The plaintiff and defendants are the children of said Vamadevappa. After his death, the plaintiff and defendants continued in possession of the suit 'B' schedule property. The katha of the said property is still standing in the name of their father. Things stood thus, in the first week of February, 2014, defendant No.3, who is the brother of plaintiff, tried to obtain illegal katha in his name and to alienate the suit schedule 'B' property in order to meet his bad vices. As such, when the plaintiff approached him to effect partition of suit schedule property, he declined the same. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession.

3. Defendant No.3, having contested the matter by filing written statement, denied the plaint averments contending that the genealogy produced by the plaintiff is false/incorrect and she has not filed the suit in respect of all the joint family properties. Hence, the suit is bad for partial partition.

4. The Trial Court, after considering the rival pleadings, framed relevant issues and after examining the evidence in detail, dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to prove that she is a joint family member by producing correct genealogy of her family and also she sought partial partition of joint family properties in the suit, which is bad under law.

5. On appeal by the plaintiff, the First Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of evidence, has observed that the plaintiff is also having legitimate share in the suit 'B' schedule property, since defendant No.3 has categorically admitted in his evidence that himself and his six sisters have inherited legitimate share in the suit 'B' schedule property. Accordingly, allowed the appeal by granting 1/11^th share in the suit 'B' schedule property to the plaintiff.

6. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants are before this Court.

7. I have heard Sri. Ravi Prakash V, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants and Sri. Rudrappa. P, learned counsel for