IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100852 OF 2014 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SMT. JAYARABI W/O. MAHABUBASAB NAVALUR, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. 14, AMARGAOL PLOT, AMARGOL, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580002.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SHRI MAKTUMSAB S/O. MOULASAB KONNUR @ KARNACHI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, D si i g g n it e a d l l b y y YASHAVANT YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR 2. SHRI HAJARATSAB NARAYANKAR D

20 a 2 te 5 :

. 11.20

14:49:17 S/O. MOULASAB KONNUR @ KARNACHI, +0530 AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 3. SHRI GUDUSAB S/O. IMAMSAB KONNUR @ KARNACHI, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 4. SMT. PHATOBHI W/O. KASHIMSAB KONNUR @ KARNACHI, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 5. SHRI HAZARATSAB S/O. GUDUSAB KONNUR @ KARNACHI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 6. SMT. PHATOBHI W/O. HAZRATSAB KONNUR @ KARNACHI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, ALL RESPONDENTS ARE RESIDING AT JALAGAR ONI, HEBBALLI, TALUK AND DIST: DHARWAD-580002.

…RESPONDENTS (BY MISS BINDU GANACHARI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. V.M. SHEELAVANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

SRI. M.G. MALAWADE, ADVOCATE AND SMT. NANDA M. MALAWADE, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

R3 TO R6-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE FAST TRACK ADDL. M.A.C.T., DHARWAD IN R.A.NO.104/2012, DATED 20.08.2014 REVERSING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, DHARWAD IN O.S.NO.172/2008 DATED 10.04.2012 AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, DHARWAD IN O.S.NO.172/2008 DATED 10.04.2012, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)

Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and respondents.

2. The short point that emerges in this appeal is, “whether the calculation of shares by the First Appellate Court is proper or not?”

3. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.172/2008, who succeeded in getting a decree from the Trial Court and later in R.A.No.104/2012, the same came to be modified reducing the share of the plaintiff.

4. The facts, as may be seen from the records, is that Imamsab was the propositus and he had three sons and a daughter. The plaintiff is the daughter and the defendant No.1 to 3 represent the branch of Moulasab, defendant No.6 and 7 are the sons of another son Gudusab, and the defendant No.5 represents the branch of the third son Kashimsab. The case of the plaintiff is that after demise of the propositus, the plaintiff and her three brothers have acquired rights in the suit schedule properties held by him and the properties at Item No.1 and 2 are standing in the name of the plaintiff and defendants, and the properties at Item No.3 and 4 are still standing in the name of Imamsab. It was contented that the plaintiff has got 1/4^th share in the suit properties and the other three sons are having the remaining share. When the plaintiff requested for partition, it was refused and therefore, she filed the suit.

5. The defendants appeared before the Trial Court and resisted the suit contending that the said Imamsab had bequeathed his 1/3^rd share in favour of defendant No.2 under a Will and therefore, only the remaining portion has to be partitioned.

6. The Trial Court framed appropriate issues and after the evidence was led, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/7^th share in all the suit schedule properties and that the Will executed by Imamsab was not binding on the share of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved, the defendants No.2 approached the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.104/2012.

7. After re-appreciating the evidence on record, the First Appellate Court noticed that the Will would only bind the deceased-Imamsab to the extent of his 1/3^rd sha