IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.146 OF 2014 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN:

SRI. LAKSHMANADASAPPA @ NARASIMHAIAH SINCE DECEASED, REP. BY LRS

1 SMT. MUNISANDA W/O LATE L. LAKSHMANADASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS.

2. SRI. PURUSHOTHAMAN S/O LATE L. LAKSHMANADASAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. 3. SMT. N. VEDAVATHI D/O LATE L. LAKSHMANADASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. APPELLANTS 1 TO 3 ARE R/AT NO.2, KEMPANNA GARDEN, P.S.K. NAIDU ROAD, COX TOWN, Digitally signed by BENGALURU -560 005.

ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH

4. SMT. JAYANTHI N.

COURT OF KARNATAKA D/O LATE L. LAKSHMANADASAPPA, W/O CHANDRA S., AGE: MAJOR, NO.4, 18^TH MAIN, 5^TH CROSS NEAR PANCHAVATI APARTMENTS INDIRANAGAR HAL 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU - 560 008.

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NAGENDRA A., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JANARDHANA G., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. L. MUNIYELLAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

1. SMT. MUTHAMMA W/O LATE MUNIYELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.

2. SRI. SRINIVASA W/O LATE MUNIYELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.

3. KUM. VEDAVATHI D/O LATE MUNIYELLAPPA.

4. KUM. SUMITHRA @ SUMI D/O LATE MUNIYELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.

ALL ARE RESIDING AT:

NO.16, HARIBABU BUILDING, 1^ST CROSS, 6^TH MAIN, VINAYAKANAGAR, MYSURU ROAD, BENGALURU.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P. VITTAL SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

96 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25^TH OCTOBER, 2013 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.8049 OF 2003 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 25^th October, 2013 passed in Original Suit No.8049 of 2003 on the file of the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-25) (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), wherein the suit of the plaintiff filed for relief of declaration and permanent injunction came to be dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to as per ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts for adjudication of this appeal as averred in the plaint are that the plaintiff had acquired the suit schedule property as per the registered Will dated 18^th December, 1936 executed by his great grandmother Muninanjamma. It is stated that the suit schedule property is acquired by the plaintiff as the testator died long back. It is also stated in the plaint that the plaintiff was a habitual alcoholic and as such, the defendant obtained the signatures and thumb impressions of the plaintiff and got registered the Partition Deed dated 07^th December, 2001 by playing fraud. Therefore, it is the case of the plaintiff that the registered partition deed dated 07^th December, 2001 is not binding on the plaintiff and the suit schedule property is not a joint family property of the defendants. Hence, the plaintiff filed the instant suit seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property.

4. On service of summons, the defendant entered appearance and denied the averments made in the plaint. It is the specific case of the defendant that, the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendant and same was admitted in the registered Partition Deed dated 07^th December, 2001. It is also stated in the written statement that the mother of the defendant died on 25^th January, 1993 and the defendant came to know that, there is no property except the suit schedule property and as such, executed registered Partition Deed dated 07^th December, 2001. It is also the case of the defendant that the defendant was an illiterate and the plaintiff in order to knock-off the suit schedule property has filed the instant suit. It is also conten