IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1594 OF 2025 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SRI TUKARAM RAO S/O LATE SRI. NARAYAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, FLOOR MILL OWNER, R/O. NEW BARANDURU VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK-577301.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN BASAREDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. SUDHA Digitally signed W/O KRISHNOJI RAO DHARWADKAR, by AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, HEMALATHA HOUSEHOLD, A R/O HIREKERURU TOWN Location: HIGH HAVERI DISTRICT-581111.

COURTOF KARNATAKA

2. SMT. YASHODHA BAI, W/O LATE SRI LAKSHMAN RAO DHUMALE, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST.

3. SRI SURESH @ SURI RAO, S/O LATE SRI LAKSHMAN RAO DHUMALE, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, 4. SRI RAVI @ RAVI KUMAR, S/O LATE SRI LAKSHMAN RAO DHUMALE, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST.

5. SRI DHANARAJ, S/O LATE SRI LAKSHMAN RAO DHUMALE, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT: NEW BARANDURU VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK-577301.

…RESPONDENTS THIS RSA FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.08.2025 PASSED IN RA.NO.87/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.04.2023 PASSED IN OS.NO.28/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard the appellant-defendant No.5’s counsel.

2. This matter is listed for admission. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. The claim of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that she is the daughter of Mr.M.Lakshman Rao Dhumale, S/o Nagendra Rao, who died leaving behind his wife (defendant No.1), daughter (plaintiff) and three sons (defendant Nos.2 to 4). The plaint schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties and the plaintiff is in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. There is no partition between the parties. Hence, claimed 1/5^th share in the suit schedule properties. In spite of the demand made by her, they have not given any share and also it is contented that there was a partition and the plaintiff is not a signatory to the said document of partition. Hence, claimed the share over the properties. In response to the suit, defendants have appeared through their respective counsel to contest the case and filed written statement separately. Defendant No.1 has denied the plaint averments. But she has admitted that suit schedule properties are ancestral properties and the plaintiff is having 1/5^th share in the suit schedule properties and this defendant is also having right to get 1/5^th share. Defendant No.1 never denied the plaintiff to give a share in the suit schedule properties. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 admitted that the plaintiff is the member of the Hindu joint family. Defendant No.5 denied the entire plaint averments and contend that plaintiff has not revealed the true and material facts before the Court and partition already taken place between the family members and they have executed the sale deed. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for any share.

3. The trial Court having considered the pleadings of parties and taken note of earlier registered partition, comes to the conclusion that it does not binds the plaintiff since the plaintiff is not a party to the said partition deed and hence granted the share in respect of the suit schedule properties granting 5/25^th share in the plaint schedule and defendant No.1 is entitled for 1/25^th share in the plaint schedule properties. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal is filed by the appellant-defendant No.5 and questioned the reasoning of the trial Court in R.A.No.87/2023. The First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo formulated the point and comes to the conclusion that trial Co