IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1671 OF 2021 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SMT. SUNITHA H.M., AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, W/O H.N.MOHAN D/O LATE K.R.HONNAPPA HANGAL VILLAGE AND POST SOMWARPET TALUK KODAGU – 571 251.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI RAMESH KUMAR R.V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT.K.Y.SHAILA W/O LATE K.H.YOGESH Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, by NAGAVENI Location: High D/O P.A.CHANGAPPA Court of THAPPAHALLI MANE Karnataka SUNTICOPPA HOBLI SOMWARPET TALUK KODAGU – 571 251.

2. SMT.SUJATHA W/O K.K.THEETHANANDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, D/O LATE K.R.HONNAPPA KALALE VILLAGE AND POST YASLOOR HOBLI SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN – 573 201.

3. SMT.HEMAVATHI @ D.G.LATHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS W/O D.G.GIRISH D/O LATE K.R.HONNAPPA KOOTH VILLAGE THOLURSHETTALLI POST SOMWARPET TALUK KODAGU – 571 251.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.M.SANATH KUMARA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;

SRI G.M.ANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.08.2019 PASSED IN RA.NO.40/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SOMWARPETE. DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.03.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.40/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE SOMWARPETE.

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

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. This second appeal is filed by plaintiff No.1, claiming equal share on the ground that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are the daughters of late K.R.Honappa, first defendant is the wife of late Mr.K.H. Yogesh, who is the son of late K.R.Honappa and second defendant is also the sister of plaintiff No.1. They all are entitled for equal share in the property left by their father, who acquired the same by a partition deed, which is an ancestral property. The father passed away on 12.02.2003 leaving behind the aforesaid plaintiffs and defendants.

3. The defendants appeared and filed their written statement contending that daughters are not entitled for any share and cannot claim right in the property. However, the trial Court made an observation in its judgment at paragraph No.23 that the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 are not coparceners as their father was not alive on 09.09.2005 and they are not entitled for equal share in the suit property. Hence, the trial Court granted only 1/8^th share each in the suit property to the plaintiffs and defendant No.2. The same is questioned by the plaintiffs before the appellate Court in an appeal in R.A.No.40/2018. The appellate Court having reassessed the material available on record, confirmed the judgment of the trial Court and hence, the second appeal is filed before this Court by plaintiff No.1.

4. The issue between the parties is only with regard to, whether they are entitled to equal share in the suit property.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant brought to the notice of this Court that the observations made by the trial Court in its judgment at paragraph No.23 are incorrect and relies on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of VINEETA SHARMA VS. RAKESH SHARMA reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1

6. The very reasoning given by the trial Court is not correct and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents also do not dispute the position of law and the principles laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court in VINEETA SHARMA'S case.

7. The factual matrix clearly discloses that the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and defendant No.2 are the daughters of deceased K.R.Honappa and defendant No.1 is the legal heir of the late son of late K.R.Honappa and would be the branch of the family of the late son. When such being the case, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of VINEETA SHARMA'S, they are equally entitled to the share in the ancestral property l