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.289 OF 2024 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

1. NAGESH S/O LATE B GANGADHARAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 2. LAXMIDEVI W/O NAGESH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, APPELLANT No.1 AND 2 R/O CHIKKAMATHIGHATTA VILLAGE, DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI-573225 Digitally signed CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH …APPELLANTS COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI SRINIVAS V, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. MANJULA W/O MALLESH GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O D. SATHENAHALLI VILLAGE, KALKERE POST, CHANNARAYAPATNA TLAUK-573126

2. SAROJA W/O YOGESH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O NO.327/1, 7^TH MAIN, BAPUJINAGARA, MYSURU ROAD, BANGALORE-560038 …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.08.2023 PASSED IN R.A.NO.44/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE HASSAN, SITTING AT CHANNARAYAPATNA AND ETC.

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

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

This second appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2023 passed in R.A.No.44/2022 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan.

2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

3. The Trial Court granted the relief of partition allotting 1/4^th share each in the ‘A’ schedule properties and 1/3^rd share each in Item No.1 to 13 and 15 to 17 of ‘B’ schedule properties in favour of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and also granted 1/3^rd share each in ‘C’ schedule property in favour of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and also granted 1/4^th share of deceased Gangadharagowda in respect of ‘A’ schedule properties in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2. The said judgment and decree of the Trial Court was challenged by defendant Nos.1 and 2 before the First Appellate Court. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 i.e., the husband and wife took the contention before the First Appellate Court with regard to granting of 1/4^th share is erroneous since there was a gift deed executed by the father in favour of defendant No.1. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds which have been urged, formulated the points that whether the suit schedule properties are the family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants and whether the defendants proved that some properties have been purchased by Gangadharagowda and Anasuyamma from the self income of Gangadharagowda and whether the defendants proved that since Gangadharagowda purchased the properties from his self income, the gift deeds executed by Gangadharagowda are valid and whether the judgment and decree of the Trial Court requires interference of this Court.

4. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the grounds which have been urged by the appellants that properties have purchased in the name of the mother out of the self-income of the father and First Appellate Court having considered the points for consideration answered Point No.1 as affirmative holding that the suit schedule properties are the family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants and answered the Point Nos.2 and 3 as negative in coming to the conclusion that in order to substantiate the contention of the defendants that property was purchased from the income of the father Gangadharagowda, nothing is placed on record and comes to the conclusion that in the absence of any cogent evidence before the Court, the Court cannot comes to a such a conclusion. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the fact that Trial Court granted the relief of 1/4^th share each to the plaintiffs in ‘A’ schedule properties and 1/3^rd share in Item Nos.1 to 13 and 15 to 17 of ‘B’ schedule properties and 1/3^rd share in ‘C’ schedule properties. The First Appellate Court also considered the fact that the property is a joint family property and while answering Point No.1, modified the judgment o