IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1730 OF 2017 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SRI RAJENDRA BABU

S/O LATE SAMPANGI NAIDU,

AGED 53 YEARS,

NO.109, 1^ST STAGE, 4^TH MAIN,

1^ST PHASE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MANJUNATH NAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR,

BENGALURU-560010.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI K.V. NARASIMHAN AND SRI K.N. NITISH, ADVOCATES)

AND:

1. SMT. SHARADA

W/O LATE SAMPANGI NAIDU,

Digitally signed by AGED 73 YEARS,

MAHALAKSHMI B M NO.109, 1^ST STAGE, 4^TH MAIN,

Location: HIGH 1^ST PHASE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD,

COURT OF

MANJUNATH NAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR,

KARNATAKA

BENGALURU-560010.

2. SMT. LAKSHMI

D/O LATE SAMPANGI NAIDU,

W/O P.C. NAGARAJ,

AGED 46 YEARS,

NO.109/A, 1^ST STAGE, 4^TH MAIN,

1^ST PHASE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MANJUNATH NAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR,

BENGALURU-560010. 3. SMT. S. RENUKA

D/O LATE SAMPANGI NAIDU,

W/O RAVI, AGED 50 YEARS, NO.109/, 1^ST STAGE, 4^TH MAIN, 1^ST PHASE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MANJUNATH NAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010.

4. SMT. S. VASANTHI D/O LATE SAMPANGI NAIDU, W/O B. VENKATESH, AGED 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.11/58, VELLORE MAIN ROAD, NORTH ARCOT, KUTTAKRI STREET, CHENNAI.

5. SRI VISVESHWARAIAH S/O VARADARAJULU NAIDU, AGED 54 YEARS, NO.9/A, 8^TH MAIN, 4^TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010.

6. SRI RAKESH S/O VISVESHWARAIAH, AGED 28 YEARS NO.9/A, 8^TH MAIN, 4^TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI AMARESH A. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-3 TO R-6;

SRI SRIKANTH M.P. ADVOCATE FOR SRI B. RAVINDRAPRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER XLI RULE

1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.07.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1865/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH NO.3), DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

This regular first appeal is filed by defendant No.2 challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2017 passed in O.S. No.1865/2010 by the Court of XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-3) (‘Trial Court’ for short) where under suit for partition filed by the plaintiff has been decreed, holding that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/6^th share in ‘A’ schedule property and by further holding that the gift deed dated 13.08.2007 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is not binding on the share of plaintiff.

Plaint averments

2. The plaintiff contends that late K. Sampangi Naidu purchased ‘A’ schedule property in 1972 in the name of defendant No.1 and died intestate on 31.12.2003, leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants as class -I heirs. After his death, all heirs succeeded jointly and remained in joint possession. The ‘B’ schedule property purchased in the name of defendant No.1-mother was gifted by her to her four daughters including plaintiff. It is averred that defendant No.1 assured that ‘A’ schedule property would also be partitioned subsequently. It is further alleged that defendant No.2, ‘managed’ to obtain a gift deed in his favour in respect of entire ‘A’ schedule property without their knowledge and the plaintiff claims that she later discovered it and seeks that it is to be declared as not binding on her share.

Written statement averments of defendant No.2/appellant:

3. The said defendant admits the relationship, states that defendant No.1 validly executed a registered gift deed dated 13.08.2007 in his favour, conveying ‘A’ scheduled property. He contends that all daughters, including the plaintiff, signed the gift deed as a consenting witnesses and further claims to have obtained khata, paid taxes and constructed a house by raising a loan. Further alleges that the plaintiff encroached upon a portion of ‘A’

schedule property and filed the suit only when she was asked to vacate.

Written statement of defendant Nos.5 and 6

4. They support the plaintiff. They contend that defendant No.1 had no absolute r