IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.573 OF 2012 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

1. PAPANNA RAO S/O LATE HANUMANTHA RAO AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS C.NANDIHALLI, CHELUR HOBLI GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572101

2. RAMAKRISHNA RAO S/O LATE HANUMANTHA RAO AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS C.NANDIHALLI, CHELUR HOBLI GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572101 Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A …APPELLANTS Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. B K MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. T.G.LAKSHMIBAI W/O B.K.MUKUNDA RAO BHOUNSLE AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS BENNUR VILLAGE GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572101

2. ESHWARIBAI T G W/O V N BABU RAO AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS D.NO.370/S, 25^TH, 8^TH CROSS HEBBAL II STAGE HINKEL MYSORE - 570001

3. T G PRAKASH RAO S/O T L GOVINDA RAO AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS C.NANDIHALLI, CHELUR HOBLI GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572101

4. SWETHAKUMARI D/O BHOJARAJ MAJOR NEAR ALUMINIUM FACTORY UPPARAHALLI TUMKUR - 572101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S.KALYAN BASAVARJ, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 AND R.2;

SRI.N.K.SIDDESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R.3;

NOTICE TO R.4 IS D/W V/O/D 01.08.2013)

THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.11.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.54/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMKUR, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION AND FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is filed by defendant Nos.2 and 3, who are the legal heirs of Hanumantha Rao, assailing the preliminary decree granted in O.S.No.54/2001, wherein plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are granted 1/3^rd share each in the suit schedule properties and the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 on 07.09.1990 in favour of defendant No.4 is held to be not binding on the plaintiffs’ legitimate share.

2. The ranks of the parties are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.

3. The genealogical tree of the family is extracted, which reads as under;

Lingoji Rao Govinda Rao Lakshmi Bai Sakku Bai Hanumantha Rao Lakshmi Bai Prakash Rao Eshwari Bai (P.1) (D.1) (P.2)

4. Facts leading to the case are as under;

The plaintiffs, namely T.G. Lakshmibai and T.G. Eshwaribai, daughters born through the second wife Sakkubai to Govinda Rao, instituted a suit for partition in O.S.No.54/2001 seeking separate possession of their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties. It was pleaded that the suit schedule properties are joint family ancestral properties belonging to Govinda Rao and defendant No.1, in which the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/3^rd share each. It was further averred that their marriages were solemnized in the year 1990. The plaintiffs alleged that defendant Nos.2 and 3, who are strangers to the immediate branch of the family, taking undue advantage of the weakness of defendant No.1, have managed to get the katha mutated in their names in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule properties.

5. Upon service of summons, defendant Nos.1 to 3 entered appearance and filed their written statements contesting the suit. While admitting that the suit schedule properties were originally joint family ancestral properties, the defendants specifically contended that a partition had already taken place between Govinda Rao and his son through the first wife, namely Hanumantha Rao, under a registered Partition Deed dated 29.09.1979. It was asserted that pursuant to the said partition, Hanumantha Rao stood separated from the family and was allotted his exclusive share.

6. The defendants further sought dismissal of the suit by contending that a revenue site was purchased in the name of plaintiff No.1 through a GPA and that the same was sold for a sum of Rs.80,000/-, which was utilized towards purchase of gold, jewellery and marriage expenses. Defendant No.1 alleged that the entire marriage expenses of plaintiff No.1