IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100025 OF 2025 (PAR/POS)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT.MADHU W/O. VISHWANATHARADDI JUMANAL, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. H.NO.593, BATAGADDE, NEAR HOSUR HOSPITAL, MUDHOL, TQ. MUDHOL-583236.

2. SMT.ASHWINI D/O. RAMANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. C/O. SMT.MADHU W/O. VISHWANATHARADDI JUMANAL, H.NO.593, BATAGADDE, NEAR HOSUR HOSPITAL, MUDHOL, TQ.MUDHOL-583236.

VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. HARISH S.MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSH MI AND:

M KANKUPPI Date: 2026.02.18

10:57:19 +0530 SMT.AMRUTA W/O. VINAYARADDI JUMANAL, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. H.NO.89, 7^TH CROSS, VIDYAGIRI, BAGALKOTE, TQ AND DIST. BAGALKOTE- 587102.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI.GIRISH YADAWAD, ADVOCATE)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.32/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, AT: MUDHOL, DATED 29.08.2024 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)

Even though the appeal is at the stage of admission, at the request learned counsel of both sides, appeal is heard on merits.

2. The defendants have filed this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2024 in O.S. No.32/2022 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol. 3. The parties would be referred with their ranks, as they were before trial Court, for sake of convenience and clarity.

4. The case of plaintiff before trial Court in nutshell is that one Ramanagouda and Sumangala are the parents of the plaintiff and the defendants and both of them died on

17.09.2017 and 02.05.2021 respectively, leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 as their legal heirs. The suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. There is no cordial relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants. Hence, the plaintiff demanded her share in the suit ‘A’ schedule properties by metes and bounds. But the defendants refused to effect petition. Hence, the suit for appropriate relief.

5. On service of suit summons, the defendants appeared through their counsel. Defendant No.1 filed her written statement which is adopted by defendant No.2. In the said written statement, defendant No.1 has taken a contention that suit properties are not properly described with specific boundaries and some of the family properties are not included in the suit. She admitted the relationship between parties, however, denied all other averments made in the plaint and thus prayed for dismissal of suit with exemplary costs of ₹50,000/-.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and undivided joint family properties of herself and defendants?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that herself and defendants are the members of undivided family?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3^rd share in the suit schedule properties as prayed for?

4. What order or decree?

7. On behalf of plaintiff, plaintiff was examined as PW.1 apart from marking Exs.P.1 to P.7 before trial court. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1 and a witness was examined as DW.2, apart from marking Ex.D1 before trial court.

8. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence and material on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiff declaring that the plaintiff and the defendants each are entitled to 1/3^rd share in the suit schedule ‘A’ properties.