IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 8 OF 2023 (PAR/DEC)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. P.S. SHANKAR S/O P.G. SOMANNA AGED 37 YEARS R/AT NO. 19, 1^ST B CROSS

4^TH MAIN ROAD BRINDAVAN LAYOUT NEAR KUMARANS COLLEGE SUBRAMANYAPURA POST BENGALURU - 560 061.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. VEENA Digitally signed W/O LATE KESHAVA by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH AGED 34 YEARS COURT OF KARNATAKA R/T NO. 54, 8^TH MAIN ROAD

3^RD BLOCK, NANDINI LAYOUT BENGALURU-560096.

2. SMT. MAYAMMA W/O LATE H.C. SHIVALINGAIAH AGED 75 YEARS R/AT NO. 91, 1^ST CROSS VIVEKANANDANAGAR BENGALURU-560085.

3. SMT. S. UMA D/O LATE H.C. SHIVALIGAIAH AGED 39 YEARS NO. 34, 19^TH MAIN ROAD ARENAHALLI, AGS LAYOUT BENGALURU-560061.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMAIAH GOWDA .L.M, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUNDARESH .G, AND RAVI KIRAN .T ADVOCATES FOR C/R-1;

V/O DATED 20.08.2025 NOTICE TO R-2 AND R-3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.09.2022 PASSED IN OS.NO.3194/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-16), DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND DECLARATION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is by defendant No.3 directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.09.2022 passed in O.S.No.3194/2013, whereby the plaintiff's suit seeking relief of partition is decreed granting 1/3^rd share in the suit schedule property.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. Family tree is as under:

SHIVALINGAIAH (69 YEARS)

MAYAMMA (WIFE)

SHOBHA SATISH KESHVA (DIED) UMHA (DIED) (DIED) VEENA (WIFE) (25 YEARS) (34 YEARS)

4. Facts leading to the case are as under:

The plaintiff, who is the daughter-in-law of original defendant No.1 and defendant No.1(a), instituted the present suit contending that the suit schedule property, namely a vacant site bearing No.34 formed in Sy.No.6/2, though standing in the name of original defendant No.1, was in fact acquired out of joint family nucleus and with substantial financial assistance rendered by her husband. It is specifically pleaded that at the relevant point of time, the plaintiff’s husband was engaged in business and earning independently and had contributed towards the purchase consideration, registration charges and allied expenses. According to the plaintiff, a conscious decision was taken by the family members to acquire the property, and defendant No.1(a), being the General Power of Attorney holder of Smt. R. Bhagyamma, executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1. It is further alleged that defendant No.1, being the Kartha of the joint family, was managing the affairs of the family and holding the property for and on behalf of the coparcenary. The plaintiff asserts that after the demise of her husband, the relationship between the parties became strained and upon enquiry she came to know that defendant No.1 had alienated the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.3 without her consent and by suppressing her lawful share. On these pleadings, the plaintiff sought a decree for partition and separate possession of 1/3^rd share and for a declaration that the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 is not binding on her share.

5. Upon service of summons, defendant Nos.1 and

2 entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement denying the plaint averments in toto. It was their specific defence that the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of defendant No.1 and that he had absolute dominion over the same. They contended that her husband had not contributed any portion of the sale consideration. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff and her husband, soon