IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2015 OF 2013 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SMT. PUTTALAKSHMAMMA W/O J Y GURULINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT DARGAJOGIHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI-561 203 DODDABALLAPUR TALUK.

…APPELLANT Digitally (BY SRI. V F KUMBAR, ADVOCATE)

sign ed by AND: KIRAN KUMAR R Location: 1. SMT. MUNIYAMMA HIGH COURT SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS OF KARNATAKA

1(A) SRI MUNIRAJA S/O LATE MARABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

1(B) SRI N M CHANNABASAVAIAH S/O LATE MARIBASAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

1(C) SRI N M DAKSHINMURTHY S/O LATE MARIBASAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESPONDENTS 1(A) TO 1(C) ARE RESIDING AT NAGASANDRA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPUR TALUK—561 203.

2. SMT. SWARNAMBIKE W/O SARPABHUSHAN AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.116, 4TH CROSS ROAD NAGAPPA BLOCK, SRIRAMAPURAM BANGALORE-560 021.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SADANANDA SHASTRI., ADVOCATE FOR R2;

R1(A), R1(B), R(C) ARE SERVED)

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 READ WITH ORDER XLII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 19.9.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.220/2011 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DODDABALLAPUR, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 16.6.2011 PASSED IN OS.NO.321/2006 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

ORAL JUDGMENT

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the Judgment and decree dated 19.09.2013 passed in R.A. No. 220 of 2011 by the learned IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Doddaballapura, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the Trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants.

3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

3.1. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession regarding the suit properties. The plaintiff and defendant No.2 are the daughters of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 had 3 sons namely, Muniraja, N.M.Channabasavaiah and N.M.Dakshinamurthy and also have 2 daughters by name Puttalakshmamma (the plaintiff) and Swarnambike (defendant No.2). There was a family partition in the plaintiff’s family. The partition took place among the family members on 01.04.1995 and the same was reduced into writing by way of Panchayat Palupatti. In furtherance of which, ‘A’ schedule properties were allotted to the share of defendant No.1. In the said partition, only the life interest was given to defendant No.1. Such being the position, defendant No.1 executed a gift deed in favour of defendant No.2 regarding item No.1 suit property. It is contended that the alleged gift deed is null and void and that the plaintiff is entitled for her legitimate share in the suit properties. Accordingly, a cause of action arose to file a suit for partition. Hence, the suit.

3.2. The defendants filed a written statement denying the plaint averments. It is contended that the plaintiff is in no way concerned with the suit properties. It is contended that there was a prior partition effected among the family members wherein the ‘A’ schedule properties fell to the share of defendant No.1. It is contended that defendant No.1 executed the gift deed on her own will and with love and affection. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

3.3. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:

“1. The plaintiffs proves that the suit schedule properties are the joint family and ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendants?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties?

3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the alleged gift deed dated 22/06/2006, is n