IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 629 OF 2014 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SMT. SIDDAGANGAMMA W/O K H V BABU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT, 143/D, 4^TH CROSS, 2^ND MAIN, PRAKASH NAGAR, BANGALORE-21 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. A V AMARNATHAN., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S

1. SMT. MANJULA Location: D/O MAREGOWDA, HIGH COURT AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS OF R/AT KADANUR VILLAGE, KARNATAKA MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK – 561 203

2. MANJULA D/O RAMAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT KADANUR VILLAGE, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK – 561 203

3. ANITHA D/O MAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT KADANUR VILLAGE, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK – 561 203

4. MAREGOWDA S/O CHANNAHANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT KADANUR VILLAGE, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK – 561 203

5. RAMAMURTHY S/O CHANNAHANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT KADANUR VILLAGE, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK – 561 203

6. GANESHA S/O MAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT KADANUR VILLAGE, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK – 561 203

7. BYLAMMA W/O CHANNAHANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, R/AT KADANUR VILLAGE, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK – 561 203

8. LAXMAMMA D/O CHANNAHANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT KADANUR VILLAGE, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK – 561 203 …RESPONDENTS (V/O DATED 03.09.2014 NOTICE TO R1-R5, R7 & R8 ARE TREATED AS SUFFICIENT R6 SERVED)

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 6.2.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.112/2012 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DODDABALLAPUR, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 21.1.2012 PASSED IN OS.NO.102/2007 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA.

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

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.02.2014 passed in R.A.No.112 of 2012 by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Doddaballapura, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial court. The appellant was defendant No.6, respondent Nos.1 to 3 were the plaintiffs, and the other respondents were the other defendants.

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

4. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for a partition and separate possession regarding the suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiffs that defendant No.1 is the father of plaintiff Nos.1 and 3. Plaintiff No.2 is the daughter of defendant No.2. defendant No.3 is the son of defendant No.1. Defendant No. 4 is the grandmother and defendant No.5 is the sister of defendant Nos.1 and 2. The plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 6 are the members of a Hindu undivided joint family and the suit schedule property is the ancestral and joint family property and they are in joint possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs demanded a partition and separate possession, but the defendants refused to effect a partition. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

5. Defendant No.6 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, and contended that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable. It is contended that the plaintiffs have not approached the court with clean hands. It is contended that the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of defendant No.4 and acquired by her under a registered sale deed from her vendor, Byregowda, s/o Byrelingegowda under a registered sale deed dated 15.12.1970 and since the date of purchase, he is in possession of the suit schedule property. Thereafter defendant No.4 executed a