IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.844 OF 2023 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT.JAYALAKSHMI W/O NAGARAJ R S/O G.K.GOPALA BHATTA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT MADUDARSHAN HOTEL OPP. TO GOVT. JUNIOR COLLEGE MADHUGIRI TOWN TUMKURU - 572101

2. SMT.SEETHA LAKSHMI W/O PURUSHOTHAMA RAO AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS Di gitally 3. SRI.G.MURALI signed by AL S/O GOPALA BHATTA BHAGYA Location: AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS HIGH COURT OF

4. SMT.G.SUJATHA KARNATAKA D/O GOPALA BHATTA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

5. SMT.G.SRIVALLI W/O RAGHAVENDRA RAO D/O G.K.GOPALA BHATTA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS APPELLANT NOS.2 TO 5 ARE R/AT SADAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562001 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI.SHIVASHANKAR K, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI.G.K.GOPALA BHATTA S/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS

2. SRI.V.G.SUBRAMANYA S/O G.K.GOPALA BHATTA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

3. SMT.PILLAMUNIYAMMA W/O LATE REDDY LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS

4. SMT.VENKATALAKSHMAMMA W/O MANJUNATHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

5. SRI.M.ASHOKA S/O MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

6. SMT.NAGARATHNAMMA W/O BRAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

7. SMT.MANJULA W/O RAMESH REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

8. SRI.MANJUNATH S/O LATE REDDY LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT UGANAVADI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562001

9. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA W/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT CHIKKASONNE VILLAGE DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562001

10. SMT.MUNIRATHNAMMA W/O CHENNAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT PARAGODA GATE AND POST THOTADAMANE BAGEPALLI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561207

11. SMT.SAVITHRAMMA W/O RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT VENKATAREDDY PALYA AND POST KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572130 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.RAMASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R.4 TO 11;

NOTICE TO R.1 TO 3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.03.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.431/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs, who are the son and daughters of defendant No.1 and siblings of defendant No.2, assailing the dismissal decree dated 01.03.2023 rendered in O.S.No.431/2008 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli.

2. For the sake of brevity, the ranks of the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

3. The genealogical tree of the family reads as under;

G.K.Gopala Bhat (65 years)

Shantamma (wife) (50 Years)

V.G.Subramanya Jaya Lakshmi Seetalakshmi Murali Sujata Shivalli (42 Years) (40 Years) (38 Years) (36 Years) (34 Years ) (32 Years)

B.K.Suvarna Sri.Lakshmi

38 Years 30 Years V.S.Chetan Kumar Pavan Kumar Punith Kumar Vijay Kumar (16 Years) (14 Years) (8 Years) (7 Years)

4. Brief facts leading to the case are as under;

The present suit is instituted by three daughters and one son seeking partition and separate possession of their respective shares in Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties. It is specifically pleaded that the plaintiffs along with defendant Nos.1 and 2 constitute an undivided Joint Hindu Family and that the suit properties are ancestral coparcenary properties. The plaintiffs have called in question the authority of defendant Nos.1 and 2 in executing a registered sale deed dated 14.02.1989 in favour of defendant No.3 in respect of Item No.1 property. Consequently, the suit is laid not only for partition and separate possession but also for a declaration that the sale deed dated 14.02.1989 executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3 is illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs’