##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18206 RSA No. 868 of 2020

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.868 OF 2020 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SMT. HEMAVATHI W/O MALLESHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

R/AT HALASINAHALLI VILLAGE, KADAGA POST, SALAGAME HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK–573201. …APPELLANT

(BY SRI POONACHA M.U., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI KANTHARAJA S/O LATE KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

2. SRI CHYTHESH S/O LATE KRISHNEGOWDA, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

Location: HIGH COURT OF

3. SMT. BILIYAMMA KARNATAKA W/O LATE KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

ALL ARE R/AT GYARAHALLI VILLAGE, TEJUR POST, KASABA HOBLI, HASSSAN TALUK-573201. …RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K.C. SUDARSHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.08.2019 PASSED IN R.A.NO.34/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE 2^ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT HASSAN, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND

##PAGE2##

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18206 RSA No. 868 of 2020

HC-KAR

SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.01.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.630/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC., HASSAN.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

This Court admitted the appeal to consider the

following substantial question of law :

“Whether the Appellate Court was justified in denying equal share and applying notional partition on the ground that the father died prior to Hindu

Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005?”

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the substantial question of law framed by

this Court.

3. The present Regular Second Appeal is directed

against the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2019 passed by the 2^nd Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Hassan, whereby the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2017 passed by the

##PAGE3##

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18206 RSA No. 868 of 2020

HC-KAR

Additional Civil Judge, and JMFC., Hassan in O.S.No.630/2013, was set aside holding that the plaintiff

is entitled for notional partition.

4. The suit is one for partition and separate

possession in respect of the suit schedule properties seeking 1/4^th share. The genealogy of the parties is culled

out as under:

ªÀA±ÀªÀÈPÀë PÀȵÉÚÃUËqÀ (¥Ëw)

(vÀAzÉ)

–

©½AiÀĪÀÄä 65 ªÀµÀð (vÁ¬Ä)

PÁAvÀgÁd ºÉêÀiÁªÀw eÉÊwñï.G.C¥Áàf

40 ªÀµÀð 35 ªÀµÀð 30 ªÀµÀð (CtÚ) (CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ) (vÀªÀÄä)

5. The trial Court on consideration of the entire

material on record held that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4^th share in the suit schedule properties. In the appeal preferred by the defendants before the first Appellate Court, the first Appellate Court reversed the findings of the

##PAGE4##

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18206 RSA No. 868 of 2020

HC-KAR

trial Court and held that the original propositus, i.e., the father of the plaintiff and defendants died prior to the coming into force of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 and plaintiff being the daughter is entitled only to a share in notional partition and not equal as held by

the trial Court.

6. The law is well settled by the Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma & Ors.

wherein it is held that,

i. a daughter becomes coparcener by birth

ii. The right is independent of the father being alive

as on the date of amendment

iii. The amendment confers equal rights on daughters

in coparcenary property.

7. In view of the settled proposition of law, the

findings of the first Appellate Court that the plaintiff is not entitled to equal share on account of death of her father prior to 2005 is erroneous and contrary to law. The first

1 (2020) 9 SCC 1

##PAGE5##

- 5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18206 RSA No. 868 of 2020

HC-KAR

Appellate Court, being the last fact finding Court, has failed to apply the correct legal principles and erroneously reduced the share of the plaintiff to 1/12^th. A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document