Dismissed¶118

Sri Babu Rao v. Smt Srimathi

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2025RFA/1202/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Partition suit Bengaluru; proof of will; attesting witness examination; Section 63 Indian Succession Act; Section 68 Indian Evidence Act 1872; Sections 8, 14, 15 Hindu Succession Act; Class-I heirs; daughters equal share; Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma AIR 2020 SC 3717; registered will registration optional; intestate succession; widow's share; 1/4th share by metes and bounds; RFA under Section 96 CPC dismissed; trial court decree confirmed; O.S.No.8157/2010; XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Bengaluru; High Court of Karnataka 2025; Hanchate Sanjeevkumar.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2019 in O.S.No.8157/2010 (granting 1/4th share each by metes and bounds to the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2) stands confirmed; no order as to costs. ¶118

Sri Babu Rao Vs Smt Srimathi — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶118

Issue for consideration

Whether the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties arising out of partition (so as to found the plaintiffs' claimed shares). +2 more

¶90

Court's answer

The suit schedule properties are admittedly not coparcenary properties; accordingly Point No.1 (ancestral/joint-family character arising out of partition) was answered in the negative.

¶111

Ratio / Principle

Standard of proof of a will: registration of a will is not compulsory or mandatory but optional; the will must be proved as per Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, at least by examining one attesting witness.

¶13

Key takeaways

The defendants did not examine any of the attesting witnesses of Ex.D2; therefore Ex.D2, the alleged registered Will dated 08.01.1986 of Lakshmana Rao, is held not proved.ratio¶13
On either footing — succession to Lakshmana Rao under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act on his death, or (even assuming the Will were proved) Mangamma Bai becoming absolute owner under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and dying intestate so that devolution follows Section 15 — the plaintiffs and defendants, being Class-I legal heirs of Lakshmana Rao and Mangamma Bai, are entitled to equal shares.ratio¶105

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Hanchate Sanjeevkumar J., oral judgment, 07.11.2025) dismissed both Regular First Appeals against the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2019 in O.S.No.8157/2010 (XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru), whereby the partition suit was partly decreed with 1/4th share each to the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 by metes and bounds. The propositus Lakshmana Rao's alleged registered Will (Ex.D2, dated 08.01.1986), bequeathing everything to his widow Mangamma Bai and excluding the daughters, was held NOT proved: registration of a will being optional, proof required at least one attesting witness under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, and none was examined. On either hypothesis — intestate succession to Lakshmana Rao under Section 8 HSA, or the widow's absolute ownership under Section 14 HSA followed by her intestate devolution under Section 15 HSA — the parties, as Class-I heirs, take equally, the daughters' equal share resting on Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, AIR 2020 SC 3717; the widow of predeceased son Gajendra Rao takes 1/4th. The trial Court decree was confirmed; no costs. Internal wrinkle flagged: the formal answer records Point No.2 'in the affirmative' although the Court expressly holds the Will not proved.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:45296 RFA No. 1202 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 1818 of 2019

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶6

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1202 OF 2019

¶7

C/W

¶8

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1818 OF 2019(PAR/INJ)

¶9

IN RFA No. 1202/2019

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. BABU RAO AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O. LATE. LAKSHMANA RAO, REP BY SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI. PRASAD RAO P.B, AGE 35 YEARS, S/O. BABU RAO, R/AT NO. 56, 1^ST FLOOR, HOSPITAL ROAD, 11^TH CROSS, BENGALURU – 560 005

¶13

(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR D.M AND SRI. H.VASANTH KUMAR, ADVOCATES)

¶14

…APPELLANT

¶15

AND:

¶16

SMT. SRIMATHI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, W/O. LATE. MADHUKAR, R/AT NO. 7, 1^ST FLOOR, 11^TH CROSS, KILARI ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 053.

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:45296 RFA No. 1202 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 1818 of 2019

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI AGE ABOUT 62 YEARS, W/O. SRI. SADASHIVA RAO, R/AT NO. 469, A-TYPE FLAT, BEML NAGAR, KGF – 563 115

¶20

SMT. P.G. LAKSHMI BAI AGE ABOUT 49 YEARS, W/O. LATE. GAJENDRA RAO, R/AT SHANKARA NILAYA, 10^TH CROSS, C MAIN ROAD, 6^TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU- 560 010

¶21

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUPREETH S, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. HARISH.N.R, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶22

THIS RFA FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.04.2019 PASSED IN OS.NO.8157/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, PARTLY DECREED THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.

¶23

IN RFA NO. 1818/2019

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

SMT. P.G LAKSHMI BAI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS W/O. LATE. P.L. GAJENDRA RAO, NOW R/AT G-4, 1^ST PHASE, B BLOCK, LAKE VIEW APARTMENT, KEREGUDDADAHALLI, CHIKKABANAVARA POST,

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45296 RFA No. 1202 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 1818 of 2019

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

BENGALURU - 560 090. AND ALSO, AT SHANKARNILAYA, 10^TH CROSS, C MAIN, 6^TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 010.

¶29

...APPELLANT

¶30

(BY SRI. HARISH.N.R, ADVOCATE)

¶31

AND:

¶32

SMT. SRIMATHI W/O. LATE MADHUKAR AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO.7, 1^ST FLOOR, 11^TH CROSS, KILARI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 053.

¶33

SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O. SRI SADASHIVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. R/AT. NO.469, 'A' TYPE FLAT, BEML NAGAR, K.G.F - 563 115.

¶34

1. SRI BABU RAO DEAD BY HIS LRS

¶35

3(a). SMT. VIJAYA BAI W/O. LATE BABU RAO, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O. # 56, 1^ST FLOOR, 11^TH CROSS, HOSPITAL ROAD BEHIND ABHINAYA THEATRE, BENGALURU - 560 053.

¶36

3(b). SMT. MAMATHA P.B W/O. SRINIVASA CHARI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O. # 15, JAYALAKSHMI NILAYA, 3^RD FLOOR, 1^ST MAIN ROAD,

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:45296 RFA No. 1202 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 1818 of 2019

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

PALACE GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 003.

¶40

3(c). SMT. MANJU W/O. PANDU RANGA RAO P.V., AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, UNNATI NIVASA # 8/14, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, 15^TH CROSS, BEHIND GRAND SURABHI HOTEL, H.P. NAGAR, BANGARAPET, KOLAR - 563 115.

¶41

3(d). SRI. PRASAD RAO P.B S/O. LATE BABU RAO, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O. # 56, 1^ST FLOOR, 11^TH CROSS, HOSPITAL ROAD BEHIND ABHINAYA THEATRE, BENGALURU - 560 053.

¶42

...RESPONDENTS

¶43

(BY SRI. SUPREETH. S, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. SHIVAKUMAR.D.M, ADVOCATE FOR R3 (A TO D))

¶44

THIS RFA FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W.ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.04.2019 PASSED IN OS NO.8157/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-16), PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶45

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45296 RFA No. 1202 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 1818 of 2019

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶49

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶50

RFA No.1202/2019 is filed by defendant No.1 in O.S.No.8157/2010 questioning the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2019 passed in O.S.No.8157/2010 on the file of XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-16)¹ , thereby, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed in part. Whereas, RFA No.1818/2019 filed by defendant No.2 in O.S.No.8157/2010 questioning the said judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.8157/2010.

¶51

For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

¶52

The plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition and separate possession claiming that one Lakshmana Rao is the original propositus, who had four children namely, the plaintiffs and 1^st defendant and husband of 2^nd defendant. It is pleading of the plaintiffs that the said Lakshmana Rao

¶53

1 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short

¶54

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:45296 RFA No. 1202 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 1818 of 2019

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

had acquired the suit schedule property by virtue of a family partition during the year 1957. Therefore, the suit schedule property is joint family and ancestral property of the plaintiffs and defendants and after the death of said Lakshmana Rao, the plaintiffs and defendants have succeeded to the estate as co-owners. Smt. Mangamma

¶57

Bai is the wife of Lakshmana Rao, who died on 01.08.1997. The son, namely Gajendra Rao died on 04.10.2007 leaving behind his wife-2^nd defendant and two minor children to succeed to the suit schedule property.

¶58

Further submitted that there is no partition and the suit schedule property remained and continued as joint family and ancestral property and there is no partition in the family. The plaintiffs upon making demand for partition and claiming their share, but the defendants have refused to do so; hence, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit for partition and separate possession.

¶59

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:45296 RFA No. 1202 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 1818 of 2019

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

In response to summons issued, the defendants

¶62

appeared through their Advocate and filed written statement. It is the case of defendant No.1 made out in the written statement that Lakshmana Rao during his lifetime executed a registered Will dated 08.01.1986 in favour of his wife Smt. Mangamma Bai in respect of the suit schedule property and in the said Will, he expressed his wishes and desire that after his death, his wife Mangamma Bai shall be entitled to his estates during her life time and he has not provided any share in the suit schedule property to his daughters i.e., to the plaintiffs as the plaintiffs had been provided adequately during their marriage. The said Lakshmana Rao died on 13.02.1986 leaving behind his wife, two sons and two daughters. Therefore, the sons are having the shares of 50% each, but not to the daughters. Therefore, they claim share of 50% each to defendant Nos.1 and 2.

¶63

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:45296 RFA No. 1202 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 1818 of 2019

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

Defendant No.2 has also filed the written

¶66

statement and contended that the defendants are also entitled for 1/4^th share and claimed by metes and bounds being wife of her husband the deceased Gajendra Rao. Therefore, he prayed for declaration of 1/4^th share by metes and bounds in the suit schedule property. According

¶67

to the pleadings, the trial Court has framed following issues:

¶68

"1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that, they are having 1/4^th share in the suit properties?

¶69

2) Whether the defendant No.1 proves the execution of valid Will dated 8.1.1986 by Late Lakshmana Rao in favour of his wife in respect of suit properties?

¶70

3) Whether the defendant No.1 proves that plaintiffs and defendants have sold item No.2 of suit schedule property to Sri.T.Nagaraj by registered sale deed dated 29.4.2002?

¶71

4) Whether the defendant No.1 proves that only defendants 1 and 2 are having equal share in the suit properties?

¶72

5) Whether the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 are entitled for the reliefs prayed?

¶73

6) What decree or order?"

¶74

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:45296 RFA No. 1202 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 1818 of 2019

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

Plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW.1 and produced documents and got marked them as Exs.P1 to P15. The Special Power of Attorney holder of defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1 and produced documents and got marked as Exs.D1 to D12.

¶77

The trial Court has decreed the suit by granting 1/4^th share each to the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 by metes and bounds. The trial Court has assigned reasons that it is proved that Lakshmana Rao has acquired several properties through a valid partition occurred on 18.10.1957 and thus, the property is ancestral and joint properties of the plaintiff and defendants. Therefore, when the relationship between plaintiffs and defendants is proved and the schedule properties are joint family properties, therefore, trial Court decreed the suit by granting 1/4^th share to the plaintiffs and defendants.

¶78

Being aggrieved, the defendant No.1 has

¶79

preferred RFA No.1202/2019 and defendant No.2 has

¶80

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:45296 RFA No. 1202 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 1818 of 2019

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

preferred RFA No.1818/2019 by raising various grounds in the memorandum of appeal and appellants/defendants No.1 and 2 submitted that Lakshmana Rao has executed registered Will disputing all the properties in favour of his wife Mangamma Bai, who died on 13.02.1986 and there is specific clause in the said Will that no share shall be given to the daughters. They submitted that the plaintiffs and defendants are not entitled for any share in the suit schedule properties. They submitted that it is the intention of the Lakshmana Rao that no share had been allotted to the daughters, therefore, even after the death of Mangamma Bai also, the daughters were not allotted any share in the suit properties and this was not considered by the trial Court. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

¶83

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that Ex.D2 - Will is not proved as required under Section 63 of the Indian

¶84

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:45296 RFA No. 1202 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 1818 of 2019

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act,

¶87

Therefore, when the Will is not proved of its execution of the suit schedule properties and admittedly, Lakshmana Rao who is original propositus and after the death of Lakshmana Rao, considering it he has died intestate, the succession is as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly assigned reasons and decreed the partition suit. Hence, it is submitted that there is no need to make any interference in the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

¶88

After hearing the arguments, the following

¶89

points would arise for my consideration:-

¶90

i. Whether, under the facts and circumstances laid in the case, plaintiffs prove the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties and arise out of partition?

¶91

ii. Whether, the points of consideration in the case, the defendants proved that Lakshman Rao has executed registered Will dated 8.1.1986 bequeathing the entire suit schedule

¶92

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:45296 RFA No. 1202 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 1818 of 2019

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

properties to the defendants and also by not giving any share to the daughters?

¶95

iii. Whether, the decree requires any interference by this Court?

¶96

Relationship between the Plaintiff and

¶97

defendants are not in dispute. Lakshmana Rao is the original propositor is not in dispute. Mangamma Bai is his wife. Plaintiffs are the daughters, defendant No.1 is son and defendant No.2 husband named Gajendra Rao are sons of Lakshmana Rao and Mangamma Bai also are not in dispute. The second son named Gajendra Rao died on 4.10.2007. In the plaint, it is stated that Lakshmana Rao had acquired the schedule properties in a said partition in 1957 between Lakshmana Rao and his brother and therefore, Lakshmana Rao had become owner of the suit schedule properties. This fact is not disputed by the defendants No.1 and 2. It is the contention of defendants that on 08.09.1996 Lakshmana Rao executed a registered Will bequeathing entire property to Mangamma Bai, the

¶98

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:45296 RFA No. 1202 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 1818 of 2019

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

wife and also stated that the daughters are not at all having any share in the suit schedule properties, therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in the suit properties, but the defendants alone are entitled to half share each.

¶101

Ex.D2 - Will is registered one. There is no evidence by the defendants in proving the Will - Ex.D2. The legal requirements are that registration of Will is not compulsory or mandatory, but it is optional. The Will has to be proved as per Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, atleast by examining one attesting witness, but the defendants have not examined any of the attesting witnesses. Therefore, as per law, Ex.D2 - Will is not proved.

¶102

Even if, Ex.D.2 Will is said to be proved but as per the Will-Ex.D2, the properties exclusively belongs to his wife Mangamma Bai. Therefore, the will and wishes of the Lakshmana Rao is fulfilled by bequeathing all the

¶103

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:45296 RFA No. 1202 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 1818 of 2019

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

properties to his wife Mangamma Bai. Thus, Mangamma Bai had become absolute owner of the said property as per Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. Admittedly, Mangamma Bai died intestate. Therefore, even if Will is executed by Lakshmana Rao upon death of Mangamma Bai, the succession is as mentioned under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. As discussed above, it is held that the Will is not proved. Therefore, even if applying the law as per Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, upon death of Lakshmana Rao or if Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act is applied for succession upon death of Mangamma Bai, under these two circumstances and the legal background, the plaintiffs and defendants are entitled for equal share. Therefore, on both these counts, both plaintiff’s and defendants being Class-I legal heirs of Lakshmana Rao and Mangamma Bai, are entitled for equal share in the schedule properties.

¶106

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:45296 RFA No. 1202 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 1818 of 2019

¶107

HC-KAR

¶108

When this being the proved facts, the plaintiffs

¶109

being daughters are also entitled to equal share as that of sons as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and others reported in AIR 2020 SC 3717 .

¶110

Though the defendant No. 2 has filed appeal challenging the decree but in her written statement, she herself stated that property be partitioned and give her equal one portion. Therefore, plaintiff No. 2, who is the wife of Gajendra Rao and is entitled to 1/4^th share in the schedule properties.

¶111

Admittedly the schedule properties are not coparcenary properties. Moreover, execution of Will by Lakshmana Rao in favour of Mangamma Bai is not proved. Even if the Will is proved or not proved, there would not be any difference in governing the inheritance of properties to the plaintiffs and defendants as per Section 8 and Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, as described

¶112

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:45296 RFA No. 1202 of 2019 C/W RFA No. 1818 of 2019

¶113

HC-KAR

¶114

above. Therefore, the trial Court is correct in its finding by granting decree of partition and granting 1/4^th share each in the suit schedule properties. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 is the negative and Point No.2 in the affirmative and

¶115

point No.3 in the negative.

¶116