Smt. Mangalamma Vs Sri K Gangaiah — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2025)

Smt. Mangalamma Vs Sri K Gangaiah — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiffs, daughters of defendant No.1 claiming to be coparceners under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, are entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties despite the partition effected between defendant No.1 and his sons by the unregistered 'Palu Patti' dated 13.10.1999. +2 more

Court's answer

Defendant No.1 became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties after acquiring them under a decree in R.A.No.98/1999, and he and his sons divided the suit schedule properties under a Palu Patti dated 13.10.1999.

Ratio / Principle

The parties acted upon the Palu Patti dated 13.10.1999, and the names of defendant No.1 and his sons were entered in the revenue records pursuant to it.

Key takeaways

Before 2005, under Hindu Law, it was not necessary for a partition to be effected by a registered Partition Deed; oral partition was permissible.ratio¶15
Where the factum of partition is evidenced by entries in the record of rights maintained in the official course of business and the correctness thereof is not questioned, such entries constitute relevant documentary evidence corroborating the oral evidence of partition, as per the Apex Court ruling in Digambar Patil (AIR 1995 SC 1728) relied upon by this Court.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (NC: 2025:KHC:10369), Ashok S. Kinagi J., oral judgment dated 11.03.2025 — Regular Second Appeal No. 2159 of 2023 (PAR/POS) under S.100 CPC by plaintiff No.1, a daughter of defendant No.1, against dismissal of her suit for partition and separate possession. Concurrent findings confirmed: Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala (O.S.No.691/2016, old No.226/2008; judgment and decree dated 06.06.2019) and VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District (R.A.No.113/2019; judgment and decree dated 29.09.2023). Held: defendant No.1 acquired the suit properties under a decree in R.A.No.98/1999 and divided them with his sons by an unregistered 'Palu Patti' dated 13.10.1999, on which the parties acted and pursuant to which revenue records were mutated; before 2005 oral/unregistered partition was permissible under Hindu Law, and record-of-rights entries, whose correctness was never questioned, corroborate the oral evidence (relying on Digambar Patil, AIR 1995 SC 1728); PW-1 admitted the partition and the plaintiffs never challenged the Palu Patti (Exs.D-5 to D-8), the revenue entries, the gift deeds dated 12.07.1999 or the registered sale deed; the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 saves partitions effected before 20.12.2004, and the Palu Patti (13.10.1999) predates the cut-off, so the daughters were not entitled to a share and there was a severance of status. No error or substantial question of law found; appeal dismissed, both decrees confirmed, no order as to costs; I.A.No.1/2023 (temporary injunction) disposed of as not surviving. (The Trial Court had considered Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1.)

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10369 RSA No. 2159 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2159 OF 2023 (PAR/POS)

BETWEEN:

SMT.MANGALAMMA, D/O GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.181/1-A, 6^TH MAIN, 3^RD BLOCK, THYAGARAJANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 028.

…APPELLANT

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

AND:

Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SRI. K. GANGAIAH, S/O KUMBEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS,

SRI. THIMMAPPA, S/O GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

SRI. CHIKKA KAMBEGOWDA, S/O GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

SRI. H.G. SHIVASHANKAR, S/O GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10369 RSA No. 2159 of 2023

RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK - 561 103.

SMT. UMADEVI, W/O NARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.307, MANJUNATHAN NAGAR, KOLI FARM, TUDA LAYOUT, TUMKUR.

SMT. LALITHA, W/O SIDDAGANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.303, GOVINDA RAO LAYOUT.

SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA, W/O ANANDAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.56, GOVINDA RAO LAYOUT, SWANSILK FACTORY, EASTERN SIDE, NELAMANGALA TOWN, BENGALURU DISTRICT.

SMT. BHAGYAMMA, W/O BYREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.113, ARISHINAKUNTE, NELAMANGALA TALUK - 561 103.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.N.R.JAGADEESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4)

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10369 RSA No. 2159 of 2023

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVILL PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.09.2023 PASSED IN R.A.NO.113/2019 ON THE FILE OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.06.2019 PASSED IN OS NO.691/2016 (OLD NO.226/2008) ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT NELAMANGALA.

THIS RSA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 29.09.2023 passed in R.A.No.113/2019, by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, and the judgment and preliminary decree dated 06.06.2019 passed in O.S.No.691/2016 (old No.226/2008), by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Nelamangala.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10369 RSA No. 2159 of 2023

For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the Trial Court. The appellant herein was plaintiff No.1, respondents No.1 to 7 were the defendants and respondent No.8 was plaintiff No.2.

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

The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the plaintiffs are the daughters of defendant No.1. Defendants No.2 to 7 are the children of defendant No.1. The plaintiffs and defendants constitute a Hindu Undivided Joint Family. The suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and defendants. The plaintiffs and defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. No partition is effected between the plaintiffs and defendants. The plaintiffs demanded partition and separate possession, but the defendants refused to effect the partition. It is contended that, defendant No.1 tried to alienate the suit

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10369 RSA No. 2159 of 2023

schedule properties. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

Defendant No.1 filed a written statement. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 and 6 adopted the written statement filed by defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 admitted the relationship between the parties. It is contended that as per the order passed in R.A.No.98/1999 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur, the suit schedule properties fell to the share of defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 became the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule properties.

5.1. It is contended that there was a partition between defendant No.1 and his sons, and they divided the suit schedule properties under a Palu Patti dated 13.10.1999. Based on the Palu Patti, the names of defendant No.1 and his sons were entered in the revenue records, and defendant No.2 mortgaged the properties fell to his share to PLD Bank, Nelamangala and availed loan.

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10369 RSA No. 2159 of 2023

It is contended that the suit schedule properties are no longer the ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants.

5.2. It is contended that defendant No.1 executed a

registered Gift Deed dated 12.07.1999 in favour of defendant No.5 regarding site No.426 and another Gift Deed in favour of defendant No.7 with respect to site No.429 measuring 30'x40' feet. It is contended that the defendants No.1 to 4 sold site bearing No.16, at Baddihalli Village, in favour of Jayalakshmamma to perform the marriage of the plaintiffs. It is contended that golden articles were given to the plaintiffs at the time of their marriage. It is contended that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in the suit schedule properties. Hence, they prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

Though summons were duly served on defendant Nos.5 and 7, they remained un-represented, and they were placed ex-parte .

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10369 RSA No. 2159 of 2023

The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. To substantiate their

case, plaintiff No.1 herself examined as PW-1, examined one witness as PW-2 and marked 40 documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-40. On the other hand, defendants No.1 to 4 examined themselves as DW-1, DW-2, DW-4 and

DW-6, examined two witnesses as DW-3 and DW-5, and marked 31 documents as Exhibits D-1 to D-31.

The Trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing on both sides and on assessment of oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs with costs, vide judgment dated 06.06.2019. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.691/2016 filed an appeal in R.A.No.113/2019, on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.

The appellate Court, on re-assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal vide

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10369 RSA No. 2159 of 2023

judgment dated 29.09.2023. Plaintiff No.1, aggrieved by

the impugned judgments, filed this regular second appeal.

Heard the argument of the learned counsel for plaintiff No.1.

Learned counsel for plaintiff No.1 submits that the document relied upon by defendant No.1 to prove the factum of partition is not admissible. The said document, termed as 'Palu Patti', is an unregistered document, and the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have committed an error in relying on the unregistered Palu Patti.

11.1. He submits that the plaintiffs are the daughters of defendant No.1. They are the coparceners as per Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. No partition is effected between the plaintiffs and the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties. He also submits that the partition is not registered. Hence, the plaintiffs are

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10369 RSA No. 2159 of 2023

entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties. Hence,

on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

Perused the records and considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties.

It is not disputed that defendant No.1 acquired the property in a partition between him and his brothers in R.A.No.98/1999. After acquiring the properties under a decree passed in R.A.No.98/1999, the properties were transferred in the name of defendant No.1. He became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. Defendant No.1 and his sons divided the suit schedule properties, under a Palu Patti dated 13.10.1999. The parties have acted on the Palu Patti. The names of defendant No.1 and his sons were entered in the revenue records as per Palu Patti dated 13.10.1999.

Before 2005, under Hindu Law, it was not necessary for a partition to be effected by a registered Partition Deed. Oral partition was permissible. Under those circumstances, when the factum of partition is

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:10369 RSA No. 2159 of 2023

evidenced by entries in the record of rights, maintained in the official course of business, the correctness thereof was not questioned. It corroborates with the oral evidence made by defendants No.1 to 4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Digambar xx Patil Vs. xx reported in AIR 1995

SC 1728 , held that, the entries in record of rights regarding the factum of partition is a relevant piece of documentary evidence in support of the oral evidence. Admittedly, in the case on hand, PW-1 has admitted about the partition between her father and brothers. Admittedly, the plaintiffs have not challenged the entries in the name of defendants No.1 to 4 and also not challenged the Palu Patti executed between defendant No.1 and his sons as per Exs.D-5 to D-8, and further based on the revenue records, defendant No.1 executed a Gift Deed dated 12.07.1999 in favour of defendant No.7 concerning site bearing No.429 and also executed another Gift Deed in favour of defendant No.5 on 12.07.1999 in respect of site No.426. However, defendants No.1 to 4 sold site bearing No.16 in favour of Jayalakshmamma. The plaintiffs have

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:10369 RSA No. 2159 of 2023

neither challenged the registered Sale Deed, Palu Patti, the revenue records nor the registered Gift Deeds dated 12.07.1999, executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.7 and 5. Defendant No.1 and his children have acted on the Palu Patti.

As of the date of amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, there was a partition effected between defendant No.1 and his sons. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act, 1956, contemplates that the alienation including any partition effected before 20.12.2004 is saved. Admittedly, Palu Patti was effected on 13.10.1999, i.e. before 20.12.2004.

The Trial Court, considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and others reported in (2020)9 Supreme Court Cases 1 and also considering the admission of PW-1, who has admitted the execution of a Partition Deed between her father and brothers, observed that the

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:10369 RSA No. 2159 of 2023

plaintiffs had the knowledge regarding the said partition, however, they did not challenge the partition effected in 1999, till 2016.

As observed above, there was a partition before 20.12.2004. Hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties. As of the date of filing of the suit, the suit schedule properties were not the ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants, and there was a severance of status.

Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Courts have recorded the concurrent findings and passed the impugned judgments. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments nor any substantial questions of law would arise for consideration in this appeal.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i) The Regular Second Appeal is

dismissed .

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:10369 RSA No. 2159 of 2023

ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 29.09.2023 passed in R.A.No.113/2019

by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru and the judgment and decree dated 06.06.2019 passed in O.S.No.691/2016 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala, are hereby confirmed.

iii) No order as to costs.

In view of the disposal of the main appeal, I.A.No.1/2023 for Temporary Injunction does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34