Plaintiff daughter sued for partition claiming 1/4 share and challenged a gift deed by her father to his brother. Holding the plaint admitted the property was purchased by the grandfather, the court held it was self-acquired, devolved on the father under Section 8, and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2026:KHC:6902 RFA No. 1768 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1768 OF 2025 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SAMPATH KUMAR .A.V, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRATHEEP .K.C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2026:KHC:6902 RFA No. 1768 of 2025
HC-KAR
OPP. ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE BAPUJINAGAR, CHIKKABALLAPURA BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-01.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. AKSHAY R. HUDDAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUBAIR .K.M, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4; V/O DATED 22.01.2026 NOTICE TO OTHER RESPONDENTS IS NOT NECESSARY)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.06.2025 PASSED IN OS.NO.986/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE LII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
NC: 2026:KHC:6902 RFA No. 1768 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
The captioned appeal is by unsuccessful plaintiff assailing the dismissal of the suit filed in O.S.No.986/2017 wherein plaintiff's suit seeking for partition and separate possession is dismissed by the Court on the ground that suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of first
defendant.
referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
| gÁª | ÀÄÄqÀÄ @ J¸ï. gÁªÀÄAiÀÄå (¥sÀªÀw) ¸À£ÁägÀªÀÄä (¥ÀªÀw) ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ |
|---|---|
| Dgï.ªÀÄĤAiÀÄ¥Àà Dgï.ªÀÄĤªÀiÁgÀªÀÄä Dgï.ªÀÄĤAiÀÄ¥ïà ö 70 ªÀµÀð 63 ªÀµÀð (dƤAiÀÄgï - ªÀÄUÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄĤAiÀÄ¥Àà) (¥ÀªÀw) |
Dgï.ªÀÄĤAiÀĪÀÄä Dgï.zÉêÁd Dgï.ªÉAPÀmÉñÀ Dgï.dAiÀÄ®Qëöä Dgï.EAzsÀƪÀÄw 62 ªÀµÀð 60 ªÀµÀð 56 ªÀµÀð 53 ªÀµÀð 51 ªÀµÀð (¥ÀªÀw) ªÉAPÀlªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 48 ªÀµÀð |
| 1. ¥Àæ¨sÁPÀgÀ 37 ªÀµÀð 2. PÀ¸ÀÆÛj 34 ªÀµÀð |
|
| 3. GµÁ 32 ªÀµÀð |
NC: 2026:KHC:6902 RFA No. 1768 of 2025
HC-KAR
defendant, instituted the present suit seeking partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share in the suit schedule property. She has also sought a declaration that the gift deed dated 30.08.2016, executed by the first defendant in favour of his brother, namely defendant No.4, is a sham and nominal document, not supported by consideration, and therefore not binding on her legitimate share in the suit schedule property.
HC-KAR
not available for partition, rendering the suit devoid of any cause of action.
HC-KAR
afforded full opportunity to lead oral and documentary evidence. The plaintiff adduced evidence in support of her claim. Defendant No.4, in rebuttal, examined himself and marked documents at Exs.D-1 to D-16, seeking to establish that the first defendant had incurred substantial debts and that defendant No.4 had repaid the same, which allegedly culminated in the execution of the gift deed in question. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the Trial Court dismissed the suit.
appearing for the plaintiff and the learned counsel appearing for defendant No.4 and has carefully perused the entire material available on record.
"(i) Whether the finding recorded by the Trial Court
holding that the suit schedule property is the self-
NC: 2026:KHC:6902 RFA No. 1768 of 2025
HC-KAR
acquired property of the first defendant is perverse
and warrants interference by this Court?
(ii) What order?"
Finding on point No.(i):
"4. The plaintiff submits that the property bearing No.18/1, situated at Muneshwara B Block,
NC: 2026:KHC:6902 RFA No. 1768 of 2025
HC-KAR
Mattadahalli, Bangalore, which is more fully described in the schedule hereunder was purchased by late Ramudu, @ Ramaiah, S/o. late Subbaiah, the father of the first defendant and the four defendant from Zaheera Bi, W/o.Mohammed Saheb through registered sale deed dated 16.06.1952. The first defendant has inherited the estate of Ramudu on the demise of the latter on 09.04.2001 and Ramudu's wife Sannaramma died on 10.12.2000. The first defendant and his sister R. Jayalakshmi had entered into partition deed and the suit schedule property was devolved to the share of the first defendant. The fourth defendant got the ancestral properties in the family partition deed dated 30.11.2008 after the demise of the aforesaid Ramudu and Sannaramma. But the first defendant lived in the old rickety Mangalore tiled roof house and never made any improvements on the schedule property."
(Emphasis Supplied)
HC-KAR
consequence inexorably follows. The property being the self-acquired property of the grandfather, the plaintiff cannot assert any birthright therein. Upon the demise of the grandfather, the first defendant, being his son, succeeded to the property by intestate succession under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Such succession confers title on the heir in his individual capacity, and not as a coparcener. Consequently, the plaintiff, being the daughter of the first defendant, does not acquire any right by birth in the property inherited by her father from his father.
NC: 2026:KHC:6902 RFA No. 1768 of 2025
HC-KAR
pleadings, particularly paragraph No.4 of the plaint extracted supra, unequivocally admit that the suit schedule property was purchased by the plaintiff’s grandfather under a registered sale deed dated 16.06.1952. Such property, being purchased by the grandfather, is a self-acquired property in his hands and does not constitute ancestral or coparcenary property. Therefore, no coparcenary ever came into existence in respect of the suit schedule property. In the absence of a coparcenary, Section 6 has no application whatsoever to the facts of the present case.
The first defendant, being the son of the deceased, inherited the suit schedule property under Section 8 of the Act, and such inheritance is in his individual capacity.
NC: 2026:KHC:6902 RFA No. 1768 of 2025
HC-KAR
Property inherited by a son under Section 8 of the Act does not retain the character of joint family or coparcenary property vis-à-vis his own children.
NC: 2026:KHC:6902 RFA No. 1768 of 2025
HC-KAR
examination of defendant No.4, there is no cogent oral or documentary evidence placed on record to establish that the plaintiff had invested any amount towards construction or improvement of the property. On the contrary, defendant No.4, by leading rebuttal evidence, has demonstrated that the first defendant was under acute financial distress, having incurred several debts, and that defendant No.4 had discharged such liabilities and had also paid additional amounts, which ultimately culminated in the execution of the gift deed in his favour.
NC: 2026:KHC:6902 RFA No. 1768 of 2025
HC-KAR
inherited the same under Section 8 of the Act, the plaintiff is left with no subsisting cause of action to maintain a suit for partition or to question the alienation made by the absolute owner. The Trial Court has meticulously appreciated these aspects and has rightly answered Issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative. The findings recorded are firmly grounded on the plaintiff’s own pleadings coupled with the rebuttal evidence adduced by defendant No.4. This Court finds no perversity, illegality, or infirmity warranting interference. Accordingly, Point No.(i) is answered in the Negative.
Finding on point No.(ii):
this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, stand
dismissed .
Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE
ALB/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court's finding that the suit property was the self-acquired property of defendant No.1 was perverse and warranted interference?
Whether a daughter can claim coparcenary rights by birth in property inherited by her father from his father under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Kasthuri
Sri. R. Devaraj
Sri. Prabhakar
Smt. Usha
Sri. R. Venkatesh
Sachin Shankar Magadum
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
