Daughter's suit for partition of her intestate father's self-acquired properties was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as barred by Section 6(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. The High Court dismissed the regular first appeal at admission, holding no cause of action for partition.
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:16585-DB RFA No. 295 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 295 OF 2018 (PAR/DEC)
BETWEEN:
(BY SRI. KIRAN GOWDA.M, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R S PRASANNA KUMAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2026:KHC:16585-DB RFA No. 295 of 2018
HC-KAR
KARNATAKA-560067
S/O LATE B.S.RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT BELAKERI VILLAGE, ANGONDANAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-560067.
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:16585-DB RFA No. 295 of 2018
HC-KAR
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT KARNATAKA-560067
NC: 2026:KHC:16585-DB RFA No. 295 of 2018
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT KOTURU VILLAGE ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT KARNATAKA-560067
NC: 2026:KHC:16585-DB RFA No. 295 of 2018
HC-KAR
HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
BOTH R/AT RAGHURAM WOOD WORKS, NEAR RAMA WOOD WORKS, NEAR K.K.SCHOOL, VARTHUR MAIN ROAD, VARTHU HOBLI, VARTHUR, BENGALURU-560087
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RISHYAK.R.BHANAVARA., ADVOCATE FOR R21 AND R22; R5(a) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED 09.02.2023, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2, R3, R5-R20 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2017 PASSED IN OS NO.949/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, REJECTING THE PLAINT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
NC: 2026:KHC:16585-DB RFA No. 295 of 2018
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
The present regular first appeal has been filed under
Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the CPC' ), impugning the order dated 25.10.2017 passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.949/2017.
HC-KAR
and the defendant Nos.1 to 6 had acquired the suit schedule properties in land bearing Survey Nos.82/1 82/2 and 82/3, totally measuring 3 acres 3 guntas situated at Koturu Village of Hosakote Taluk, by way of succession from his father late Poojappa. The case of the plaintiff was that plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 6 were having undivided interest in the suit schedule properties. The defendant No.4 got executed a gift deed on 12.03.2004 with respect to the suit schedule properties from Narayanappa. It was further said that neither the gift deed nor the sale effected in respect of the suit schedule properties in favour of the defendants were binding on her and she was entitled for 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties.
NC: 2026:KHC:16585-DB RFA No. 295 of 2018
HC-KAR
Amendment Act, 2005, and the following two points were
framed for consideration by the trial Court:-
8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was of the opinion that after the death of Narayanappa's father, Narayanappa became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties by virtue of provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, as the suit schedule properties were his self-acquired properties by way of succession and held that his sons and daughters would not have claim to partition of the said properties. Further during the lifetime of Narayanappa he had executed a gift deed dated 12.03.2004 in respect of the suit schedule properties in favour of one Son Venkatesh/the defendant No.4 and subsequently defendant No.4 had alienated different
HC-KAR
portion of the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant Nos.7 to 19 under different sale deeds and thereafter, the defendant Nos.7 and 8 i.e., the purchasers of a portion of the suit properties have alienated the different portions of the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant No.20.
counsel for the parties.
NC: 2026:KHC:16585-DB RFA No. 295 of 2018
HC-KAR
any error in rejecting the plaint inasmuch as the plaintiff does not have cause of action with respect to the suit schedule properties to seek partition.
Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE
Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE
NG CT:SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the daughter had a right to partition of properties the father acquired by succession and gifted during his lifetime, given the proviso to Section 6(1) of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act,
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Smt Rathnamma
Smt Mallamma
Sri Muniraju
Smt Gowramma
Sri Venkatesh
Respondent Nos. 5(a) to 22
D K Singh
T.M.Nadaf
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
