Appeal by defendants 2 and 3 against a preliminary decree granting plaintiffs a 1/3rd share each in ancestral properties. The court held their father had separated under a registered 1979 partition deed, so they had no locus; the alleged 1993 Pallu Patti could not bind the plaintiffs. Appeal dismissed.
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:3393 RFA No. 573 of 2012
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.573 OF 2012 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
S/O LATE HANUMANTHA RAO
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
C.NANDIHALLI, CHELUR HOBLI GUBBI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572101
S/O LATE HANUMANTHA RAO
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS C.NANDIHALLI, CHELUR HOBLI GUBBI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572101
Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. B K MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)
…APPELLANTS
AND:
W/O B.K.MUKUNDA RAO
BHOUNSLE AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS BENNUR VILLAGE GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572101
NC: 2026:KHC:3393 RFA No. 573 of 2012
HC-KAR
W/O V N BABU RAO AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS D.NO.370/S, 25TH , 8TH CROSS HEBBAL II STAGE HINKEL MYSORE - 570001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.KALYAN BASAVARJ, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 AND R.2; SRI.N.K.SIDDESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R.3; NOTICE TO R.4 IS D/W V/O/D 01.08.2013)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.11.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.54/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMKUR, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION AND FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND ETC.
NC: 2026:KHC:3393 RFA No. 573 of 2012
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL JUDGMENT
The captioned appeal is filed by defendant Nos.2 and 3, who are the legal heirs of Hanumantha Rao, assailing the preliminary decree granted in O.S.No.54/2001, wherein plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are granted 1/3rd share each in the suit schedule properties and the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 on 07.09.1990 in favour of defendant No.4 is held to be not binding on the plaintiffs’ legitimate share.
- 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:3393 RFA No. 573 of 2012
HC-KAR
Lingoji Rao
Govinda Rao
Lakshmi Bai Sakku Bai
Hanumantha Rao
Lakshmi Bai Prakash Rao Eshwari Bai
(P.1) (D.1) (P.2)
The plaintiffs, namely T.G. Lakshmibai and
T.G. Eshwaribai, daughters born through the second wife
Sakkubai to Govinda Rao, instituted a suit for partition in O.S.No.54/2001 seeking separate possession of their
legitimate share in the suit schedule properties. It was pleaded that the suit schedule properties are joint family ancestral properties belonging to Govinda Rao and defendant No.1, in which the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/3rd share each. It was further averred that their marriages
HC-KAR
were solemnized in the year 1990. The plaintiffs alleged
that defendant Nos.2 and 3, who are strangers to the immediate branch of the family, taking undue advantage of the weakness of defendant No.1, have managed to get
the katha mutated in their names in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule properties.
5 . Upon service of summons, defendant Nos.1 to 3 entered appearance and filed their written statements contesting the suit. While admitting that the suit schedule properties were originally joint family ancestral properties, the defendants specifically contended that a partition had already taken place between Govinda Rao and his son through the first wife, namely Hanumantha Rao, under a registered Partition Deed dated 29.09.1979. It was asserted that pursuant to the said partition, Hanumantha Rao stood separated from the family and was allotted his exclusive share.
NC: 2026:KHC:3393 RFA No. 573 of 2012
HC-KAR
by contending that a revenue site was purchased in the name of plaintiff No.1 through a GPA and that the same was sold for a sum of Rs.80,000/-, which was utilized towards purchase of gold, jewellery and marriage expenses. Defendant No.1 alleged that the entire marriage expenses of plaintiff No.1 were borne by him, which was acknowledged by the plaintiffs under an agreement dated 14.11.1994. It was further contended that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was spent towards the marriage of plaintiff No.1 by availing a loan obtained by mortgaging item No.2 of the suit schedule property. Defendant No.1 also alleged that he and his mother had mortgaged the suit properties, discharged the loan and incurred expenses exceeding Rs.2.5 lakhs towards the marriage of plaintiff No.2 solemnized on 15.05.1997. It was on these grounds that
item No.3 of the suit schedule properties was sold in favour of defendant No.4 for a consideration of
NC: 2026:KHC:3393 RFA No. 573 of 2012
HC-KAR
Rs.1,40,000/- under a registered sale deed executed in the year 1996.
Trial Court decreed the suit granting 1/3rd share each to the plaintiffs by drawing a preliminary decree.
HC-KAR
a subsequent partition dated 25.03.1993 in respect of item
Nos.1 to 3 of the suit schedule properties under a Pallu Patti. It is contended that out of the total extent measuring 9 acres 10 guntas, defendant Nos.2 and 3 were allotted 2 acres each in Sy. No.62/2 and that pursuant to the said Pallu Patti, they have been in exclusive possession since 1993. It is further asserted that they have developed the land by raising coconut plantation after availing loan from Canara Bank, and that the original Pallu Patti dated 25.03.1993 is pledged with the said Bank.
HC-KAR
defendant Nos.2 and 3, being the children of a coparcener who had already separated, have no locus to set up a plea of subsequent partition in respect of the properties retained by Govinda Rao. It was also pointed out that the said partition of 1979 is admitted even in para No.6 of the appeal memorandum. On these grounds, dismissal of the appeal was sought.
the parties and on perusal of the records, the following points arise for consideration:
(i) Whether defendant Nos.2 and 3 have locus standi to maintain the present appeal?
HC-KAR
(ii) Whether the judgment and preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court granting 1/3rd share each to the plaintiffs suffers from perversity warranting interference by this Court?
(iii) What order?
Findings on point Nos(i) and (ii) :-
"6. Suit properties along with some more properties were the joint family properties of Govinda Rao and his sons Hanumantha Rao and Prakash Rao. Govinda Rao and his eldest son Hanumantha Rao effected partition under a registered partition deed dated 29.09.1979. Item Nos.1 and 3 of the suit schedule fell to the share of Govinda Rao. Item No.2 of the suit schedule was allotted to Govinda Rao by Karnataka Housing Board to Govinda Rao on installments, and after his death, 1st defendant paid balance consideration and became owner of item No.2 of the suit property."
(emphasis supplied)
NC: 2026:KHC:3393 RFA No. 573 of 2012
HC-KAR
"6. According to the written statement filed by the 3rd respondent on 29.09.1979 that the joint family properties which belonged to Govinda Rao and his sons Hanumantha Rao and Praksh Rao was partitioned between Govinda Rao and his eldest son Hanumantha Rao as per the registered partition deed dated 29.09.1979. Item Nos.1 and 3 of the suit schedule properties fell to the share of Govinda Rao. It is submitted that the item No.2 of suit schedule properties was allotted to Govinda Rao by the Karnataka Housing Board on installment basis. During the life time of Govinda Rao, he has paid some installments and after his death, the 3rd respondent Prakash Rao paid the balance consideration and became the absolute owner of item No.2. According to the 3rd respondent, Hanumantha Rao - 1st son of Govinda Rao sold the property allotted to his share in the partition and out of the sale proceeds,
NC: 2026:KHC:3393 RFA No. 573 of 2012
HC-KAR
Hanumantha Rao purchased land at Nelhal Village and he was running wine shop at Tumkur."
HC-KAR
effected between defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.2 and
3 cannot bind the plaintiffs, who admittedly were not parties to the said arrangement. In the absence of any pre-existing right flowing from their father, defendant Nos.2 and 3 had no locus either to assert a claim in respect of the suit schedule properties or to challenge the preliminary decree passed in O.S. No.54/2001. It was only defendant No.1, being the coparcener in whom the property vested after the 1979 partition, who could have maintained an appeal against the preliminary decree.
emerging from the pleadings is that a registered Partition
Deed came to be executed on 29.09.1979 between Govinda Rao and his son Hanumantha Rao, who was born through the first wife. Under the said registered partition, Hanumantha Rao took his defined and exclusive share and
thereby stood separated from the joint family during the lifetime of Govinda Rao. In Hindu law, once a partition is effected by a registered instrument, it results in complete
NC: 2026:KHC:3393 RFA No. 573 of 2012
HC-KAR
severance of status, bringing the coparcenary to an end to the extent of the separating coparcener. Such severance is absolute and irreversible, and the separated coparcener thereafter holds his share as his separate property. The legal consequence of such severance is that the descendants of the separated coparcener cannot claim any right by birth in the properties retained by the remaining coparceners, nor do they constitute a joint or undivided Hindu family with them.
NC: 2026:KHC:3393 RFA No. 573 of 2012
HC-KAR
decree passed therein. A preliminary decree in a partition suit can be challenged only by a person who has a legally cognizable share or interest in the joint family property. Since defendant Nos.2 and 3 trace their claim solely through a father who had already separated and since they derive no independent right in the properties retained by Govinda Rao and defendant No.1, their challenge to the preliminary decree is legally untenable. Consequently, the appeal at their instance is devoid of locus and is liable to be rejected on this ground alone.
NC: 2026:KHC:3393 RFA No. 573 of 2012
HC-KAR
and 3 is of no legal consequence and cannot defeat the independent and statutory rights of the plaintiffs as daughters of Govinda Rao.
recorded on point Nos.(i) and (ii), this Court proceeds to pass the following;
ORDER
The appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed.
SD/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE
NBM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19
2 issues framed by the court
Whether defendant Nos.2 and 3 have locus standi to maintain the appeal against the preliminary decree?
Whether the Trial Court's preliminary decree granting the plaintiffs 1/3rd share each suffers from perversity?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Papanna Rao
Ramakrishna Rao
T.G. Lakshmibai
Eshwaribai T G
T G Prakash Rao
Swethakumari
Sachin Shankar Magadum
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
