B S Ravikumar Vs Janakamma — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2026)

B S Ravikumar Vs Janakamma — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular Second Appeal allowed; the First Appellate Court's judgment and decree dated 07.09.2013 in R.A.No.190/2011 modified: plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and defendant No.1 entitled to 1/4th share each in Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties; rest of the judgment maintained; defendant No.4 at liberty to work out his remedy in the final decree proceedings.

Issue for consideration

Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in modifying the judgment and decree of the Trial Court? +1 more

Court's answer

Substantial Questions of Law Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the negative: the First Appellate Court was not justified in modifying the Trial Court's judgment and decree, nor in ordering that Item No.1 be allotted to defendant No.1 at the time of drawing the final decree.

Ratio / Principle

Under the Central Government's 2005 amendment of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, daughters are coparceners entitled to a share equal to that of a son; the First Appellate Court failed to adequately consider this aspect and wrongly declined an equal share to plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 on the sole ground that they are daughters.

Key takeaways

Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and defendant No.1 are entitled to an equal share in Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties, i.e., 1/4th share each.ratio¶24
The First Appellate Court committed an error in modifying the Trial Court's judgment and decree insofar as Item No.1 property is concerned, and that modification is required to be modified.ratio¶25
Both Courts below had concurrently recorded a finding of fact that defendant Nos.3 and 4 failed to prove that the 2004 sale of Item No.1 was for family and legal necessity; that finding was not disturbed by this Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Partition — Regular Second Appeal under Sec.100 CPC by the three children (including two daughters) of defendant No.1 against the First Appellate Court's judgment dated 07.09.2013 in R.A.No.190/2011 (III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mandya), which had partly allowed the purchasers' appeal and modified the preliminary decree in O.S.No.149/2006 by confining Item No.1 to plaintiff No.1 (1/2 share) and defendant No.1 (1/2 share), denying plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 any share in Item No.1 because they are daughters. Both Courts below had concurrently found that defendants 3 and 4 failed to prove the 2004 sale of Item No.1 was for family and legal necessity, and that finding stood unchallenged. Held, answering Substantial Questions of Law Nos.1 and 2 (framed 21.12.2020) in the negative: applying Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, AIR 2020 SC 3717, and the amended Section 6, Hindu Succession Act, daughters are coparceners entitled to shares equal to a son's, and the First Appellate Court erred in modifying the Trial Court's decree in respect of Item No.1. Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and defendant No.1 are therefore each entitled to 1/4th share in Item No.1; the impugned judgment and decree stand modified accordingly, the remainder is maintained, and defendant No.4 is left free to work out his remedy in the final decree proceedings.

NC: 2026:KHC:10111 RSA No. 124 of 2014

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 124 OF 2014 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

B.S. RAVIKUMAR

AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

VATSHALA

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

MALA

AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,

APPELLANTS 1 TO 3 ARE CHILDREN OF SHRINIVASA

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

R/O BELAGOLA VILLAGE, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK-571 438.

(BY SRI. V. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE)

…APPELLANTS

AND:

JANAKAMMA

W/O LATE NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

R/O KUMBARAGERI,

SRIRANGAPATNA TOWN-571 438.

H.V. BASAVARAJU S/O VEERABHADRAIAH,

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:10111 RSA No. 124 of 2014

HC-KAR

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O HOSSANDURU VILLAGE-571 438, BELAGOLA HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK.

3. SHRINIVASA

S/O LATE KARIYAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

4. MANJULA

W/O SRINIVAS

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

RESPONDENTS NO.3 AND 4 ARE R/AT BELAGOLA VILLAGE-571 438, BELAGOLA HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SUNANDA SARKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DEEPAK J., ADVOCATE FOR R2.,; R1, R3 AND R4 ARE SERVED)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 07.09.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.190/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE MANDY (SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNNA) PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD. 17.09.2011 PASSED IN O.S. NO. 149/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), JUDGE., SRIRANGAPATNA.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:10111 RSA No. 124 of 2014

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2013 passed in R.A. No.190 of 2011 by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, sitting at Srirangapatna.

For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the Trial Court. The appellants were the plaintiffs, and the respondents were the defendants.

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

The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for a partition and separate possession. It is the case of the plaintiffs that one Kariyappa was the original propositus. He had three children viz., Doddappa, Hanumashetty and Srinivasa. The plaintiffs are the children of Srinivasa i.e., defendant No.1; Defendant

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:10111 RSA No. 124 of 2014

HC-KAR

No.2 is the wife of defendant No.1 and the mother of the plaintiffs; and defendant Nos.3 and 4 are the purchasers of Item No.1 of the suit schedule property.

It is contended that the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the members of a Hindu Undivided Joint Family and the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2. There is no partition effected between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2. The plaintiffs demanded a partition and separate possession, but, defendant No.1 refused to effect a partition. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

Despite the service of summons on defendant Nos.1 and 2, they remained unrepresented, and were placed ex parte .

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:10111 RSA No. 124 of 2014

HC-KAR

Defendant Nos.3 and 4 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that defendant No.1 sold Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant No.3 under a registered sale deed dated 06.09.2004. Defendant No.3 is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. It is also contended that defendant No.3 had sold the said property in favour of defendant No.4 under a registered sale deed dated 06.05.2006. Defendant No.4 is in possession of Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties and he is a bona fide purchaser of the same. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit insofar as Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties is concerned.

The Trial Court based on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:

“1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the children of defendant Nos.1 & 2?

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:10111 RSA No. 124 of 2014

HC-KAR

1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendant Nos.1 and 2?

1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they have 1/4^th share in the suit schedule properties?

1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the sale deed executed in favour of the 3^rd defendant by defendant Nos.1 and 2 on 06.09.2004 in respect of suit item No.1 is not binding on them?

1. Whether the 3^rd and 4^th defendants prove that the sale made in their favour in respect of suit No.1 by defendant Nos.1 & 2 is bona fide ?

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession of 1/4^th share in all the suit properties by metes and bounds?

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:10111 RSA No. 124 of 2014

HC-KAR

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for mesne profits?

1. What decree or orders?”

The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.1 examined himself as PW1, and marked 5 documents as Exhibits P1 to P5.

In rebuttal, defendant Nos.3 and 4 examined themselves as DW1 and DW2; and marked 7 documents as Exhibits D1 to D7.

The Trial court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides, and after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, decreed the suit in part, vide judgment dated 17.09.2011 and held that plaintiff No.1 is entitled to 1/2 share in respect of Item No.1 property, and 1/4^th share in respect of Item Nos.2 to 4 of the properties; the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to 1/4^th share in respect of Item Nos.2 to 4 properties. Defendant No.1 is entitled to 1/2 share in

8 -

NC: 2026:KHC:10111 RSA No. 124 of 2014

HC-KAR

Item No.1 property and 1/4^th share in Item Nos.2 to 4 properties, on payment of separate court fees.

Defendant Nos.3 and 4, aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree passed in O.S. No.149 of 2006 preferred an appeal in R.A. No.190 of 2011 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya.

The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration:

“1) Whether defendants No.3 & 4 prove that they are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration and entitled for equity in their favour?

1. Whether trial court has committed any error either law or facts and interference by this court in the Judgment and decree passed by the trial court in respect of Item the No.1 of the schedule property is necessary?

1. What order?”

9 -

NC: 2026:KHC:10111 RSA No. 124 of 2014

HC-KAR

The First Appellate Court, after appreciating the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the appeal in part, vide judgment dated 07.09.2013 and modified the judgment and preliminary decree passed in O.S. No.149 of 2006, and held that suit of plaintiff No.1 is decreed; Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 are entitled to 1/4^th share in respect of Item Nos.2 to 4 properties and plaintiff No.1 is entitled to 1/2 share in Item No.1 of the suit schedule property, and it is ordered that at the time of drawing a final decree, as far as possible suit Item No.1 of the schedule property be allotted to the share of defendant No.1, by adjusting the share of plaintiff No.1 in Item No.1 of the Schedule Property with the share of defendant No.1, in the other properties to protect the right of defendant No.4 under the principle of equity.

The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A. No.190 of 2011,

10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:10111 RSA No. 124 of 2014

HC-KAR

modifying the shares of the parties to the suit, have filed this Regular Second Appeal.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and learned counsel for defendant No.4.

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are equally entitled to a share in Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties along with plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1. He submits that the First Appellate Court committed an error in allotting a share to defendant No.4. He submits that the First Appellate Court could have directed defendant No.4 to work out his remedy in the final decree proceedings on the ground of principle of equity. Hence, the First Appellate Court has committed an error. To buttress his arguments, he has placed a reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma reported in AIR 2020 SC 3717

11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:10111 RSA No. 124 of 2014

HC-KAR

and submits that plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are also entitled to an equal share. The judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is contrary to the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma (supra). Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

Per contra , learned counsel for defendant No.4 supported the impugned judgment passed by the First Appellate Court. She submits that defendant Nos.1 and 2 sold the property for a family and legal necessity and the sale deed executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3 is binding on the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs have no right or title to claim a share in Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to dismiss the appeal.

This Court vide order dated 21.12.2020 framed the following substantial questions of law:

12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:10111 RSA No. 124 of 2014

HC-KAR

(i) Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in modifying the judgment and decree of the Trial Court?

(ii) Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in ordering that item No.1 of suit schedule property be allotted to defendant No.1, at the time of drawing final decree?

Reg. Substantial Questions of Law Nos.1 and 2 :

Substantial Question of Law Nos.1 and 2 are interlinked with each other and hence, they are taken together for common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts.

It is an undisputed fact that the plaintiffs are the children of defendant Nos.1 and 2, and also regarding the nature of the suit schedule properties.

The dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendants is only regarding Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have

13 -

NC: 2026:KHC:10111 RSA No. 124 of 2014

HC-KAR

sold Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant No.3 in 2004 for a family and legal necessity. Both the Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of fact that defendant Nos.3 and 4 have failed to prove that the sale was for a family and legal necessity. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 did not challenge the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, insofar as the finding recorded on the point of legal necessity. The First Appellate Court declined to grant an equal share to plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 on the ground that they are the daughters, and are not entitled to an equal share in the suit schedule properties, and granted half a share to plaintiff No.1 and half a share to defendant No.1 in Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties.

The Central Government has amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act in 2005. As per the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005, the daughters are also the coparceners. They

14 -

NC: 2026:KHC:10111 RSA No. 124 of 2014

HC-KAR

are also entitled to an equal share as that of a son. The said aspect was not adequately considered by the First Appellate Court properly.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma (supra) held that the daughters are also entitled to an equal share as that of a son. In this view of the matter, the share modified by the First Appellate Court is contrary to the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma ( supra ). The plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are entitled to an equal share in Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties i.e., plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and defendant No.4 are entitled to 1/4^th share each in Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties.

The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, modifying the shares, is required to be modified. The First Appellate Court has committed

15 -

NC: 2026:KHC:10111 RSA No. 124 of 2014

HC-KAR

an error in modifying the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court insofar as Item No.1 property is concerned.

In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question of law Nos.1 and 2 in the negative.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

(i) The Regular Second Appeal is allowed .

(ii) The impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is hereby modified .

(iii) The plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are entitled to 1/4^th share each in Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties.

(iv) Rest of the judgment is maintained.

NC: 2026:KHC:10111 RSA No. 124 of 2014

16 -

HC-KAR

(v) As far as defendant No.4 is concerned, liberty is reserved to defendant No.4 to work out his remedy in the final decree proceedings.

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

RK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and decree dated 07.09.2013 in R.A.No.190/2011, partly allowing the defendants' appeal and modifying the judgment and decree dated 17.09.2011 in O.S. No.149/2006 (which had decreed plaintiff No.1 a 1/2 share in Item No.1 and 1/4th shares in Items 2 to 4); the First Appellate Court denied plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 (daughters) any share in Item No.1 and directed that at final decree Item No.1 be allotted to defendant No.1, adjusting plaintiff No.1's share elsewhere, to protect defendant No.4 in equity.¶cause-title
Court of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya (sitting at Srirangapatna) · 07.09.2013
Prior proceeding
Plaintiffs (now appellants) filed O.S. No.149/2006 before the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Srirangapatna against the defendants (now respondents) for partition and separate possession of alleged ancestral/joint family properties.¶4
Prior proceeding
Defendant Nos.1 and 2 (respondents 3 and 2 respectively, i.e., the father and mother of the plaintiffs) remained unrepresented despite service of summons and were placed ex parte.¶6
Prior proceeding
Trial Court decreed the suit in part on 17.09.2011: plaintiff No.1 entitled to 1/2 share in Item No.1 and 1/4th share in Items 2 to 4; plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 entitled to 1/4th share in Items 2 to 4; defendant No.1 entitled to 1/2 share in Item No.1 and 1/4th share in Items 2 to 4, on payment of separate court fees.¶11
Prior proceeding
Defendant Nos.3 and 4 (purchasers of Item No.1) preferred R.A. No.190 of 2011 before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree in O.S. No.149 of 2006.¶12
Prior proceeding
First Appellate Court allowed the appeal in part on 07.09.2013 and modified the preliminary decree: plaintiff No.1's suit decreed; plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 entitled to 1/4th share in Items 2 to 4; plaintiff No.1 entitled to 1/2 share in Item No.1; with a direction that at final decree Item No.1 be allotted to defendant No.1 by adjusting plaintiff No.1's share in other properties, to protect defendant No.4's right under the principle of equity.¶14