SRI A MUNI REDDY v. SMT N SHAKUNTHALA

Judgment

#1. SRI A MUNI REDDY SINCE DEAD BY LR'S 1(a) R NAGAVEN, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, W/O LATE A MUNI REDDY, 1(b) H.M.DINESH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O LATE A MUNI REDDY, 1(c) H M SATISH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE A MUNI REDDY, 1(d) H.M.JAGADISH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O LATE A MUNI REDDY, 1(e) SMT.H.M. PADMA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, D/O LATE A MUNI REDDY & W/O SHUBHAKAR V, NO.1(a) TO (e) ARE RESIDING AT NO.211, BEGUR MAIN ROAD, GARVEVIPALYA, HONGASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 068.

SRI.H.N.NAGARAJA REDDY, S/O LATE SRI.NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:5138 RFA No. 1077 of 2019 HC-KAR

#4. R/AT NISARGA NILAYA, BEHIND AYYAPPA SWAMY TEMPLE, GARVEBAVIPALYA MAIN ROAD, ' HONGASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 068. SRI.N.VIJAYA REDDY S/O LATE SRI.NARAYANAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT NO.243/213, "MANJUSHRI NILAYA", BEGUR MAIN ROAD, GARVEBAVIPALYA, HONGASANDRA, BENGLAURU - 560 068. SRI.N.VENKATESHA REDDY, S/O LATE SRI.NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.212, GARVEBAVIPALYA, MAINROAD,HONGASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 068 (BY SRI C M NAGABHUSHANA, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT 1(a) TO 1(e) APPELLANT 3 AND 4, SRI K SHRIHARI, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT 2) …APPELLANTS AND:

#1. SMT N SHAKUNTHALA, D/O LATE SRI.NARAYANA REDDY, W/O SRI.K.LAKSHMI NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.407, HSR LAYOUT, 7TH SECTOR, 23RD CROSS, 10TH MAIN, BENGALURU - 560 034.

#2. SMT.N.SUGUNAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LR'S 2(a) ANIL G, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE K.G.GOPAL REDDY & SMT N SUGUNAMMA, - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:5138 RFA No. 1077 of 2019 HC-KAR 2(b) SUNIL G, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE K.G.GOPAL REDDY AND SMT N SUGUNAMMA, RESPONDENT NO.2(a) AND (b) ARE RESIDING AT NO.664, NEW NO.802, K.G.GOPAL REDDY BUILDING, G.S.PALYA MAIN ROAD, KONAPPANA AGRAHARA, ELCTRONIC CITY, BENGALURU - 560 100. (BY SRI VINAYAKA S PANDIT, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI MARIAPPA M S AND SRI VENUGOPAL M S, ADVOCATE FOR 2(a) AND 2(b)) …RESPONDENTS THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC.,AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.04.2019 PASSED IN OS NO.25519/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE LVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND MESNE PROFITS. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2019 in O.S. No.25519/2010 on the file of LVII Additional City Civil Judge at Bengaluru.

#2. The suit is for partition and separate possession in respect of immovable properties. The suit is decreed. The plaintiff is the daughter of Narayan Reddy and Ramakka. The - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:5138 RFA No. 1077 of 2019 HC-KAR couple has 4 sons and 2 daughters. The suit is filed against the brothers and the sister. By the time the suit was filed, the father was no more.

#3. The defendants resisted the suit on the ground that there was a partition on 23.01.1981 during the lifetime of the father and said partition was oral partition and same was later reduced into writing and registered on 13.12.2001. Thus, it is urged that the properties are not the joint family properties and the plaintiff cannot make any share in the properties.

#4. The Trial Court after recording the evidence has concluded that the alleged oral partition dated 23.01.1981 and alleged registered partition dated 13.12.2001 are not established and granted a decree for partition.

#5. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the defendants are before this Court.

#6. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants/ appellants would contend that the suit for partition filed by - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:5138 RFA No. 1077 of 2019 HC-KAR the daughter in respect of the properties which are already divided in terms of the oral partition dated 23.01.1981 and subsequent registered partition dated 13.12.2001 is not maintainable. It is his further submission that the properties were admittedly the ancestral properties as such either in 1981 or in 2001, when the father was alive and partition took place, the daughter had no share in the properties, as such, she cannot claim any share in the ancestral properties.

#7. Learned counsel for the appellants would place reliance on Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to contend that the proviso to said Section 6 debars the plaintiff from claiming equal share in the ancestral property which is already subject matter of partition before 20.12.2004.

#8. Learned counsel appearing plaintiff/respondent No.1 would urge that the alleged oral partition dated 23.01.1981 is not established and registered partition deed dated 13.12.2001 is not established and the Trial Court has recorded the said finding based on the - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:5138 RFA No. 1077 of 2019 HC-KAR evidence placed before it. In addition, he would urge that since the defendants have taken the stand that the plaintiff is also a signatory to the oral partition dated 23.01.1981 which is subsequently said to be reduced in writing, the second partition dated 13.12.2001 could not have been executed and registered without the consent of the plaintiff. Thus, he would urge that the Trial Court is justified in granting a decree for partition and separate possession.

#9. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.

#10. The following point arises for consideration: Whether the Trial Court is justified in holding that the oral petition dated 23.01.1981and the registered partition dated 13.12.2001 are not established and the plaintiff is entitled to a share in the property?

#11. As can be seen from the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, it is noticed that the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the suit A schedule property is - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:5138 RFA No. 1077 of 2019 HC-KAR the self-acquired property of the plaintiff and has come to the conclusion that the property could not have been the subject matter of partition.

#12. It is an admitted factual position that in 1974, there was a partition in the family and in the said partition, plaintiff’s father was allotted a share in the suit schedule properties. Said partition deed of 1974 is not in dispute. And even if it is assumed that it was disputed, the said partition deed of 1974 stands established as there is no material to hold otherwise.

#13. The partition deed of 1974 would reveal that the properties are ancestral properties. Thus, the plaintiff's father acquired share in the property. Since those properties are ancestral properties, since the plaintiff's brother was alive when the said partition of 1974 took place, they acquired right in the property as the properties by birth. Thus, the sons of Narayan Reddy were entitled to claim a partition even before the demise of their father. - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:5138 RFA No. 1077 of 2019 HC-KAR

#14. It appears that on 23.01.1981 there was a oral partition. It is sought to be established by producing Exhibit- D1. Said document according to the defendants, allegedly contains the signature of the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff has disputed the signature. Assuming that the plaintiff's signature is not established, then the Court has to take a view that the said partition is valid for the simple reason, the signatories to the said document other than the plaintiff have not disputed the said partition of 23.01.1981.

#15. Assuming the plaintiff's signature established, then again the plaintiff is not entitled to claim a share in the properties as the plaintiff is not a sharer in the said partition. Assuming that a property is allotted to the plaintiff’s share in the said partition, then again the plaintiff is entitled to take benefit of the said partition of 1981 and can claim right over the property allotted to the share of the plaintiff and she cannot file a suit for partition.

#16. The defendants are stressing on the registered - 9 - NC: 2026:KHC:5138 RFA No. 1077 of 2019 HC-KAR partition dated 13.12.2001. Said partition is duly registered. The plaintiff is not a signatory to the said partition. The plaintiff contends that since she is alleged to be the signatory to the partition dated 23.01.1981, without the consent of the plaintiff, the partition could not have taken place in the year

#17. It is to be noticed that the properties are ancestral properties. Either in 1981 or in 2001, the plaintiff did not have a share in the property as the plaintiff's father was very much alive then. The right to claim property in the ancestral property during the lifetime of the father was conferred for the first time by virtue of an amendment to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. However, the said Section 6 though given retrospective effect, contains proviso because of which, the plaintiff cannot claim a share if there is already a partition before *20.12.2004.

#18. This being the position, the Court is of the view that the consent of the plaintiff is not required to the partition *Page No.9 is retyped and replaced vide court order dated 12.02.2026 - 10 - NC: 2026:KHC:5138 RFA No. 1077 of 2019 HC-KAR deed dated 13.12.2001 and none of the signatories to the partition deed of 13.12.2001 is disputing the correctness of the said partition. Thus, the Court has to take a view that the plaintiff has no locus to question the partition deed dated

13.12.2001.

#19. These aspects are not considered by the Trial Court. It erroneously proceeded on the assumption that the property is the self-acquired properties of *defendants plaintiff’s father, and the properties could not have been the subject matter of partition.

#20. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 would point out to the fact that in the partition *deed dated 13.12.2001, 6 guntas in Survey No.94/3B of Hongasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South is allotted to the plaintiff's father Narayan Reddy. It is nobody's case that the plaintiff's father executed any testamentary instrument before his demise. That being the position, the plaintiff is entitled to succeed to the share held by the father in the aforementioned property along with other *Page No.10 is retyped and replaced vide Court order dated 12.02.2026. - 11 - NC: 2026:KHC:5138 RFA No. 1077 of 2019 HC-KAR class-I heirs.

#21. Learned counsel for the appellants and respondent No.2-defendant No.5 jointly submit that they do not wish to make any claim over the 6 guntas of land allotted to the share of the plaintiff’s father. And it is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants and respondent No.2 that their share in the property held by the father be allotted to the plaintiff. Said submission is placed on record.

#22. Under these circumstances, impugned judgment and decree have to be modified.

#23. Hence the following:- ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) Impugned judgment decree

20.04.2019 in O.S. No.25519/2010 on the file of LVII Additional City Civil Judge at Bengaluru are set aside in part. - 12 - NC: 2026:KHC:5138 RFA No. 1077 of 2019 HC-KAR (iii) The suit of the plaintiff is decreed in part holding that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/6th share in Survey No.94/3B described in 'A' schedule **in the registered Partition Deed dated 13.12.2001**. (iv) Since the defendants have made a statement that they have no claim over the property measuring 6 guntas in Survey No.94/3B referred to above, 6 guntas shall be allotted to the share of the plaintiff. (v) No order as to cost. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34 **Page No.12 is retyped and replaced vide Court order dated 29.04.2026.