SRINIVAS vs SMT SHAKUNTALA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11327
WP No. 203144 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030133042025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA



KALABURAGI BENCH

TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

WRIT PETITION NO. 203144 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI SRINIVAS S/O LATE VITHAL REDDY,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. VILLAGE YERBAG, TQ. BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST. BIDAR- 585331.
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT. NEEVA M. CHIMKOD, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. SHAKUNTALA W/O NAGANNA,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. VILLAGE YERBAG, TQ. BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST. BIDAR- 585331.

2. SMT. PUSHPAVATI W/O LATE GUNDAREDDY,
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. VILLAGE YERBAG, TQ. BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST. BIDAR- 585331.

3. SUJATA W/O NARAYAN PATIL,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. VILLAGE YERBAG, TQ. BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST. BIDAR- 585331.

4. SMT. PREMA W/O HEMREDDY,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. VILLAGE YERBAG, TQ. BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST. BIDAR- 585331.

5. SRI. DHANRAJ S/O LATE GUNDAREDDY,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,










Digitally signed
by B NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11327
WP No. 203144 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030133042025


R/O. VILLAGE YERBAG, TQ. BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST. BIDAR- 585331.

6. SMT. MANIKBAI W/O SHARNAPPA,
AGE: 79 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. VILLAGE MANTHAL, TQ. BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST. BIDAR- 585419.

7. SMT. NARASAMMA W/O PUNDALIKREDDY,
AGE: 82 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. VILLAGE HANAMANTHWADI, U/V YERANDI,
TQ. BASAVAKALYAN, DIST. BIDAR- 585327.

8. SRI CHANDERAPPA S/O BASAPPA KYADENOOR,
AGE: 85 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MOLKERA, TQ. HUMNABAD,
DIST. BIDAR- 585330.

9. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O NAGAPPA GAWARE,
AGE: 85 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ZAHEER PETH, HUMNABAD,
TQ. HUMNABAD, DIST. BIDAR- 585330.

10. SMT. ARCHANA W/O SANTOSH NAIKODE,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. VILLAGE HANAMANTHWADI, U/V YERANDI,
TQ. BASAVAKALYAN, DIST. BIDAR- 585327.

…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 TO R5 ARE SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 09.06.2025 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
BASAVAKALYAN ON I.A NO.1 IN FDP NO.9/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-E
AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11327
WP No. 203144 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030133042025


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

ORAL ORDER

1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order
dated 09.06.2025 passed on I.A.No.I in FDP No.9
of 2018 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Basavakalyan.

2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this petition are as
under:

3. Respondent No.1 filed a suit for partition and
separate possession in O.S.No.50 of 2013 and the
said suit was partly decreed and preliminary decree
th
was drawn on 13.04.2018 by allotting 1/25 share
in the suit schedule properties. Further, the sale
deeds dated 15.04.1996 executed by defendant
Nos.10 and 11 therein in respect of Sy.No.77 were
declared as not binding on the share of respondent
No.1. It is contended that, in view of the
amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11327
WP No. 203144 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030133042025


Act, 1956, the daughters are treated as
coparceners on par with the sons and are entitled
to an equal share in the coparcenary property.
Hence, filed an application for modification of
share. The petitioner has not filed objection to
I.A.No.I. The Trial Court, after hearing the learned
counsel for the parties, allowed the application.
Hence, this writ petition.

4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.1.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
FDP Court committed an error in modifying the
share of respondent No.1. She submits that the
FDP Court has not granted sufficient time to file
objections to I.A.No.I. Hence, on this ground, she
prays to allow the writ petition.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11327
WP No. 203144 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030133042025


Per contra
6. , learned counsel for respondent No.1
submits that the FDP Court can pass any number
of preliminary decrees. To buttress his arguments,
he has placed reliance on the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ganduri
Koteshwaramma and Another v. Chakiri
1
Yanadi and Another and Prema v. Nanje
2
Gowda and Others . He submits that in view of
amendment to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act,
1956, the daughters are entitled for an equal share
on par with the sons. He submits that the issue
involved in this case is squarely covered by the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases
referred to supra. Hence, on this ground, he prays
to dismiss the writ petition.

7. Perused the petition papers and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

1
(2011) 9 SCC 788
2

(2011) 6 SCC 462

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11327
WP No. 203144 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030133042025



8. It is an undisputed fact that respondent No.1 filed
a suit for partition and separate possession in
O.S.No.50 of 2013 wherein the Trial Court has
partly decreed the suit by judgment dated
th
13.04.2018 and allotted 1/25 share to respondent
No.1 in the suit schedule properties by way of a
notional partition. In view of the amendment to
Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956,
respondent No.1 being a daughter is entitled for an
equal share on par with the sons/brothers.
Respondent No.1 filed Final Decree Proceedings in
FDP No.9 of 2018. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and
3
Others has laid down the proposition that
irrespective of whether father is alive or not, the
daughters are entitled for an equal share in the
coparcenary property. In view of the proposition

3
(2020)9 SCC 1

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11327
WP No. 203144 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030133042025


laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Vineeta Sharma , during the pendency of the
proceedings, respondent No.1 filed an application
for modification of shares. The petitioner did not
file objection to the application. The Trial Court
considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma has allowed
the application. The issue involved in this case is
squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the cases of Ganduri
Koteshwaramma and Prema supra.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prasanta
4
Kumar Sahoo v. Charulata Sahoo , in
paragraphs-81 and 82 has held as under:
“82. We do not find any merit in the
submissions canvassed by Mr Basant, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants

4
(2023) 9 SCC 641

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11327
WP No. 203144 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030133042025


that in a partition suit, the preliminary decree
cannot be varied in the final decree
proceedings, despite the amendment of the
law governing the parties.
83. In our opinion, no error not to speak
of any error of law could be said to have been
committed upon courts below, while
determining the shares of the parties. The
only thing that needs to be done now is to
give effect to the amendment in the
provisions of Section 6 of the 1956 Act and
redetermine the shares of the parties
accordingly. To put it straight, the plaintiff is
entitled to one-third share in all the properties
of her late father. The issue whether all the
properties were ancestral as raised on behalf
of the appellants pales into insignificance.”

10. It is settled legal position that the Final Decree
Proceedings are in continuation of the primary
decree proceedings, and there is no executable
decree unless the final decree is passed. The final
decree does not originate independently, but flows
from the preliminary decree already passed in the

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11327
WP No. 203144 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030133042025


suit determining and declaring the rights and
interests of the parties. The Trial Court was
justified in passing an impugned order. Hence, I do
not find any error in the impugned order.

11. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is dismissed .

Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE



NB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4
Ct:pk