SRI HANUMANTHAPPA vs SMT SHANTHAMMA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56474
RSA No. 719 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010547032017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 8 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 719 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

SRI HANUMANTHAPPA
S/O LATE AGASARA HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DODDAKIDDAHALLI,
AND JANKAL VILLAGE,
MADADAKERE HOBLI,
HOSADURGA TALUK – 577 527
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SIDDAPPA B. M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. SHANTHAMMA
W/O LATE AGASARA HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEAWRS,
RESIDING AT DODDAKIDDAHALLI VILLAGE,
MADADAKERE HOBLI,
HOSADURGA TALUK – 577 527
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT

2. SMT. LAXMI
D/O LATE AGASARA HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
W/O N.A. SHIVAPPA
PEON, PWD OFFICE,
CHANNARAYAPATTANA – 573 116
HASSAN DISTRICT.

3. SMT. RUDRAMMA
W/O DAGGE HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

Digitally
signed by
VANDANA S
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56474
RSA No. 719 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010547032017

RESIDING AT DODDAKIDDAHALLI VILLAGE,
MADADAKERE HOBLI,
HOSADURGA TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 527
DEAD BY LRs

3(a) DAGGE HANUMANTHAPPA S.
S/O LATE SIDDAPPA,
H/O. LATE RUDRAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,

3(b) ONKARAPPA H.,
S/O DAGGE HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

3(c) SHEKARAPPA H.,
S/O DAGGE HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

3(d) NINGAPPA H.,
S/O DAGGE HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

3(e) MANJUNATH H.,
S/O DAGGE HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

3(f) MALLIKARJUNA H.,
S/O DAGGE HANUMANTHAPPA,
ABED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

ALL ARE R/O DODDAKITTADAHALLI,
HOSADURGA TALUK – 577 527
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

4. SRI. DAGGE KARIYAPPA
S/O KENCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
RESIDING AT DODDAKIDDAHALLI VILLAGE,
MADADAKERE HOBLI,
HOSADURGA TALUK – 577 527,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
…RESPONDENTS

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56474
RSA No. 719 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010547032017

(BY SRI. K. R. LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. M. G. KANTHARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3(A) TO R3(F);
R4 – SERVED \)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD 02.02.2017 PASSED IN
RA.NO.290/2016(OLD NO.2/2013) ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC, HOSADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUGMENT AND DECREE DTD
22.11.2012 PASSED IN OS.NO.24/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., HOSADURGA.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant was defendant No. 1 in O.S. No. 24/2007 on
the file of learned Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Hosadurga (for short,
the ‘trial Court’) instituted by the Respondents No. 1 and 2 /
plaintiffs against the appellant / Defendant No. 1 and Respondents
No. 3 and 4 / Defendants No. 2 and 3 for partition and separate
possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule immovable
properties and for other reliefs. In the said suit filed by the
respondents No.1 and 2 specifically contended that they are the
second wife and daughter of Late Agasara Hanumanthappa,
whose first wife was one Gangamma, whose son is the
Hanumanthappa, the appellant herein and the suit schedule

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56474
RSA No. 719 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010547032017

properties being the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and
defendant no.1, the plaintiffs were entitled to their legitimate share
in the suit schedule properties. It was also contended that prior to
institution of the suit, the defendant no. 1 sold the portion of the suit
schedule property in favour of defendants no. 2 and 3 vide
registered sale deeds dated 09.06.2006 and 17.07.2006 and since
the defendant No. 1 refused to effect partition and division of the
suit schedule properties and give the plaintiffs their legitimate share
in the suit schedule properties, they instituted the aforesaid suit for
declaration, partition and for other reliefs in relation to the suit
schedule immovable property.

2. The said suit was contested by the appellant / defendant no.
1 as well as defendants No. 2 and 3, who disputed and denied the
various allegations and claim made by the plaintiffs and inter alia
disputed the alleged relationship of the plaintiffs with the deceased
Agasara Hanumanthappa. It was contended that the deceased
Hanumanthappa was not the husband of plaintiff no. 1 or the father
of plaintiff no. 2 and consequently the plaintiffs did not have any
manner of right, title, interest, possession or share over the suit

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56474
RSA No. 719 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010547032017

schedule properties and accordingly the plaintiffs sought for
dismissal of the suit.
3. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed
the following issues:
1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the plaintiff No.1 is the 2nd wife
and plaintiff No.2 is the daughter of deceased Agasara
Hanumanthappa?
2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they and defendant No.1 are
the members of Hindu undivided joint family as alleged?
3) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule property is
the joint and ancestral property of them and defendant No-1 as
alleged?
4) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the alleged alienation of 5
acres of land in the suit property by the defendant No-1 in favour
of defendant No.2 and 3 through the registered sale deeds dated
19.04.2006 is not binding on their right in the suit property as
alleged?
5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for ½ share in the suit
schedule property?
6) Whether the defendant No.2 and 3 prove that they are the
bonafide purchasers of 3 acres and 2 acres of land in the suit
property for a valuable consideration as alleged?
7) Whether the plaintiffs entitled for the reliefs as sought?
8) What order or decree?

4. The plaintiffs examined themselves as PWs1 and 2, and
three witnesses as PWs3 to 5 and documentary evidence at
Exhibits P1 to P11 were marked on their behalf. The defendants

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56474
RSA No. 719 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010547032017

examined themselves as DW1 to DW3 and documentary evidence
at Exhibits D1 to D27.

5. After hearing the parties, the trial Court answered issue No.1
in favour of the plaintiffs thereby coming to the conclusion that the
plaintiffs were the wife and daughter of the deceased Agasara
Hanumanthappa. However, the trial Court answered Issues No. 2
and 3 against the plaintiffs by holding that the suit schedule
properties were not ancestral joint family properties, but came to
the conclusion that the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and defendant No.1
being the legal heirs of deceased Agasara Hanumanthappa, the
suit schedule properties were ancestral joint family properties in
which Agasara Hanumanthappa had a share to an extent of 50%
while the remaining half share belonged to his son, defendant
No.1-Hanumanthappa and out of the undivided notional half / 50%
share of the deceased Agasara Hanumanthappa, his daughter /
plaintiff no. 2 would be entitled to 1/4 share. Accordingly the trial
Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs by declaring that the
sale deed dated 19.04.2006 executed by defendant no. 1 in favour
of defendant no. 2 was not binding upon plaintiff no. 2 and that the

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56474
RSA No. 719 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010547032017

th th
plaintiff no. 2 had 1/4 share and defendant no. 1 had 3/4 share in
the suit schedule properties. Further though there was no prayer
sought for by the plaintiffs for cancellation of the aforesaid sale
deed or a direction to send a copy of the decree to the office of the
Sub Registrar, the trial Court issued such directions as can be seen
from the operative portion of the impugned judgment and decree of
the trial Court as hereunder:
“The suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed.
It is declared that, the sale deed dated on 19.04.2006
executed by the defendant No-1 in favour of the defendant No.2
are not binding on the plaintiff No.2 share in the suit schedule
property.
The plaintiff No.2 had 1/4th share and defendant No.1 had
3/4th share in the suit schedule property.
Other reliefs of the plaintiffs are hereby dismissed.
Further, office is directed to send a copy of this decree to
the officer in whose office the instrument has been registered and
such officer shall note on the instrument has been so registered
and such officer shall note on the copy of the instrument contained
in his book the fact of its cancellation as per Section 132 of
Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Section 31 of the Specific Relief
Act”

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial
Court, the appellant / defendant No. 1 filed an appeal in R.A.
No.290/2016 (Old R.A. No. 2/2013) on the file of learned Senior

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56474
RSA No. 719 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010547032017

Civil Judge & JMFC, Hosadurga which was contested by the
respondents No.1 and 2 and the same came to be allowed by the
impugned judgment and decree of the first appellate Court which
set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court only to the
extent of purporting to direct cancellation of the sale deeds dated
19.04.2006 (Exs.D.24 and 25) and directing the said decree to be
sent to the office of the Sub Registrar by holding as under:
The appeal under Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C filed by the
appellant/ defendant No.1 is allowed in part.
The impugned Judgement and decree passed by learned
Addl. Civil Judge, Hosadurga in O.S 24/2007 dated 22.11.2012 as
regards directions to Sub-Registrar to note about cancellation of
sale deeds in concerned book is set aside. As far
as determining and allotting ¼ share in favour of plaintiff No.2 in
suit schedule property is concerned the judgement and decree is
confirmed with following modification.
The lands measuring 3 and 2 acres out of 17 acres 24
guntas in Sy.No.13/2 sold in favour of defendant No. 2 and 3
under registered sale deeds dated 19.04.2006 shall be allotted to
the share of defendant No.1.
In the facts and circumstances of the case parties are
directed to bear their own costs.
Draw preliminary decree accordingly.

7. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree of the trial
Court and First Appellate Court, the appellant / defendant no. 1 is

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56474
RSA No. 719 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010547032017

before this Court by way of the present appeal seeking to urge the
following substantial questions of law:
1. Whether the first appellate Court is right in law after having
noticed the fact that the judgment and decree passed by the
learned Senior Civil Judge in R.A. No. 6/2010 was stayed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in M.S.A. No. 181/2012 dated
12.02.2013 in holding that the judgment and decree passed by the
learned Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Hosadurga in O.S. No. 24/2007
dated 22.11.2012 is valid in accordance with law?
st
2. Whether the 1 appellate Court is right in law when
admittedly the trial Court has received the records from the
appellate Court on 09.10.2012 and trial Court taking the
arguments of the defendants as NIL on 02.11.2012 and passing
the judgment and decree on 22.11.2012 in holding that the trial
Court has provided sufficient opportunity to the defendants after
remanding the case by it?
3. Whether both the Courts are right in law in holding that the
sale deed executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant
No.2 and 3 on 19.04.2006 is not binding on the share of the
plaintiff No.2 though after recording the finding that the plaintiff
No.2 is illegitimate child?
4. Whether both the Courts are right in law in granting the
share to the plaintiff No.2, when admittedly the suit schedule
properties are ancestral and joint family properties and defendant
No.1 father died in the year 1988?
5. Whether both the Courts are right in law in recording the
finding that the plaintiff No.1 has not proved the marriage in
accordance with law with late Agasara Hanumanthappa in holding
that plaintiff No.2 is illegitimate child of late Agasara
Hanumahnthappa?

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56474
RSA No. 719 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010547032017

8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that having
regard to the finding recorded by the trial Court and first appellate
Court that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family
properties in the hands of late Agasara Hanumanthappa, both the
Courts were not justified in coming to the erroneous conclusion that
the defendant no. 2 being the illegitimate daughter was entitled to a
share in the suit schedule properties after the demise of late
Agasara Hanumanthappa. It was therefore contended that the
impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and
confirmed by the first appellate Court upholding the relationship of
late Agassara Hanumantha with the plaintiffs and declaring that the
plaintiff no.2 was entitled to 1/4 share in the suit schedule
properties deserves to be set aside.

9. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents would
support the impugned judgment and decree and submits that in the
light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Revansiddappa and another Vs. Mallikarjun and another
reported in AIR 2023 SC 4707 , both the Courts were fully justified

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56474
RSA No. 719 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010547032017

in passing the impugned judgment and decree which does not
warrant interference by this Court in the present appeal.

10. A perusal of the judgment and decree of the trial Court will
indicate that as stated supra while answering issue no. 1, the trial
Court comes to the conclusion that the respondents no. 1 and 2
had established that they were the wife and daughter of the
deceased Agasara Hanumanthappa and consequently came to the
conclusion that out of the notional half share of Agasara
Hanumanthappa, the plaintiff No. 2 being the illegitimate daughter,
was entitled to a share in the notional half share of late Agasara
Hanumanthappa and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs by holding as
under:
“9. Issue No-1: The plaintiffs in order to prove their case, got
examined themselves as PWs-1 and 2 and examined other three
witnesses as PWs-3 to 5 and exhibited Ex.P-1 to 11 documents, in
nd
which they have specifically deposed that plaintiff No-1 is 2 wife
of Agasara Hanumanthappa and plaintiff No-2 is daughter of
deceased Agasara Hanumanthappa. The learned counsel for
plaintiffs relied the cross-examination of DWs-2 & 3 which reads
as under:
“CUÀ¸ÀgÀ ºÀ£ÀÄªÀÄAvÀ¥Àà¤UÉ E§âgÀÄ ºÉAqÀwAiÀÄgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è,
1£ÉÃ ºÉAqÀwUÉ ªÀÄPÀÌ¼ÁUÀzÉÃ EzÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ, 1£ÉÃ ªÁ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß
ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁV MAzÀÄ ªÀÄUÀÄ D¬ÄvÀÄ J£ÀÄßªÀ «ZÁgÀ UÉÆwÛ®è, 1£ÉÃ

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56474
RSA No. 719 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010547032017

¥ÀæwªÁ¢ CUÀ¸ÀgÀ ºÀ£ÀÄªÀÄAvÀ¥Àà£À 1£ÉÃ ºÉAqÀwUÉ ºÀÄnÖzÀ ªÀÄUÀ JAzÀÄ
£À£ÀUÉ UÉÆvÀÄÛ. D £ÀAvÀgÀ 2£ÉÃ ºÉAqÀw ±ÁAvÀªÀÄä¤AzÀ 2£ÉÃ ªÁ¢
ºÀÄnÖzÀ¼ÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. CUÀ¸ÀgÀ ºÀ£ÀÄªÀÄAvÀ¥Àà¤AzÀ ±ÁAvÀªÀÄä¤UÉ
azÁ£ÀAzÀ JA§ ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ ºÀÄnÖzÀ JAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è.”

10. Upon close scrutiny of evidence of defendants, it is noticed
that they have clear denied the relationship with Agasara
Hanumanthappa and plaintiffs. But in their cross-examination they
have clearly admitted that Agasara Hanumanthappa had contact
with plaintiff No-1/Shanthamma. Further, they have specifically
admitted that plaintiff No-2 being daughter of Agasara
Hanumanthappa who being father of defendant No-1. Then said
witness not denied the birth of one Chidananda to the plaintiff No-
1 through Agasara Hanumanthappa. They have stated that they
have not known it. Further, the plaintiffs have produced the
documents in which Ex.P-8 is declaration certificate issued by
Headmaster, Government Higher Primary School, Dodda
kittadahalli of Hosadurga taluk dated on 12-8-2008 in which it is
noticed that one Chidananda S/o Hanumanthappa was born on
26.10.1963 who belongs to a Madivala community. It is assertion
of the plaintiffs that said document is birth document of deceased
son Chidananda. On the other hand the defendants have denied
the birth of said Chidananda and relationship with father of
defendant No-1. But evidence of PWs-2 and 3 clearly reveals that
father of defendant No-1/Agasara Hanumanthappa had married
with plaintiff No-1 and during their wedlock one Chidananda and
Laxmi were born to him. The evidence of DWs-2 and 3 alongwith
Ex.P-9 reveals the relationship with Agasara Hanumanthappa and
plaintiffs, which is proved by the plaintiffs and there is no contrary
evidence against it, and there is no reason to disbelieve that a
woman have stating name of other person as her husband and

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56474
RSA No. 719 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010547032017

another women stating name of other person as her father is not
believable. Hence plaintiffs proved that plaintiff No-1 is the 2nd
wife, and plaintiff No-2 is the daughter of decades Agasara
Hanumanthappa. Hence I answer issue No-1 in the affirmative.

nd
11. Issues No-2 & 3: Admittedly the plaintiff No-1 is the 2 wife
of Agasara Hanumanthappa and there is no evidence that their
marriage was took place before 1956; and 2nd wife has no right to
claim any share in the property of her husband, but her daughter
plaintiff No-2 had right to claim her share in the property of her
father. Here, the defendants have specifically asserted that suit
schedule property is the ancestral property of Hanumanthappa.
The plaintiff also not denied it and there is no document to
substantiate the suit schedule property is the exclusive property of
the deceased Hanumanthappa. Therefore, I am satisfied to hold
st
that though the marriage between the 1 plaintiff and deceased
Agasar Hanumanthappa is void marriage. As much as it took
place during the subsistence of the marriage of deceased with the
st
Gangamma. But children born to the 1 plaintiff and the deceased
are legitimate and they are entitled to the benefits conferred under
the amended Section 16 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1976.
Therefore, they have a right to succeed to the properties of the
deceased as per with the legal heirs under Section 8, 10 and
Schedule annexed to the Hindu Succession Act. Here deceased
father, Agasara Hanumanthappa and his legitimate son defendant
No-1 had ½ share each in the suit schedule property. Now
deceased Agasara Hanumanthappa had ½ share, it is his
separate property, in which illegitimate children, plaintiff No-2 and
defendant No-1 had ½ share each in the share of the deceased
Hanumanthappa. Since the plaintiff No-2 entitled 1/4th share and
defendant No-1 entitled 3/4th share in the suit schedule property.

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56474
RSA No. 719 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010547032017

12. The property to which such a child can lay claim must be
the separate property of the parents and not the coparcenary
property in which the parent has a share. Since no child, where
legitimate or otherwise acquires right by birth in separate property
of its parent, a child of any void marriage can only succeed to the
property of its parent in accordance with the provisions of Sec.8 or
Section 15, Hindu Succession Act.
13. A child of a void marriage is related to its parents within the
meaning of Sec.3 (1) (j) Hindu Succession Act becomes of the
provisions of Section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act provision to Sec.3
(1) (j) must be confined to those children who are not clothed with
legitimacy U/S 16 of Hindu Marriage Act relied upon a decision
reported in AIR 2001 A.P. 104, G. Nirmalamma V/s G.Seethapathi
which is held as follows:
“Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955) S.16-Hindu
Succession Act (30 of 1956), S.3(1) (j)-Illegitimate son-He
is to be treated as coparcener for properties-He cannot,
however,claim partition during lifetime of father.”
“By virtue of S.16 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, as
amended in 1976, the illegitimate son can be equated with
natural sons and treated as coparceners for the properties
held by the father whether the property be originally joint
family property or not. The only limitation is that during the
lifetime of the father, the illegitimate son of a void marriage
is not entitled to seek a partition.
Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act has conferred
on an illegitimate son benefits of a legitimate son and his
pre-existing rights are in no way curtailed. He becomes a
member of family and has status as a son and by virtue of
that he is entitled to right of survivorship.”
Hence I answer issue Nos-2 and 3 in the negative.

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56474
RSA No. 719 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010547032017

14. Issues No-4 & 6: Upon perusal of entire evidence of the
parties, it is noticed that through the evidence of defendants No-2
and 3 reveals that they have known the fact with respect to birth of
plaintiff No-2 through Agasara Hanumanthappa by plaintiff No-1,
but they have not taken any care with respect to consent of her.
Further, it is well settled establish principle of law that buyer must
be an aware, but in this case, defendants No-2 and 3 have not
taken any care to purchase the suit schedule property, since said
sale is not binding on the right of the plaintiff No-2. Further the
defendants No-2 and 3 have failed to prove that they have
bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property. Accordingly, I
answer issue No-4 in the affirmative and issue No-6 in the
negative.
15. Issues No-5 and 7: Both issues are interlinked with each
other, in order to avoid repetition of discussion both issues are
discussed together. Through the evidence of DWs-2 and 3 it is
crystal clear that plaintiff No-1 had married with deceased Agasara
Hanumanthappa and plaintiff No-2 is daughter of said Agasara
Hanumanthappa. Further the suit schedule property is ancestral
property of Agasara Hanumanthappa, and it is not the self
acquired property of defendant No-1. The plaintiff No-2 had share
in the property of her father equal to the legitimate son. Here
father of the plaintiff No-2 and defendant No-1 was died. In this
circumstance both have equal shares in the share of their father.
Admittedly plaintiff No-1 being 2nd wife of Agasara
Hanumanthappa, but there is no evidence with respect to
marriage in between plaintiff No-1 and Agasara Hanumanthappa
was took place before the year 1956. Since she had no share in
the suit schedule property and she had no right to claim any
property of her deceased husband. On these grounds, the plaintiff
No-2 is entitled 1/4th share in the suit schedule property and

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56474
RSA No. 719 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010547032017

plaintiff No-2 had entitled for the suit relief as sought by her,
because 1st plaintiff had no share in the suit schedule property,
but 2nd plaintiff had 1/4th share in the suit schedule property,
even though she being a illegitimate daughter of Agasara
Hanumanthappa. Hence issue No-5 answered as affirmative and
issue No-7 partly in the affirmative.
16. Issue No-8: In the result, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed.
It is declared that, the sale deed dated on
19.04.2006 executed by the defendant No-1 in favour of
the defendant No.2 are not binding on the plaintiff No.2
share in the suit schedule property.
The plaintiff No-2 had 1/4th share and defendant
No.1 had 3/4th share in the suit schedule property.
Other reliefs of the plaintiffs are hereby dismissed.
Further, office is directed to send a copy of this
decree to the officer in whose office the instrument has
been registered and such officer shall note on the
instrument has been so registered and such officer shall
note on the copy of the instrument contained in his book
the fact of its cancellation as per Section 132 of Karnataka
Land Revenue Act and Section 31 of the Specific Relief
Act.”

11. As stated earlier, aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and
decree, the appellant defendant no. 1 approached the first
appellate Court which confirmed the judgment and decree of the
trial Court in all respects including the relationship of late Agasara

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56474
RSA No. 719 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010547032017

Hanumanthappa with plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and also the entitlement
of the plaintiff No. 2 towards her 1/4 share in the suit schedule
property. However, the finding of the trial Court that the decree is to
be sent to the office of the Sub Registrar to effect cancellation was
reversed by the First Appellate Court which came to the conclusion
that in the absence of any prayer for cancellation, the question of
sending the decree to the office of the Sub-Registrar, would not
arise; the Court also came to the conclusion that by way of
equitable partition, the purchasers would be entitled to the
th
undivided 3/4 share of the appellant Hanumanthappa in the suit
schedule property sold by him in favour of defendants No.2 and 3
and accordingly modified the judgment and decree of the trial Court
as hereunder:
“The appeal under Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C filed by the
appellant/ defendant No.1 is allowed in part.
The impugned Judgement and decree passed by learned
Addl. Civil Judge, Hosadurga in O.S 24/2007 dated 22.11.2012 as
regards directions to Sub-Registrar to note about cancellation of
sale deeds in concerned book is set aside. As far as determining
and allotting ¼ share in favour of plaintiff No.2 in suit schedule
property is concerned the judgement and decree is confirmed with
following modification.
The lands measuring 3 and 2 acres out of 17 acres 24
guntas in Sy.No.13/2 sold in favour of defendant No. 2 and 3

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56474
RSA No. 719 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010547032017

under registered sale deeds dated 19.04.2006 shall be allotted to
the share of defendant No.1.
In the facts and circumstances of the case parties are
directed to bear their own costs.
Draw preliminary decree accordingly.”

12. It is a matter of record and undisputed fact that the
respondents No.1 and 2/ plaintiffs have not challenged the
judgment and decree of the first appellate Court to the extent it
modifies the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Under these
circumstances, the only question that arises for consideration in the
present appeal is as to whether both the Courts were justified in
declaring that the plaintiff no. 2 being illegitimate daughter of late
th
Agasara Hanumanthappa was entitled to 1/4 share i.e. half share
in the notional half share of late Agasara Hanumanthappa in the
suit schedule property. The said issue is no longer res integra in
the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Revansiddappa's
case supra wherein it is held as under:
54. We now formulate our conclusions in the following terms:
(i) In terms of sub-section (1) of Section 16 , a child of a
marriage which is null and void under Section 11 is statutorily
conferred with legitimacy irrespective of whether (i) such a child is
born before or after the commencement of Amending Act 1976; (ii)
a decree of nullity is granted in respect of that marriage under the

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56474
RSA No. 719 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010547032017

Act and the marriage is held to be void otherwise than on a
petition under the enactment;
(ii) In terms of sub-section (2) of Section 16 where a voidable
marriage has been annulled by a decree of nullity under Section
12 , a child ‘begotten or conceived’ before the decree has been
made, is deemed to be their legitimate child notwithstanding the
decree, if the child would have been legitimate to the parties to the
marriage if a decree of dissolution had been passed instead of a
decree of nullity;
(iii) While conferring legitimacy in terms of sub-section (1) on a
child born from a void marriage and under sub-section (2) to a
child born from a voidable PART K marriage which has been
annulled, the legislature has stipulated in sub-section (3) of
Section 16 that such a child will have rights to or in the property of
the parents and not in the property of any other person;
(iv) While construing the provisions of Section 3(1)(j) of the
HSA 1956 including the proviso, the legitimacy which is conferred
by Section 16 of the HMA 1955 on a child born from a void or, as
the case may be, voidable marriage has to be read into the
provisions of the HSA 1956. In other words, a child who is
legitimate under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 16 of
the HMA would, for the purposes of Section 3(1)(j) of the HSA
1956, fall within the ambit of the explanation ‘related by legitimate
kinship’ and cannot be regarded as an ‘illegitimate child’ for the
purposes of the proviso;
(v) Section 6 of the HSA 1956 continues to recognize the
institution of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law
and the concepts of a coparcener, the acquisition of an interest as
a coparcener by birth and rights in coparcenary property. By the
substitution of Section 6 , equal rights have been granted to

- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56474
RSA No. 719 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010547032017

daughters, in the same manner as sons as indicated by sub-
section (1) of Section 6 ;
(vi) Section 6 of the HSA 1956 provides for the devolution of
interest in coparcenary property. Prior to the substitution of
Section 6 with effect from 9 September 2005 by the Amending Act
of 2005, Section 6 stipulated the devolution of interest in a
Mitakshara coparcenary property of a male Hindu by survivorship
on the surviving members of the coparcenary. The exception
PART K to devolution by survivorship was where the deceased
had left surviving a female relative specified in Class I of the
Schedule or a male relative in Class I claiming through a female
relative, in which event the interest of the deceased in a
Mitakshara coparcenary property would devolve by testamentary
or intestate succession and not by survivorship. In terms of sub-
section (3) of Section 6 as amended, on a Hindu dying after the
commencement of the Amending Act of 2005 his interest in the
property of a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law
will devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case
may be, under the enactment and not by survivorship. As a
consequence of the substitution of Section 6 , the rule of devolution
by testamentary or intestate succession of the interest of a
deceased Hindu in the property of a Joint Hindu family governed
by Mitakshara law has been made the norm;
(vii) Section 8 of the HSA 1956 provides general rules of
succession for the devolution of the property of a male Hindu
dying intestate. Section 10 provides for the distribution of the
property among heirs of Class I of the Schedule. Section 15
stipulates the general rules of succession in the case of female
Hindus dying intestate. Section 16 provides for the order of
succession and the distribution among heirs of a female Hindu;

- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56474
RSA No. 719 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010547032017

(viii) While providing for the devolution of the interest of a Hindu
in the property of a Joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara law,
dying after the commencement of the Amending Act of 2005 by
testamentary or intestate succession, Section 6 (3) lays down a
legal fiction namely that ‘the PART K coparcenary property shall
be deemed to have been divided as if a partition had taken place’.
According to the Explanation, the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara
coparcener is deemed to be the share in the property that would
have been allotted to him if a partition of the property has taken
place immediately before his death irrespective of whether or not
he is entitled to claim partition;
(ix) For the purpose of ascertaining the interest of a deceased
Hindu Mitakshara coparcener, the law mandates the assumption
of a state of affairs immediately prior to the death of the
coparcener namely, a partition of the coparcenary property
between the deceased and other members of the coparcenary.
Once the share of the deceased in property that would have been
allotted to him if a partition had taken place immediately before his
death is ascertained, his heirs including the children who have
been conferred with legitimacy under Section 16 of the HMA 1955,
will be entitled to their share in the property which would have
been allotted to the deceased upon the notional partition, if it had
taken place; and
(x) The provisions of the HSA 1956 have to be harmonized
with the mandate in Section 16(3) of the HMA 1955 which
indicates that a child who is conferred with legitimacy under sub-
sections (1) and (2) will not be entitled to rights in or to the
property of any person other than the parents. The property of the
parent, where the parent had an interest in the property of a Joint
Hindu family governed under the Mitakshara law has to be

- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56474
RSA No. 719 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010547032017

ascertained in terms of the Explanation to sub-section (3), as
interpreted above.”

13. As can be seen from the aforesaid judgment of the Apex
Court the plaintiff no. 2, being the illegitimate daughter of late
Agasara Hanumanthappa would be entitled to claim a share in his
undivided share upon his demise. In the instant case, it is an
undisputed fact that during his lifetime Agasara Hanumanthappa
was entitled to half share in the suit schedule property while the
remaining half share belonged to his son the appellant herein and
upon the demise of late Agasara Hanumanthappa, his undivided
half (50%) share would necessarily have to be divided equally
between the respondent no.2 / plaintiff no. 2 and the appellant /
defendant no. 1. In accordance with this well settled legal position,
both the Courts have come to the correct conclusion that in the
light of the judgment of the Apex Court defendant no. 1 would be
th
entitled to the remaining 3/4 share in the suit schedule property.
The judgment and decree of the trial Court and the first appellate
Court is in complete / total conformity / consonance with the
principles laid down by the Apex Court in Revansiddappa's case
supra.

- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56474
RSA No. 719 of 2017

CNR: KAHC010547032017

14. Under these circumstances I do not find any question of law,
much less any substantial question of law arising for consideration
in the present appeal which is devoid of merit and the same is
hereby dismissed.

Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
BVV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54