R. S. Anjayya Gupta vs Thippaiah Setty

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 697

A.M.KHANWILKAR, AJAY RASTOGI
R. S. Anjayya Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Thippaiah Setty – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:Mr. Pai Amit, Advocate, Mr. Abhijat P. Medh, Advocate, Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Abhijat P. Medh, Advocate and Mr. Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, Advocate.

Judgement Key Points

Question 1? What is the duty of the High Court in a first appeal to record reasons and address all questions of fact and law? Question 2? What is the proper approach when an appellate court finds a cryptic High Court judgment and remands for fresh consideration? Question 3? What governs the presumption of joint family property in partition suits where properties are purchased in the name of a senior member?

Question 1?

What is the duty of the High Court in a first appeal to record reasons and address all questions of fact and law?

Question 2?

What is the proper approach when an appellate court finds a cryptic High Court judgment and remands for fresh consideration?

Question 3?

What governs the presumption of joint family property in partition suits where properties are purchased in the name of a senior member?

JUDGMENT

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

The present appeal takes exception to the judgment and decree of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dated 7th September, 2004, in RFA No.456 of 2002, whereby the High Court upheld the findings of the Trial Court, that the suit properties described in Schedules A and B to the plaint were not self-acquired by the appellant (defendant No. 1) but, instead, belonged to the Joint Hindu Family of which he was a member and, therefore plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 were equally entitled to 5/12th share in all the suit properties and defendant No.3 (a) (b) and (c) each were entitled to 1/24th share in all the suit properties and thus the same could be partitioned and distributed amongst the members of the said joint family. The High Court, however, granted liberty to the appellant to approach the Trial Court for an enquiry into the question whether the sale of agricultural lands belonging to joint family would bind the appellant (defendant No.1) and to pass another preliminary decree, if necessary. The appellant has also assailed the judgment of the High Court rejecting his review petition being R.P. No.567 of 2002 dated 27thSeptember, 2006.

2. The partie

Click Here to Read the rest of this document