Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1888

VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, N. V. ANJARIA
P. Anjanappa (D) By Lrs – Appellant
Versus
A. P. Nanjundappa – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, AOR (VC)
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shekhar G Devasa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Srinivas Gowda, Adv. Mr. Manish Tiwari, Adv. Mrs. Thashmitha Muthanna, Adv. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Nagar, Adv. M/S. Devasa & Co., AOR Mr. Rajeev Singh, AOR

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The judgment addresses validity and binding effect of two registered release deeds Ex.D-15 (1956) and Ex.D-16 (1967) and their impact on coparcener membership and shares. (!) (!) - It considers whether the palupatti dated 11.02.1972 can be relied upon for collateral purposes to prove severance of joint status and subsequent possession. (!) (!) - It determines the partitionable estate and shares among parties, including treatment of Schedule A, Schedule B, Schedule C (item 17), and the rights of defendant no. 5 and defendant no. 6, with exclusions for those severed by releases. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?

Table of Content
1. background of family and partition claims. (Para 1 , 2)
2. analysis of release deeds and family arrangements. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. final judgment and directives for trial court. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)

JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1) The present civil appeal arises from the final judgment and decree dated 30 August 2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Regular First Appeal No. 750 of 1994 (hereinafter, “impugned judgment”), whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and preliminary decree dated 19 August 1994 rendered by the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, in Original Suit No. 146 of 1987 decreeing a suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The appellants before this Court are the legal heirs of late P. Anjanappa, who was arrayed as defendant no. 5 before the Trial Court, and for ease of reference the parties shall hereinafter be described by their status before the Trial Court, with the appellants being referred to as defendant no. 5.

2) The facts giving rise to the present case are set out hereafter.

2.1. The parties trace their lineage to one Pillappa, who is stated