Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V.R.K. KRUPA SAGAR, J.
H. Venkataramappa – Petitioner
Versus
H. Neelavathi Lalitha – Respondent
Second Appeal Nos. 182, 302 of 2013
Decided On : 19-07-2023
Partition - Hindu Succession Act - Section 18, Section 14, Section 24 - The court discussed the legal provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, particularly Section 15, and its interpretation in relation to the ancestral and self-acquired properties. The court also considered the principles of joint family and coparcenary, and the rights of female Hindus in succession. The judgment highlighted the distinction between ancestral and self-acquired properties and their implications on the entitlement for partition.
Fact of the Case:
The suit arose from a claim for partition and separate possession of various properties. The plaintiff, widow of a deceased son, sought a share of the ancestral properties from her father-in-law and other family members. The defendants contested the claim, asserting that certain properties were self-acquired and not available for partition. The trial court decreed the suit, granting the plaintiff a 1/4th share, which was partially modified by the first appellate court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the properties in dispute included ancestral and self-acquired properties, and the entitlement for partition depended on the nature of the properties. It held that the plaintiff was entitled to a share in the ancestral properties, while certain self-acquired properties were not available for partition. The court also dismissed the appeal related to the self-acquired property, while allowing the appeal in part regarding the ancestral property.
Issues: The issues revolved around the entitlement for partition of ancestral and self-acquired properties, the legal infirmities in the trial court judgment, and the correctness of the first appellate court's decision. The court also addressed the burden of proof in a partition suit and the duty of each party to present relevant facts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the distinction between ancestral and self-acquired properties, as well as the rights of female Hindus in succession under the Hindu Succession Act. It emphasized the duty of all parties to present relevant facts in a partition suit and the limited knowledge of the plaintiff, who was a woman from a different family. The court also rejected the argument regarding the burden of proof in the context of a partition suit.
Final Decision: The second appeal related to the self-acquired property was dismissed, while the appeal concerning the ancestral property was allowed in part. The court modified the judgments and decrees of the lower courts accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
V.R.K. KRUPA SAGAR, J.
1. These two Second Appeals arose out of the same judgment and they are argued together and they are to be disposed of by this common judgment.
2. O.S.No. 85 of 2006 is a suit filed for partition and separate possession of various items of the plaint schedule property. Suit was contested. After due trial learned Senior Civil Judge, Adoni by a judgment dated 06.09.2011 decreed the suit with costs and granted 1/4th share to the plaintiff directing the parties to move a separate application for determination of mesne profits.
3. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the trial Court, defendant No. 1, 2 and 4 preferred A.S.No. 50 of 2011. In that appeal, the plaintiff was arrayed as respondent No. 1. Defendant No. 3 in the suit was arrayed as respondent No. 2. After due hearing, learned II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni by a judgment dated 26.12.2012 allowed the appeal in part in the following terms:
4. The above referred judgment of the first appellate Court gave rise to the presentation of S.A.No. 182 of 2013 by defendant Nos.1,2 and 4 contending that both the Courts below erred in granting partition and the suit should have been dismissed and the first appellate Court wrongly confirmed part of the trial Court judgment and decree. Whereas the plaintiff in the suit assailing the first appellate Court’s exclusion of one of the items of properties preferred S.A.No. 302 of 2013 contending that a well reasoned judgment of the learned trial Court was erroneously modified by the learned first appellate Court.
5. Smt. Chakali Ranganna was defendant No. 3 in the suit. In both the appeals, he is shown as one of the respondents and thereafter in both the appeals, the appellants gave up their claims against him and at their request, the appeals as against Sri. Chakali Ranganna were recorded as dismissed on 10.04.2017.
6. Sri H.Venkataramappa was defendant No. 1 in O.S.No. 85 of 2006. During the pendency of these appeals, he died. In S.A.No. 302 of 2013, the wife of the deceased was impleaded as respondent No. 5 by an Order dated 13.09.2022 in I.A.No. 3 of 2022 but in S.A.No. 182 of 2013 no legal representatives are added in the place of defendant No. 1 as he died.
7. The facts leading to the present proceedings are required to be noticed.
In O.S.No. 85 of 2006 partition was claimed over various items of agricultural lands and house. Lands in Survey Nos.75 and 85 situate in Pedda Hulthi Village of Kurnool District are shown as item No. 1. Lands in Joharapuram Village of Kurnool District spread in Survey Nos.667/A2 and 222/A and 223 are shown as item No. 2 in the plaint schedule. A house bearing Door No. 1/31 and 1/30 in Joharapuram Village of Kurnool District is shown as item No. 3 in the plaint schedule.
8. Sri H.Venkata Ramappa has two sons and a daughter. The sons are Sri H.Guruprabanjanaiah and Sri H.Mohan Kumar and daughter is Smt.Baby Rani. Sri H.Mohan Kumar died, his wife is Smt.H.Neelavathi alias Lalitha. Those two spouses did not have children. Claiming share of the deceased Sri Mohan Kumar, his widow Smt.H.Neelavathi filed O.S.No. 85 of 2006 as against father, brother and sister of late H.Mohan Kumar stating that together they hold rights over the plaint schedule immovable property and each of them is entitled for 1/4th share and therefore the suit was laid claiming 1/4th share of Sri H.Mohan Kumar.
9. In the plaint it is mentioned that marriage of Smt.H.Neelavathi was performed with Sri H.Moh
The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between ancestral and self-acquired properties under the Hindu Succession Act, and its implications on the entitlement for parti....
The presumption of joint family status in Hindu law requires clear evidence to establish prior partition; the Appellate Court allowed partition of one property acquired post-partition while dismissin....
The burden of proof in establishing joint family property and partition lies with the party alleging its existence. The court also emphasized the entitlement of daughters to share in joint Hindu fami....
The court reaffirmed that daughters have equal rights as sons in ancestral properties, emphasizing the applicability of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act.
The judicial presumption of joint ownership requires proof of a family nucleus, and mere existence of a joint family does not automatically classify all properties as joint.
The court upheld the principle that evidence of joint familial ties and prior agreements significantly influences property ownership claims in partition suits.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
