Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.
KRISHNAPPA SINCE DEAD HIS LRS. SMT. MUNIYAMMA – Appellant
Versus
ASHWATHAMMA D/O LATE MUNIANJANAPPA – Respondent
R.S.A. No. 87 of 2010
Decided On : 26-08-2022
Registration Act, 1908 - Section 17(1) - Properties - Suit for Partition and Separate Possession - Whether lower Appellate Court was justified in decreeing suit of plaintiff for partition in respect of suit items on the basis of Ex.P-20, which is an unregistered document and not signed by appellant - Whether Ex.P-20 amounts to family settlement - Whether words have been “reduced to form of a document” in each case is a matter of reality that must be decided based on meaning and phraseology of writing, as well as circumstances and intent for which it was written. [Para 23]
Finding of the Court: To render property joint, plaintiff must plead and prove that family possessed some property which generated surplus income - Therefore, initial burden is always on plaintiff to establish that family possessed some joint property which, from its nature and relative value formed a nucleus and said land was generating surplus income - It is only then burden shifts on party alleging self acquisition to establish affirmative, that suit schedule properties were acquired without aid of joint family - This Court would also find that there is absolutely no material indicating that defendant No. 1 was acting as a Kartha and therefore, had access to income generated from joint family property - In present case on hand, original plaintiff has failed to discharge burden of proving that apart from item No. 9, all other properties standing in name of defendant No. 1 were acquired out of joint family funds - Therefore, findings of Appellate Court in recording a finding that above said items are also ancestral properties is perverse and in absence of clinching evidence - All these significant details are not examined by Appellate Court - Appellate Court erred in not taking note of fact that plaintiff failed to discharge initial burden - Findings of Trial Court is based on rebuttal evidence - Therefore, Appellate Court erred in reversing judgment and decree of Trial Court by placing reliance on Ex.P-20 - Judgment and decree of Appellate Court suffers from serious infirmities and also illegality - Finding of Appellate Court that in terms of Ex.P-20, plaintiff is entitled to half share suffers from perversity and therefore, substantial question of law formulated by this Court is liable to be answered in affirmative - Appellate Court erred in placing reliance on Ex.P-20 which does not carry any evidentiary value.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.
1. The captioned second appeal is filed by the defendant No. 1 questioning the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court wherein the Appellate Court has decreed the suit in entirety and share is granted to the plaintiff in all the properties.
2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Court below.
3. The family tree of the parties is as follows:
OTHERS LANGUAGE
4. The original plaintiff Muni Anjanappa who is the father of defendant No. 1 filed a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S. No. 29/2006. The original plaintiff Muni Anjanappa claimed that suit schedule properties were acquired through joint family funds. It was contended that original plaintiff Muni Anjanappa on account of old age was not in a position to manage the affairs of the family and therefore, defendant No. 1 being the eldest son was allowed to manage the affairs of the joint family as Kartha of the family. Therefore, the original plaintiff Muni Anjanappa contended that all the properties acquired in the name of defendant No. 1 were by utilizing joint family corpus and therefore, the original plaintiff filed a suit for partition against the sons and claimed share in all the properties.
5. Pending suit, the original plaintiff Muni Anjanappa died and his daughter who was originally arrayed as defendant No. 5 got transposed as plaintiff. The original plaintiff instituted the present suit by specifically alleging that defendant No. 1 is acting adversely to the interest of the plaintiff and therefore, the present suit came to be filed.
6. The defendant No. 1, on receipt of summons, tendered appearance and filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. However, the defendant No. 1 admitted the relationship between himself with other defendants and original plaintiff Muni Anjanappa. However, the allegation that all suit schedule properties are joint family ancestral properties was stoutly denied by the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 specifically contended that except item No. 9 of schedule ‘A’ property, all other properties are self acquired properties and therefore, are not available for partition. The defendant No. 1 has furnished all the details and has disclosed the source of acquisition in the written statement.
7. It was also specifically averred in the written statement that item Nos. a, b, m, n, o as well as c, d and e of schedule ‘B’ properties are his self acquired properties. The defendant No. 1 has further claimed that item Nos. 1 and 12 were acquired by him in a compromise decree passed in O.S. No. 61/1988 while he acquired right and title in item Nos. 2 and 6 by way of adverse possession. He further contended that he acquired absolute right over item Nos. 3 and 5 under registered gift deed executed by his uncle. Further, he contended that item Nos. 4 and 10 were purchased by him through registered sale deed. While defendants further pleaded that item Nos.7 and 11 do not belong to joint family but, however, his name was mutated to the revenue records. Insofar as item No. 8 is concerned, he contended that it originally belonged to Dodda Kempanna and after the death of his uncle, defendant No. 1’s name was mutated to the revenue records. The defendant No. 1, however, admitted that item No. 9 is the joint family property.
8. The plaintiff i.e. the daughter of Muni Anjanappa to substantiate the claim of original plaintiff let in oral evidence. She examined herself as PW-1 and one independent witness as PW-2 and relied on documentary evidence vide Exs.P-1 to P-34. The defendant No. 1 to substantiate his claim examined himself as DW-1 and one independent witness as DW-2 and relied on rebuttal documentary evidence vide Exs.D-1 to D-6.
9. The Trial Court having examined oral and documentary evidence has come to conclusion that only item Nos. 7 and 9 of schedule ‘A’ property are joint family ancestral property and therefore, proceeded to g
If the parties have reduced the family agreement into writing with an intention of using that writing as an evidence of what they have negotiated and when the arrangement is brought on by the documen....
Existence of an unregistered family arrangement deed does not confer partition rights absent proper registration and stamp duty where required by law.
The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish that the properties are ancestral, and evidence must be pleaded and proved through evidence.
Ancestral properties must be proven to remain joint family properties post-partition; otherwise, they are deemed separate and not subject to partition claims.
The plaintiff must prove the existence of a joint family nucleus to establish claims over joint family properties; mere relation does not imply entitlement.
The court established that unregistered documents affecting rights in immovable property are inadmissible in evidence, and that joint family properties are subject to partition among all rightful hei....
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....
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
