IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K.S.Hemalekha, J.
Basavanneppa - Appellant
Versus
Ganga - Respondent
RSA No. 100551 of 2015
Decided On : 04-04-2022
relationship - partition - Sec. 6 of the Hindu Succession Amendment Act 2005 - The judgment and decree of the Court below granting 1/2 share to the plaintiff does not call for any interference.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff and the defendant, who are brother and sister, filed a suit for partition and separate possession seeking 1/2 share in the suit schedule properties contending that the properties are ancestral joint family property. The defendant disputed the relationship and claimed that certain properties were self-acquired.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court and the First Appellate Court held that the suit properties are joint family properties and granted 1/2 share to the plaintiff. The defendant's appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate Court, and the concurrent finding was upheld by the High Court.
Issues: Dispute over the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the nature of certain properties as ancestral or self-acquired.
Ratio Decidendi: The Courts below held that the plaintiff is entitled to a share in the suit properties based on the relationship being proved and the properties being ancestral. The judgment relied on Sec. 6 of the Hindu Succession Amendment Act 2005, which entitles daughters to equal share in ancestral joint family property.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed, and no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
JUDGMENT
K.S.HEMALEKHA J. - The concurrent findings of the Courts below has been challenged by the defendant assailing the judgment and decree dtd. 31/7/2014 in RA No.75/2013 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions and Spl. Judge, Dharwad, confirming the judgment and decree dtd. 24/4/2013 in OS No.262/2011 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge (SR.DN) and CJM, Dharwad.
2. The parties herein are referred to as per the ranking before the trial Court.
3. The plaintiff and the defendant are brother and sister. Suit filed for partition and separate possession seeking 1/2 share in the suit schedule properties contending that the suit schedule properties is the ancestral joint family property of the family of the plaintiff and defendant and during the life time of the deceased father Ningappa both plaintiff and defendant were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.
4. The defendant appeared and filed his written statement disputing the very relationship of the plaintiff and defendant and denied that the plaintiff is entitled for share in the suit schedule properties.
5. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings, material and evidence on record held that the suit properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendant and the defendant has failed to prove that there is no relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and granted 1/2 share in the suit schedule properties.
6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court defendant preferred an appeal before the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court on re- appreciation of the material and evidence on record held that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/2 share in the suit schedule properties and dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court.
7. Heard the learned counsel for appellant Sri. Shivaraj P. Mudhol and the learned counsel for the respondent Sri.Arun L. Neelopant.
8. In addition to the various other contention urged in the appeal memo, it is the foremost contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff is not entitled for 1/2 share in the suit schedule properties as defendant / appellant is disputing the very relationship of the plaintiff with that of the defendant. It is further contended by the appellant that the suit item No.3 and 4 are the self acquired property of the defendant and that the Courts below have not taken into consideration that item No.3 and 4 are the self acquired property of the defendant.
9. Per contra learned counsel for respondent Sri.Arun L. Neelopant, contended that the Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff is the sister of the defendant and there is a relationship that of a brother and sister between the plaintiff and the defendant and on analyzing the material facts on record trial Court and the First Appellate Court have held that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/2 share in the suit schedule properties.
10. Insofar as item Nos.3 and 4 is concerned, it is contended that the defendant in his cross examination has admitted that the suit schedule item Nos.3 and 4 are the ancestral properties of this plaintiff and defendant and thus, sought to contend that the Courts below have concurrently and rightly held that the plaintiff is the daughter of late Ningappa and thus, entitled for 1/2 share in the suit schedule properties.
11. The defendant has disputed the very relationship of the plaintiff with that of the defendant. The plaintiff in order to prove her relationship with the defendant and that Ningappa and the mother Mallavva are the parents has got marked Exs.P1 to P12. Ex.P1 to P4 are the RTC revenue records pertaining to suit schedule properties wherein the name of the plaintiff appears and the father's name is shown as Ningappa. Ex.P6 is the marks card of the plaintiff where the name of the father is shown as Ningappa. Exs.P7 and P8 are the marks card pertaining t
Daughters are entitled to equal share in ancestral joint family property under Sec. 6 of the Hindu Succession Amendment Act 2005.
A joint family property remains so despite claims of prior partition; a coparcener retains rights to inheritance under the Hindu Succession Act.
The main legal point established is that under Sec. 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, daughters are entitled to their legitimate share in joint family properties, and a suit for partition can be maintai....
Daughters have equal coparcener rights in ancestral property under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
Daughters have equal rights as coparceners in ancestral property under the Hindu Succession Act as amended in 2005, affecting share distribution in partition cases.
The court established that evidence must substantiate claims of oral partition, prioritizing the registered Partition Deed as definitive proof for ancestral property entitlements under the Hindu Succ....
Partition rights and classification of properties under succession laws are critical in determining share entitlement among siblings.
The distinction between joint family property and self-acquired property is critical in partition suits, and registered sale deeds can effectively rebut claims based on revenue record entries.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.