Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S. SUJATHA, RAVI V. HOSMANI, JJ.
H.S. Avinash, S/o. H.R. Sathyanarayana and Anr. – Appellants
Versus
H.R. Sathyanarayana, S/o. Late Rangegowda and Anr. – Respondents
R.F.A. No.775 Of 2014 (PAR)
Decided On : 11-01-2022
Challenging judgment and decree dated 28.03.2014 passed by I Additional Senior Civil Judge, at Chikkamagalur, in O.S.No.188/2007, this appeal is filed. Appellants were plaintiffs no.1 and 2, while respondents were defendants no.1 and 2 respectively. Plaintiffs filed a suit against defendants seeking re-opening of partition deed dated 11.01.1999 and for fresh partition deed and to allot 1/4th share each to plaintiffs in suit schedule property by metes and bounds, to put them in possession of their share and also for accounts and mesne profits etc. The schedule annexed to plaint contained particulars of immovable properties belonging to joint family of plaintiffs and defendants, of which fourteen are agricultural properties, three urban properties consisting of shopping complex and partially completed cinema theatre and one house property situated at Arehalli, Belur. Plaintiffs alleged that the partition deed was nominal, executed only for reducing taxes, and that they were not given any share in agricultural properties. Defendants contended that the partition deed was executed in accordance with law and was binding on them. Based on pleadings, the court framed several issues and after examining witnesses and documentary evidence, the trial court answered the issues in favor of the defendants and dismissed the suit with costs. On appeal, the court upheld the trial court's decision and dismissed the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking re-opening of partition deed dated 11.01.1999 and for fresh partition deed and to allot 1/4th share each to plaintiffs in suit schedule property by metes and bounds, to put them in possession of their share and also for accounts and mesne profits etc. The schedule annexed to plaint contained particulars of immovable properties belonging to joint family of plaintiffs and defendants, of which fourteen are agricultural properties, three urban properties consisting of shopping complex and partially completed cinema theatre and one house property situated at Arehalli, Belur. Plaintiffs alleged that the partition deed was nominal, executed only for reducing taxes, and that they were not given any share in agricultural properties. Defendants contended that the partition deed was executed in accordance with law and was binding on them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the defendants, upholding the validity of the partition deed and dismissing the suit with costs. The court held that the partition deed was executed after due deliberation and was acted upon, and therefore, the plaintiffs were estopped from questioning its validity. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' challenge to the partition on the grounds of unequal shares and the minor status of plaintiff no.2 at the time of partition.
Issues: The main issues before the court were whether the partition deed was nominal, whether the plaintiffs were given an unequal share, and whether plaintiff no.2 was a minor at the time of partition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mere existence of unequal shares does not lead to an inference of fraud or coercion, and that allegations of fraud, coercion, and undue influence require strict proof of facts. The court also emphasized that a nominal deed would not be useful for avoiding statutory dues. Additionally, the court considered the circumstances under which the partition deed was executed, including the fact that it was registered and acted upon, and the education of the plaintiffs. The court found that the evidence presented by the defendants, including the testimony of witnesses to the partition deed, was sufficient to uphold the validity of the partition.
Final Decision: The court upheld the trial court's decision, dismissing the suit with costs.
JUDGMENT :
Challenging judgment and decree dated 28.03.2014 passed by I Additional Senior Civil Judge, at Chikkamagalur, in O.S.No.188/2007, this appeal is filed.
2. Appellants herein were plaintiffs no.1 and 2, while respondents herein were defendants no.1 and 2 respectively. Hereinafter parties are referred to as per their ranking before trial Court.
3. Brief facts as stated are that plaintiffs filed a suit against defendants seeking re-opening of partition deed dated 11.01.1999 and for fresh partition deed and to allot 1/4th share each to plaintiffs in suit schedule property by metes and bounds, to put them in possession of their share and also for accounts and mesne profits etc.
4. The schedule annexed to plaint contained particulars of immovable properties belonging to joint family of plaintiffs and defendants, of which fourteen are agricultural properties, three urban properties consisting of shopping complex and partially completed cinema theatre and one house property situated at Arehalli, Belur.
5. In the plaint, it was stated that schedule properties were Hindu Joint Family properties of plaintiffs and defendants and defendant no.1 was Karta of family. On the pretext of reducing taxes, defendant no.1, devised a nominal partition deed dated 11.01.1999, in which non-agricultural properties like commercial and urban properties including uncompleted theatre having shops, worth more than Rs.2.00 crores were shown to the share of defendant no.1. At the time of taking signature, plaintiffs were told that actual partition would be effected later. As partition was nominal, even thereafter, all parties resided together. Later, when defendant no.1 started giving pinpricks and during 2007, plaintiff no.1 demanded equal partition and division of properties by metes and bounds, but was refused on the ground of earlier partition. It was stated that defendant no.1 as father, used his influence to get partition deed dated 11.01.1999, signed by all parties under undue influence. It was stated that as partition was not equal, it was nominal, executed only for reducing taxes etc., and plaintiffs were not given any share in agricultural properties.
6. On service of summons, defendant no.1 entered appearance and filed written statement opposing the suit. It was contended that defendant no.1 was not karta of family. Plaintiff’s assertion of denial of share in urban/residential/agricultural properties was disputed. Valuation of properties as alleged was also denied. Plaintiff’s assertion that even after partition, parties resided together was also denied. Even assertion that plaintiffs put defendants in joint and constructive possession of schedule properties was denied. Existence of uncompleted cinema theatre opposite to bus stand at Belur town was admitted. It was stated that partition deed was executed in presence of witnesses and acted upon as parties were in possession and in enjoyment of their respective share of properties by paying property taxes separately. It was also stated that even plaintiff no.1 was managing coffee plantation independently. It was further submitted that partition in question was by way of a registered partition deed and acted upon, therefore, plaintiffs were estopped from questioning it. It was further stated that urban properties situated at Belur town had suffered encroachments due to neglect and defendant had to borrow loans to construct shops to prevent encroachment. Therefore, their current valuation could not be used for comparison. It was further stated that defendant no.1 performed marriages of defendant no.2 and plaintiff no.2 and borrowed loan for construction of shops which were not accounted for by plaintiff.
7. It was also contended that reliefs were not properly valued and that plaintiff was liable to pay court fee on total market value mentioned in registered partition deed. It was lastly contended that plaintiff had left out some properties sold by him after partition and also left out Jeep and other
The main legal point established in the judgment is that allegations of fraud, coercion, and undue influence require strict proof of facts, and the mere existence of unequal shares does not lead to a....
A partition deed long acted upon by all parties through possession and alienation is binding and cannot be reopened by descendants, especially when the original parties to the partition accepted the ....
The rights of daughters as coparceners are upheld, but registered partitions enacted before the relevant amendments cannot be contested unless fraud is proven.
The court reaffirmed that for a valid partition among joint family properties, proper registration and absence of fraud are crucial, emphasizing joint possession and familial rights.
A party aware of a will at the time of a partition deed cannot avoid the document and maintain a suit for partition without challenging the partition deed.
Suit for partition - Partial partition not permissible - Admission of parties - Will duly established and cannot be held to be forge or fabricated one.
Fraud must be specifically pleaded and proven to invalidate registered documents in partition disputes, and unsupported allegations do not suffice to reopen partitions.
A partition deed executed by family members cannot be reopened without clear proof of fraud; voluntary agreements hold unless substantial misleading actions are evidenced.
Rule 73 of Rules reads as duties of Registering Officer.
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
