Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR, RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, JJ.
Smt. Akkamahadevi W/o. Basappa Betageri – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Neelambika W/o. Veerappa Churi – Respondent
RFA No. 100221 of 2016 C/W RFA No. 100197 of 2016
Decided on : 09-10-2023
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought partition and separate possession of ancestral joint family properties. They claimed that the defendants had created a false partition deed and obtained mutations of the properties in their names. The trial court partially decreed the suit, granting partition in some properties and denying it in others. The plaintiffs and defendants appealed the decision.Finding of the Court:
The court found that a partition had taken place in the past, as evidenced by an unregistered memorandum of partition. The court held that the plaintiffs had voluntarily given up their shares in the partitioned properties and were not entitled to claim partition in those properties again. However, the court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to claim partition in the house properties, as they were not subject to the previous partition.Ratio Decidendi:
The court interpreted Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, which restricted female heirs from claiming partition in dwelling houses. The court held that the section did not apply in this case, as it had been repealed and the plaintiffs had a right to seek partition in the house properties. Final Decision: The court dismissed both appeals, upholding the trial court's decision to grant partition in some properties and deny it in others.JUDGMENT :
The appellants in RFA No.100221/2016 are defendants 1 to 11 and the appellants in RFA.No.100197/2016 are plaintiffs 1 and 2 in O.S.173/2011 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gadag. Plaintiff No.3 died during pendency of the suit. Her legal representatives were already on record.
2. The plaintiffs suit was for partition and separate possession of their 1/10th share each in thirteen landed properties described in schedule ‘A’ and four house properties described in schedule ‘B’ of the plaint. Rachappa Mallappa Betageri was the propositus, third plaintiff was his wife. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendant 13 are the daughters, and defendants 1 and 8 to 12, Basappa and Mallappa, both being deceased, are the sons of Rachappa Mallappa Betageri and the third plaintiff. Defendant 1 is the wife and defendants 2, 3 and 4 are the children of deceased Basappa. Defendant 5 is the wife and defendants 6 and 7 are the children of Mallappa.
3. The plaintiffs claimed partition in schedule ‘A’ and schedule ‘B’ properties on the score that they were all ancestral joint family properties. They came to know that the defendants 1 to 11 created a false partition deed for their convenience, obtained their signatures and the signatures of defendants 12 and 13 deceitfully and obtained the mutations of the properties to their names. They stated that this mutation did not affect their share in the properties. Property bearing R.S.No.556/1A/1+2+3A measuring 7 acres 24 guntas exclusively belonged to third plaintiff but it was also included in the partition.
4. The tenth defendant filed written statement which was adopted by defendants 1 to 9 and 11. The specific contention in the written statement is that the first plaintiff was born before 1956 and therefore she cannot claim any share. On 05.04.2000 there took place a partition in the presence of the elders and since the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 13 were parties to the partition, they cannot claim partition again. The revenue entries were mutated on the basis of the partition dated 05.04.2000. It is also contended that items 10, 11 and 12 are the self acquired properties of defendants 10 and 11. In this view suit is to be dismissed.
5. Defendant 12 filed written statement stating that himself and defendant 13 were each entitled to 1/10th share and that the partition deed dated 05.04.2000 was a created document. Defendant 13 adopted the same written statement.
6. Though the Trial Court framed seven issues, issues 3, 4 and 5 are the deciding issues, which are as below:
4. Whether the Defendants No.1 to 11 prove the previous partition as pleaded in written statement?
5. Whether Defendants No.1 to 11 prove that suit schedule A10, 11 & 12 are the self-acquired properties of Defendants No.10 & 11 as pleaded in para No.11 of their written statement?
7. The second plaintiff adduced evidence as PW.1 and produced the documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.32. DWs.1 to 3 were the witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants and Exs.D.1 to D.33 were the documents marked on their behalf.
8. The findings of the Trial Court are that among schedule ‘A’ properties, items 1 to 9 and 13 as also the house properties described in schedule ‘B’ were ancestral. This conclusion was drawn based on the averments made in the written statement and also admission given by DW.1. So far as items 10 to 12 of schedule ‘A’ is concerned the Trial Court held that they were self acquisitions of defendants 10 and 11 as the plaintiffs failed to prove that items 10 to 12 were purchased by defendants 10 and 11 from the income of the joint family and in view of clear evidence of defendants 10 and 11 that they purchased those items by selling the gold of their respective wives. The evidence of DW.1 in this regard has not been discredited.
9. In regard to partition dated 05.04.2000, it is held by the Trial Court that the plaintiffs were the signatories t
The court clarified the interpretation of Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act and held that it did not apply in this case, as it had been repealed and the plaintiffs had a right to seek partition ....
The court affirmed that ancestral property remains so despite partition, and daughters are entitled to equal shares under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended.
The court reaffirmed that daughters have equal rights as sons in ancestral properties, emphasizing the applicability of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act.
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 ....
Married daughters are excluded from the definition of 'family' under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, and a registered partition deed executed prior to the relevant amendments to the Hindu Succession ....
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
