Back
K. S. MUDAGAL, C. M. JOSHI
Anasuya Bai – Appellant
Versus
B. R. Raghunath Rao – Respondent
JUDGMENT
C.M.JOSHI, J. - This Regular First Appeal is filed by the defendants under Sec. 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dtd. 24/10/2008 passed in O.S.No.94/2002 by the learned XXII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for partition and separate possession of his 1/4th share in the suit schedule property and for declaration that Wills are not binding on him came to be decreed.
2. The parties would be referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court in the original suit.
3. The suit schedule property is the premises bearing No.9, 4th Main, 8th Cross, Chamarajpet, Bangalore-18, measuring 30 x 50 feet with constructed area of 10 x 50 feet.
4. In brief, the case of the plaintiff is as below: The plaintiff and the defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the brothers. Defendant No.1-Anasuya Bai is their mother and one B.M. Rama Rao was the husband of defendant No.1 and father of plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3. He had ancestral properties. The suit schedule property had fallen to the share of their father B.M. Rama Rao under a registered partition deed dtd. 18/3/1953 entered into between B.M.Rama Rao, his father and brothers.
5. The plain
A holographic will executed by the Kartha of a Hindu Undivided Family can effectively settle family property, altering its status from ancestral to settled, provided the will is validly executed and ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the presumption of a property being joint family property arises when there is sufficient joint nucleus capable of contributing to the purchas....
The burden of proof in establishing joint family nucleus and self-acquisition of properties lies with the plaintiff and defendants respectively. The due execution of a Will can be established through....
The validity of a Will executed by a testator in sound mind is upheld, establishing self-acquisition of property over claims of joint family ownership.
A Karta under Mitakshara law cannot alienate joint family property via a Will; it is a family arrangement. Possession under a void document can lead to adverse possession if maintained for the requis....
A party must prove joint ownership and the existence of a Kartha for partition claims; individual ownership negates claims of joint family property.
The burden of proof lies on asserting self-acquisition when joint family property is claimed, as evidenced in the judgment affirming the trial court's findings on property character.
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
