Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K.Natarajan, J.
Nanjappa – Appellant
Versus
Mahimakka – Respondent
Regular First Appeal No. 834 of 2020
Decided On : 26-10-2023
Partition - Joint Family Property - CPC Sec. 96, Registration Act Sec. 17, 49, Hindu Succession Act - The court discussed the applicability of the Registration Act regarding the admissibility of unregistered documents, emphasizing that any document affecting immovable property must be registered to be valid. The court interpreted the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act in the context of joint family property, affirming the plaintiff's entitlement to a share despite claims of relinquishment by the defendants. The court's decision was influenced by the established legal principles regarding the nature of joint family property and the requirements for valid relinquishment of rights.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession of a 1/6th share in joint family properties, claiming that the properties were ancestral and belonged to the undivided family. The defendants contended that the plaintiff had executed a relinquishment deed and that the suit was not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary parties.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff, determining that the properties were indeed joint family properties and that the plaintiff was entitled to a 1/6th share. The court rejected the defendants' claims regarding the relinquishment deed, deeming it inadmissible due to lack of registration.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit properties are ancestral and joint family properties? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a 1/6th share? 3. Whether the relinquishment deed is valid? 4. Whether the suit is maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary parties?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the properties in question were joint family properties, and the plaintiff's claim to a share was valid. The court emphasized that unregistered documents affecting immovable property are inadmissible under the Registration Act, thus invalidating the defendants' claims based on the alleged relinquishment deed.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's decree granting the plaintiff a 1/6th share in the suit schedule properties.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized with references:
The court clarified that unregistered documents affecting rights in immovable property are inadmissible as evidence, emphasizing the importance of registration for validity (!) (!) (!) .
The properties in question are established as joint family (ancestral) properties, and the plaintiff, being a daughter of the first defendant, is entitled to a share in these properties (!) (!) .
The plaintiff's claim for a 1/3rd share in the joint family properties was upheld by the trial court, which found that the properties belonged to the undivided family and that the relinquishment deed relied upon by the defendants was not admissible due to lack of registration (!) (!) .
The court noted that the relinquishment deeds executed by the defendant's sisters, Doddaputtamma and Chikkaputtamma, were made in their own interest and waived their rights in favor of the first defendant, which precluded them from claiming any share later (!) .
The earlier suit involving other claimants (Venkatesh and Muniraju) was dismissed, and their claims were not proven, reaffirming the plaintiff's entitlement to her share (!) .
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, which granted the plaintiff a 1/6th share in the properties, dismissing the appeal of the defendants who argued for a lesser share based on the rights of the defendant's sisters and other claimants (!) (!) .
The court rejected the defendants' contention that the plaintiff and other family members had relinquished their rights through unregistered documents, reaffirming the legal requirement for registration of such documents affecting immovable property (!) (!) (!) .
The final decree and demarcation of the property by the court's commissioner supported the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to her share, and there was no merit in the appeal to disturb this order (!) (!) .
In summary, the court upheld the validity of the plaintiff's claim to a 1/6th share in the joint family properties, dismissed the defendants' arguments based on unregistered relinquishment deeds, and confirmed the legal principles regarding the necessity of registration for documents affecting immovable property.
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant under Sec. 96 of CPC for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.3029/2009 dtd. 18/3/2020 for having decreed the suit of the respondent by granting 1/6th share each, in the item Nos.1 and 2 of the schedule property of the plaint.
2. Heard the argument of learned counsel for appellants and learned senior counsel for the respondent.
3. The appellants were defendants and the respondent was the plaintiff before the Trial Court. The ranks of the parties are retained for the purpose of convenience.
4. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession of 1/6th share in the suit schedule property alleging that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the daughters and son of defendant No.1. The plaintiff and defendants constituted undivided joint family of the defendant No.1. The plaintiff married and defendant Nos.2 to 4 also was married, by performing the marriage out of joint family funds. The defendant No.5 is the only son and all are living together. There was partition held between the defendant No.1 and his brothers, in respect of several property which are joint family properties. The defendant no.1 had aquired title and interest over the suit schedule property, which becomes ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendants.
5. It is further contended that the plaintiff's main propositor was one Nanjappa who had two sons namely Kurulappa and Muniappa and after his death properties were divided between Kurulappa and Muniappa, the defendant No.1 is a party to the partition dtd. 5/5/1995. Further contended, as per the genealogical tree. The defendant No.1 is from branch of Nanjappa and his son Kurulappa and defendant No.1 is the son of Kurulappa. The plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the children of Nanjappa (defendant No.1.). There is no partition in respect of schedule property among plaintiff and defendant. The suit schedule property are joint family properties of plaintiff and defendant, hence the plaintiff is entitled for 1/6th share of suit schedule property. The house property in old khatha Nos.6 and 7, New No.14 situated at Chokkasandra Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North which is item No.1 and land measuring 1 acre 32 guntas in Sy.No.50, which is consisting of house and vacant land with coconut trees, which is scheduled in item No.2 of the schedule property. The plaintiff issued illegal notice to the defendant for seeking partition, but the defendant No.1 replied that there was release deed dtd. 13/12/2000 said to be executed by the plaintiff by receiving Rs.1.00 lakh, but the plaintiff never relinquished her right in respect of the schedule property. The defendant alleged the relinquish deed dtd. 13/12/2000 said to be executed by her, she has obtained the EC from the concerned, subsequently it was registered and there is no such entry in the EC which is an unregistered deed which was created and forged by the defendant. She has not received Rs.1.00 lakh and never executed released deed and there was no necessity for her to demand any money from the defendant. The unregistered documents does not relate to the plaintiff at all. The marriage of the plaintiff was performed on 31/5/1990, the property were divided between Kurulappa and his father in 1995. As on the date of her marriage, there is no partition. The defendant not allowed the plaintiff to enter into the house, except for marriage ceremonies of her sister. The quarrel was leading to approach police, but the police advised to file civil suit, by taking the advantage of the fraudulent document, styled as released deed. Defendants are attempting to alienate the property to the third parties. Therefore, she has interest in 1/6th undivided share, hence filed suit for partition and separate possession.
6. The defendant Nos.1, 2 and 5 have jointly filed written statement contending that the
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of Central Act 39/2005, which entitles daughters to equal shares in ancestral properties. The court's decision was influenced by ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the Plaintiffs to a 1/4th share in the joint family ancestral properties and the invalidity of the registered Will Deed.
A party who has relinquished their rights in joint family properties cannot later claim partition or execute a will regarding those properties.
Will validly proved by attesting witness; plaintiff failed to establish joint family property for partition entitlement.
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
