Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
S.KINAGI, RAJESH RAI K.
SHANTILKUMARSWAMY R. SUBRAMANYA – Appellant
Versus
RENAVVA @ LAKSHMI – Respondent
JUDGMENT
ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and preliminary decree dated 08.12.2016 passed in O.S.No.158/2014 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial court. 3. Appellant is defendant No.9, respondent Nos.1 to 17 are the plaintiffs and respondent Nos.18 to 27 are the defendants.
4. Plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. It is the case of the plaintiffs that original propositus was one Yallappa. He had a wife by name, Fakkiravva. They had two sons by name, Yallappa and Hanumantappa. Hanumantappa had six children, namely, defendant Nos.1, 3, 5, 7 and 8 and daughter Renavva who is dead. The Ramappa defendant No.1 had a wife by name Yallavva i.e., defendant No.2. Defendant No.3 has a daughter by name Bangarevva i.e., defendant No.4. Defendant No.5 has a daughter by name Shantavva i.e., defendant No.6. Defendant No.7 Yankappa had a daughter by name Renavva i.e., plaintiff No.17. Plaintiff Nos.1 to 7 are the children of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Plaintiff Nos. 8 to 11 are the children of defenda
The court reaffirmed that prior sales of property before the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act are protected and binding, setting aside the trial court’s decree granting shares to plaintiffs....
Previous family partition and lack of joint family status preclude the plaintiff from claiming coparcenary rights under Hindu law amendments.
Joint family property retains its character unless proven otherwise; sales by co-parceners without all parties' consent do not extinguish shared rights.
The court reaffirmed that a sale deed executed for family and legal necessity by a joint family member is binding, barring challenge by family members after significant delay without sufficient cause....
The court ruled that the plaintiffs' claims over certain properties were invalid due to prior sales, emphasizing the necessity of declarations regarding property ownership in joint familial contexts ....
The main legal point established is the application of Sec. 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, the exclusion of contrary evidence, and the principles of Hindu Law regarding co-parcenary property and....
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
