Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P.SANDESH
Siddalingamma, Wife of Late Doddanna – Appellant
Versus
Udayalakshmi Daughter of M. Nanjappa, wife of G.V. Nagaraju – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
(H.P. SANDESH, J.)
This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This appeal is filed against concurrent finding granting 1/6th share in favour of the plaintiffs, who are daughters of defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are also the daughters of defendant No.1.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of partition and separate possession is that plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the children of defendant No.1. The suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties of themselves and defendant Nos.1 to 3 and contend that the partition entered between the defendant No
Ancestral properties in joint family require unanimous consent for valid alienation; prior partitions without necessary family consent are not binding on co-parceners.
The court reaffirmed that properties allotted in a partition retain ancestral status, entitling descendants with rights despite claims of separate property post-partition.
A joint family property remains so despite claims of prior partition; a coparcener retains rights to inheritance under the Hindu Succession Act.
Sale of ancestral property is valid if executed for legal necessity, including debt repayment, especially when plaintiffs fail to prove ownership claims.
Oral relinquishments of joint family property rights are insufficient without written documentation; statutory rights persist despite prior agreements made by family members.
A property must reflect active participation from all family members to be considered joint family property; claims based on mere assertions are insufficient for legal recognition.
A prior partition established the ownership of properties among family members, and plaintiffs failed to prove their claims for further partition as required.
Co-ownership rights are upheld in joint family property claims, and previous partitions must be established with clear evidence; mere conversion of property does not negate an heir's share.
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
Listen Article