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
Kerala HC Issues Notice to Digi Yatra Foundation in PIL Seeking Strict Compliance with DPDP Act 2023 for Airport Passenger Data: High Court of Kerala
07 Mar 2026
Appointment to Higher Post on Compassionate Grounds Not a Matter of Right: J&K&L High Court
07 Mar 2026
Nearly Decade-Long Delay in Patnitop Illegal Construction PIL Appalls J&K&L High Court; Directs PDA CEO to Join Proceedings
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Employees Under CCS Pension Rules Excluded from PG Act Section 2(e) Gratuity: Delhi HC Upholds Forfeiture on Resignation
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
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ANU SIVARAMAN, K. MANMADHA RAO
R. Channappa, S/o. Late Sri C. Ramaiah – Appellant
Versus
B.R. Loknath, S/o. Late Sri C. Ramaiah – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
(K. MANMADHA RAO, J.)
The Defendant No.1 is before this Court, assailing the legality and correctness of the Judgment and Decree dated 11.11.2024 passed in O.S.No.2188/2015 on the file of the Court of LXXV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CCH.76) at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court' for short), whereby the suit filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff for declaration of 1/7th share in the suit schedule properties (A to E) and for consequential reliefs, was partly decreed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.
The Brief facts of the case are as follows :
3. The plaintiff/B.R.Lokanath who claims to be the son of one Late Sri.C. Ramaiah ha
The burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish joint family property, and failure to evaluate evidence can render a trial court's judgment unsustainable.
A plaintiff can only establish entitlement to partition if they demonstrate joint ownership and the failure to do so, particularly through admissions and evidence of prior partition, warrants dismiss....
In matters of inheritance in joint family properties, ancestral status prevails unless a valid Will is presented; thus, equitable shares must be allocated accordingly.
Oral relinquishments of joint family property rights are insufficient without written documentation; statutory rights persist despite prior agreements made by family members.
The presumption of joint family property applies unless proven otherwise, and the burden of proof lies on the party asserting separation.
A joint family property remains so despite claims of prior partition; a coparcener retains rights to inheritance under the Hindu Succession Act.
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.
In joint family property disputes, a claimant asserting self-acquisition must provide substantial proof, while joint ancestral claims are upheld unless clearly disproven.
Joint family properties are established through contributions from family income, and the validity of a gift deed in such cases necessitates consent from all joint owners.
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