Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
M.G.S. KAMAL
Kushappa Mahadevappa Nalavadi – Appellant
Versus
Pandappa Mahadevappa Nalavadi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(M.G.S. KAMAL, J.)
1. This appeal is filed by defendant No.1 since deceased by his legal representatives and defendant No.2, being aggrieved by the judgement and decree dated 13th December 1996, passed in O.S. No.2/1993 by the Civil Judge at Haveri (for short “the trial Court”) which is confirmed by the judgment and order dated 13th August 2012, passed in R.A. No.89/2011, by the District Judge at Haveri (for short “the First Appellate Court”).
2. By the said judgment, the suit filed by the plaintiff [now represented by respondents Nos.1(a) to 1(c) herein] was decreed declaring that the plaintiff was entitled to a 3/10th share in plaint “A” and “C” schedule properties and a 1/3rd share in plaint “B”, “D” and “E” schedule properties. Defendant Nos.1 to 6 were directed to deliver possession of the plaintiff’s respective shares in plaint “A” to “E” schedule properties. Further, the trial Court held that defendant No.7 was entitled to a 3/10th share in plaint “A” and “C” schedule properties and a 1/3rd share in plaint “B”, “D” and “E” schedule properties. Defendant Nos.8 and 9 each were held entitled to a 1/20th share in plaint “A” and “C” schedule properties, and defendant Nos.
The right to partition in joint family properties persists regardless of contest, and the trial court’s decree must be grounded in evidence of joint possession.
The court reaffirmed that daughters have equal rights as sons in ancestral properties, emphasizing the applicability of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act.
The court established that there is no presumption of joint ownership in family properties, and the burden of proof to establish such claims lies with the party alleging joint ownership.
Joint family property requires supporting evidence for claims of individual ownership; the absence of documentation for partition nullifies individual assertions of property exclusive rights.
The burden of proof to establish joint family property lies with the plaintiffs, which remains unchanged even when defendants do not contest the suit.
The heavy burden of proof upon the proponent of oral partition before it is accepted, as per the settled principle of law by the Apex Court.
The mother of a deceased Hindu male is a Class-I heir and entitled to a share in the property left by the deceased. Her legal heirs are also entitled to a share after her death.
The burden of proof on the plaintiffs to establish the disputed properties as joint family properties and the application of settled principles of law in determining the entitlement to the properties....
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
