Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ASHOK S.KINAGI
Basheer Ahmed, S/o Late Mohammad Hayath – Appellant
Versus
Nazeer Ahamed, S/o Late Mohammed Hayath – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.
This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants, challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.09.2013 passed in R.A.No.04/2008 by the First Additional District Judge, Chikkamagaluru.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were defendant Nos.4 and 6, respondent No.1 was the plaintiff and the other respondents were the other defendants.
3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession. It is the case of the plaintiff that his father, Mohammed Hayath Sab had acquired the property by way of grant. The plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 5 are the legal representatives of the deceased Mohammed Hayath Sab . It is contended that after the death of the Mohammed Hayath Sab and Fathima Bi, plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 5 succeeded as legal heirs and are enjoying suit schedule property as tenants in common. It is further contended that defendant Nos.1 to 5 are trying to alienate the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.6 vide sale deed dated 14.10.2003. It is conte
In partition suits, the burden of proof initially rests with the plaintiff to establish relationship and property rights, which, once substantiated, shifts to the defendants to disprove.
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....
Previous family partition and lack of joint family status preclude the plaintiff from claiming coparcenary rights under Hindu law amendments.
The burden of proof to establish joint family property lies with the plaintiffs, which remains unchanged even when defendants do not contest the suit.
Legal heirs of an intestate mother are entitled to equal shares in the property, and a release deed executed under misrepresentation is invalid.
A father cannot bequeath his son's share in ancestral property as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 30.
Ownership claims under Mohammedan law require joint consent among heirs for property transactions, upheld by courts in assessing the validity of alleged fraudulent transfers.
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
