Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R DEVDAS, J
Fern Builders & Developers – Appellant
Versus
Prathibha D. D/o Devaraj – Respondent
ORDER :
R. DEVDAS, J.
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by defendant No.5 in the suit, being aggrieved of the rejection of its interlocutory application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a)(b) & (d) of CPC.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their ranking before the trial court.
3. The suit is filed by the plaintiffs seeking a declaration that the sale deed 01.08.2003 executed by defendants No.1 to 4 in favour of defendant No.5 in respect of the suit schedule property is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. Prayer is also sought for effecting partition of the suit schedule property and allotment of their legitimate shares in favour of the plaintiffs. The suit is filed in the year 2013. Defendant No.5 filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is not properly valued, since admittedly defendant No.5 is in possession of the suit schedule property and the plaintiffs have not sought for relief of possession. Secondly, since admittedly the grandfather of the plaintiffs, late Sri Chikkanna acquired the suit schedule property under registered Partition Deed dated 06.09.1966 and he, along with his son
The court held that plaintiffs, being aware of a prior family sale, cannot invalidate it after a significant delay, as they lack standing to seek partition in this context.
The provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act do not invalidate prior registered Sale Deeds, and delay in filing appeals must be substantiated by sufficient cause.
In partition suits, assumption of constructive notice from the execution of registered Sale Deeds establishes the basis for determining rightful ownership and entitlements, which must be initiated wi....
Point of law: A reading of the said provision makes it amply clear that the said provision comes into play only when an outsider, who is not a member of the family, acquires a share in a property and....
A minor cannot seek partition of property post valid family partition among ancestors as it lacks legal foundation under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act.
The validity of a sale deed executed by a Hindu Undivided Family member is upheld when legal necessity is demonstrated, despite claims of ancestral rights by co-parceners.
A plaintiff must establish a clear cause of action in the plaint; if not, the suit can be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.
The court affirmed daughters' coparcener rights under the Hindu Succession Act, emphasizing that prior sales cannot negate their claims to jointly inherited property.
Timely action is crucial in partition claims; inaction spanning decades bars relief, as established by limitation principles.
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
