Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Dehadrai Seeks Dismissal of Moitra's Dog Custody Suit
11 Mar 2026
Supreme Court Grants Bail to Porsche Father in Swap Case
11 Mar 2026
Natural Gas Supplies Prioritized Under Section 3 Essential Commodities Act Amid LNG Disruptions: Central Govt Order
11 Mar 2026
Delhi High Court Directs Ministries, CBFC to Implement Film Accessibility Features for Disabled Persons per RPWD Act Guidelines
11 Mar 2026
Foreign Nationals Entitled to Article 22(1) Grounds of Arrest in Known Language: Karnataka HC Sets at Liberty but Orders Handover to FRRO
11 Mar 2026
Madras HC Permits CBSE Student to Appear for Maths as Additional Subject Despite Policy Violation in Peculiar 'Rat Race' Circumstances
11 Mar 2026
Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Neha Rathore
11 Mar 2026
Menaka Guruswamy Elected India's First Openly Queer Rajya Sabha MP
11 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
M.G.S.KAMAL
Sadashiv Mallappa Mandekar, Since Deceased By His – Appellant
Versus
Sadashiv Mallappa Mandekar, Since Deceased By His Lrs.,- Smt. Sushilabai, (W/o. Shripath Nirwale) – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
(M.G.S. KAMAL, J.)
This appeal is by the defendant No.1 since deceased by his legal representatives aggrieved by the judgement and decree dated 26.11.2013 passed in OS No.116/2007 on the file of Civil Judge, Sankeshwar (for short ‘Trial Court’), by which the suit for partition and separate possession filed by the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 and 4 herein came to be partly decreed allotting certain shares to the parties in the suit schedule properties which is confirmed with the modification by the judgement and order dated 20.03.2021 passed in RA No.5/2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Hukkeri, Itinerary Court at Sankeshwar (for short ‘First Appellate Court’).
2. The above suit in OS No.116/2007 is filed by the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein in respect of nine items of landed properties and three items of house properties situated at Honnihalli village of Hukkeri Taluk, cont
In joint family property disputes, a claimant asserting self-acquisition must provide substantial proof, while joint ancestral claims are upheld unless clearly disproven.
Oral relinquishments of joint family property rights are insufficient without written documentation; statutory rights persist despite prior agreements made by family members.
A party claiming self-acquisition of property within a joint family must provide substantial evidence; failure to do so, combined with existing partition evidence, undermines their claims.
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....
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.
Properties registered in individual names may still be classified as joint family properties if purchased from joint family income, and the defendant bears the burden to prove otherwise.
The presumption of joint family property applies unless proven otherwise, and the burden of proof lies on the party asserting separation.
The principles of self-acquired versus joint family property were affirmed, establishing the burden of proof on those claiming joint ownership, and determining that mere possession does not suffice f....
Daughters became coparceners under Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989, allowing them equal rights in joint family 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
Listen Article