Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ASHOK S.KINAGI
P. Nandakumar Rao, S/o. Late P. Sundar Rao – Appellant
Versus
Vinodkumar Rao, S/o. Late P. Sundar Rao – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.)
This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2015, passed in R.A.No.4/2009 by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru, D.K., and the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2008, passed in O.S.No.95/2003 by the learned II Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Mangaluru, D.K.
2. For convenience, parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were defendant Nos.1 and 7, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were the plaintiffs and other respondents were the other defendants.
3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for partition of plaint ‘A’ schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiffs that suit ‘A’ schedule property belonged to plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 3, which was settled upon them by their grandfather, late Dr.Pejavar Anand Rao, as evidenced by the registered settlement deed dated 07.02.1941 executed by him. The plaintiffs do not have the original settlement deed. Each of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 3 are entitled to an equal share i.e., 1/5th share in
Co-owners are entitled to partition despite restrictions, and the principle of subrogation under the Transfer of Property Act does not confer higher rights through unilateral action.
Previous family partition and lack of joint family status preclude the plaintiff from claiming coparcenary rights under Hindu law amendments.
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....
The validity of a family partition deed is upheld unless proven otherwise, and the burden of proof lies on the party challenging its authenticity.
A father cannot bequeath his son's share in ancestral property as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 30.
The court upheld the presumption of joint family property, ruling that no valid partition had been established, thus entitling the plaintiffs to their shares.
The right of a mortgagor to redeem is legally upheld, and purchasing a share by mortgagees does not extinguish the mortgage right.
A partition suit must prove ancestral status of properties; claims of prior partition require corroborative evidence, which was insufficient in this case.
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
