Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 798
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAVI V HOSMANI, J.
Sri B.G.Ramu, S/o Late B. Girigowda - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Chowdamma, W/O Late B Girigowda - Appellant
Regular Second Appeal No.344 of 2017 (PAR)
Decided on : 13-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI S.SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE (PH)
For the Respondent:SRI H.B.CHANDRASHEKAR, SRI B.M. KENCHEGOWDA, SRI L. RAJA, SRI H.S. SHANKAR, ADVOCATE
The plaintiff must prove joint family property status to succeed in partition claims; mere assertion is insufficient. The burden of proof emphasizes the need for substantial evidence.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Property as Joint Family Property - It was contended that property was joint family property of the deceased, while the defendants argued self-acquired nature. The Courts held plaintiff failed to prove that properties were joint family assets. The principles regarding burden of proof were reaffirmed, referencing case law. (Paras 33-35)
(B) Presumption of Joint Family Property - No presumption exists regarding the property being joint family property solely based on the existence of a joint Hindu family. The onus lies on the person asserting the joint nature to demonstrate its provenance through evidence. (Paras 33-34)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff challenged the concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the nature of properties post the death of his father, claiming 1/6th share in joint family properties, while the defendants asserted ownership based on self-acquisition. (Paras 12-23)
Findings of Court:
The trial Court and the appellate Court found the plaintiff could not establish that the properties were joint family properties, leading to the dismissal of the suit for partition. (Paras 28-30)
Issues: Whether the properties were joint family properties and whether the plaintiff was entitled to a share in them? (Paras 1-5)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish properties as joint family, and mere assertion without substantive proof is insufficient for granting partition. (Paras 33-34)
Result: Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction to case and parties. (Para 1) |
| 2. factual background of joint family properties. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. judicial proceedings and issues framed. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. first appellate court's evaluation of earlier decisions. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. plaintiff's arguments regarding property division. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. arguments from the respondents against the appeal. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 7. hearing process and respondents' status. (Para 22) |
| 8. discussion on family property ownership claims. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 9. trial court's findings and evidence evaluation. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 10. first appellate court's observations and decisions. (Para 29 , 30) |
| 11. main grounds of appeal and legal implications. (Para 31 , 32) |
| 12. legal principles concerning joint family property ownership. (Para 33) |
| 13. final analysis by the court. (Para 34) |
| 14. conclusion and dismissal of appeal. (Para 35) |
JUDGMENT :
RAVI V HOSMANI, J.
Challenging judgment and decree dated 10.01.2017 passed by IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mandya, in RA no.34/2016 and judgment and decree dated 23.04.2016 passed by Prl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mandya, in OS no.83/2001, this appeal is filed.
2. Brief facts as stated are, appellant was plaintiff in OS no.83/2001 filed for partition and separate possession of his 1/6th share in suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and to hold separate enquiry for ascertaining mesne profits, etc.
3. In plaint, it was stated, father of plaintiff -Girigowda s/o Papegowda, died leaving behind wife – Chowdamma (defendant no.1) and 7 children i.e. plaintiff, BG Shekar, BG Ramakrishna, Narayana, defendants no.2 to 4 as his legal heirs. It was stated, BG Shekar and BG Ramakrishna died unmarried and since 7 years, whereabouts of Narayana was also not known. Therefore, his wife Smt.Sowbhagya (defendant no.5) was made party to suit.
4. It was stated, defendant no.1 being elder member of joint family was managing joint family affairs under oral arrangement and there was no partition of joint family properties. It was stated, defendant no.1 directed plaintiff to enjoy suit item no.3 for his livelihood, while defendants were receiving rents and other benefits from items no.1 and 2, until partition by metes and bounds. It was stated, defendant no.3 murdered BG Shekara at instigation of defendants no.1 and 4 in January, 2001, as he was demanding partition, and was in judicial custody. In last week of February 2001, when plaintiff demanded defendant no.1 for partition of joint family properties by metes and bounds, panchayat was convened. It was stated, OS no.73/2001 filed by defendant no.1 against plaintiff for permanent injunction in respect of item no.3 of suit properties, was pending before Prl.Civil Judge, Mandya. Hence, suit was filed.
5. On appearance, defendants no.1 to 4 filed written statement denying plaint averments except admitting that BG Shekara and BG Ramakrishna died unmarried and defendant no.1, their mother would be only legal heir. Hence she was absolute owner in lawful possession of suit schedule properties.
It was stated, plaintiff has no manner of right, title or interest over any portion of suit schedule properties. It was denied that at instigation of other defendants, defendant no.3 committed murder of his brother and was in judicial custody. It was stated, when suit schedule properties were not joint family properties, plaintiff had no right to demand partition. It was stated, from income earned by milk vending, defendant no.1 purchased sites under registered sale deeds from one Nanjundaiah and Devaraju and constructed shops and residential houses i.e., items no.1 and 2 and got khata mutated in her name and was paying tax regularly.
6. It was further stated, item no.3 was situated in Ex-Inam village and was in possession of defendant no.1. It came to be vested with State under Karnataka Personal and Miscellaneous Inam Abolition Act and defendant no.1 had applied for its re-grant. It was st
