Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAVI V HOSMANI J
B.G.Ramu, S/o Late B. Girigowda – Appellant
Versus
Chowdamma, W/O Late B Girigowda – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
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
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.
In a suit for partition, all necessary parties and joint family properties must be included. If the suit is incomplete, the court should defer the judgment and allow the plaintiff to include the omit....
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.
The burden of proof to establish joint family property lies with the plaintiffs, which remains unchanged even when defendants do not contest the suit.
The plaintiff must prove the existence of a joint family nucleus to establish claims over joint family properties; mere relation does not imply entitlement.
The distinction between joint family property and self-acquired property is critical in partition suits, and registered sale deeds can effectively rebut claims based on revenue record entries.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of the suit properties as separate properties or coparcenary properties under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is crucial in determin....
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....
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