Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAVI V. HOSMANI, J.
G. Hanumantharayappa, Since Deceased By Lrs - Appellant
Versus
Sri T.S. Anand, S/o Subramanya - Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 2373 of 2010 (DEC) C/W Regular Second Appeal No. 2374 of 2010 (PAR)
Decided on : 13-05-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. huf properties and rightful management of ancestral property. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. denial of claims related to prior partition and property ownership. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. legatee asserts ownership of property through a registered will. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. claims of partition and proof of joint family property. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 5. arguments presented regarding the nature of the property and prior partition. (Para 22) |
| 6. burden of proof in establishing self-acquired property. (Para 24 , 27) |
| 7. defendant contends that item no.11 is self-acquired and not subject to partition. (Para 26 , 30) |
| 8. court examines validity of claims and the nature of the property. (Para 32) |
| 9. conclusions about status of item 11 property. (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 10. court's reasoning on the burden of proof regarding property ownership. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 11. legal principles regarding benami transactions and property ownership. (Para 44) |
| 12. final dismissal of appeals and orders. (Para 46 , 48) |
JUDGMENT :
RAVI V. HOSMANI, J.
Challenging judgment and decree dated 24.06.2010 passed by Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in R.A.no.55/2003 and judgment and decree dated 20.03.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Doddaballapura, in O.S.no.163/2003, RSA no.2373/2010 is filed. While RSA no.2374/2010 is filed challenging judgment and decree dated 24.06.2010 passed by Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in RA no.27/2003.
2. Brief facts as stated are that appellants in RSA no.2374/2010 were legal representatives ('LRs') of original plaintiff in OS no.212/1994 filed for partition, separate possession and mesne profits insofar as their ½ share in items no.1 to 14 ('suit properties' for short) etc. In plaint, it was stated plaintiff and defendants were members of Hindu Undivided Family ('HUF'), wherein propositus was 'Giriyappa' He had two sons namely Hanumantharayappa - plaintiff and Thimmayya, who was dead and succeeded by defendants no.1 and 2. It was stated, after death of propositus, plaintiff managed joint family. It was stated, plaintiff had three daughters, who were married and happily residing with their families. As he had no son, he lived with defendants. In year 1980, when plaintiff was hopelessly sick, he requested Thimmayya to manage joint family and suit properties, which were ancestral joint family properties, except item no.6, which was purchased by plaintiff as manager of HUF, in name of Smt.Gowramma w/o Thimmayya, as he was advised ceiling on holding of properties would apply if purchased in his name or his brother. It was stated, Thimmayya managed properties till his death, 4 years prior to suit.
3. Since, plaintiff was old, left management of entire properties to defendants no.1 and 2, he could not seek partition. It was stated, even Smt.Gowramma was suffering from throat cancer due to which her mental/physical faculties were diminishing. Taking advantage of same, defendants no.1 and 2 got executed Will in their favour from Smt.Gowramma in respect of item no.11 property, by undue influence and fraud. Therefore, same was void/vitiated. Only when defendants began negotiating for sale of item no.11 and under Will plaintiff resisted defendants' title over said property. Though on 07.08.1994 plaintiff demanded partition, defendants refused his share. Hence, suit was filed.
4. On appearance, defendants filed written statement denying plaint averments and alleging prior partition in year 1990. It was stated, defendant no.3 and LRs of plaintiff had filed OS no.189/1991 for same relief. Said suit was between same parties in respective of same properties and dismissed on 16.06.1998 on ground of non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties. Admitting relationship with plaintiff but denying claim, suppression of fact was alleged. It was stated on death of propositus, plaintiff had taken share from his father and separated from HUF.
5. It was stated, boundaries and description
The presumption that property owned by a female member of a joint family is self-acquired prevails unless proven otherwise; the principles of res judicata apply to binding judgments concerning proper....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act and the burden of proof required to establish joint family properties. The judgment als....
Will - In terms of Section 68 of the Evidence Act read with Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, it is obligatory on the part of the appellant to examine the attestors of this Will.
The establishment of a joint family nucleus shifts the burden of proof to defendants to demonstrate that properties were self-acquired and not purchased with joint family funds.
The burden of proof in claiming a property as a benami lies on the person alleging it, and presumption favors the name holder unless proven otherwise.
The property purchased in a female's name is presumed self-acquired unless proven otherwise; claims under the Benami Act require appropriate pleadings and evidence.
Properties in female Hindu's name post-Hindu Succession Act presumed self-acquired; plaintiffs bear heavy burden to prove joint family funds usage.
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
