Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, C.M.POONACHA
Balasab S/o Bharamu Jiragale – Appellant
Versus
Appasab S/o Annappa Mali – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.
This appeal by the defendant No.4 in OS No.71/2016, directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 16.06.2023 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Athani (for short, ‘the Trial Court’), whereby, the said suit filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 against the appellant/defendant No.4 and respondent Nos.4 and 5/defendant Nos.1 and 2 was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants.
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under;
3. The defendant No. 1-Annappa is the husband of defendant No.2-Smt. Tangewwa and have three children namely, Appasab (plaintiff No.1), Sadashiv (plaintiff No.2) and Chandrakala (plaintiff No.3-originally defendant No.3), as can be seen from the genealogy, which is as under:
4. Initially, the plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.2 i.e. Appasab and Sadashiv instituted the aforesaid suit against their parents and sister Chandrakala (defendant No.3) and the appellant/defendant No.4, for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule properties comprised of six (6) items of immovable properties which are described as hereund
The sale of property cannot supersede joint family ownership claims without valid evidence of prior partition or separate acquisition.
Joint family property retains its character unless proven otherwise; sales by co-parceners without all parties' consent do not extinguish shared rights.
The court ruled that the plaintiffs' claims over certain properties were invalid due to prior sales, emphasizing the necessity of declarations regarding property ownership in joint familial contexts ....
The burden of proof to establish joint family property lies with the plaintiffs, which remains unchanged even when defendants do not contest the suit.
A bona fide purchaser is one, who pays valid sale consideration and not a person who gets sale deed registered in his favour without payment of sale consideration.
The main legal point established is the application of Sec. 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, the exclusion of contrary evidence, and the principles of Hindu Law regarding co-parcenary property and....
Point of law: A daughter of a coparcener by birth becomes a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son. She has the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she....
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
