IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, C.M.POONACHA
Noorjahan W/O Abdulrajak Mulla – Appellant
Versus
Salima W/O Shirajahmad Mulla – Respondent
ORAL JUDGMENT :
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)
The present First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), by the defendant Nos.1 to 5 calling in question the judgment and decree dated 22.06.2022 passed in OS No.25/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal (for short, ‘the Trial Court’), whereunder, the suit for partition and separate possession filed by the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 to 9 herein has been decreed by the Trial Court.
2. The parties will be referred to as per their ranks before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the propositus namely Abdulraheem died on 13.12.1984, and his wife Jaibunissa died on 25.08.1997. The genealogy of the parties is extracted hereunder for reference:

4. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the properties of the propositus, not having been divided or partitioned, the parties are in joint possession and enjoyment as tenants in common and hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit for partition seeking for their 2/8th share in the suit schedule property.
5. The defendant Nos.1 to 5, 13, 14 and 15 entered appearance through their couns
A party must be afforded an opportunity to contest a case fully, especially when counterclaims and evidence are involved, ensuring a fair hearing in partition disputes.
The rejection of an application for additional evidence in a partition suit is appropriate when it serves to fill a lacuna rather than addressing substantial claims of ownership.
A partition suit requires inclusion of all necessary parties to adjudicate claims on communal property, ensuring rights are accurately represented and adjudicated.
[A relinquishment deed must be registered to be admissible in evidence, and the absence of such a deed undermines claims of ownership or relinquishment of property rights.]
Legislature has not prescribed any period of limitation for filing a suit for partition because partition an incident attached to property and there is always a running cause of action for seeking pa....
Defendants not cross-examining witnesses warranted a retrial for fair opportunity.
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 grants daughters co-parcener status from birth, making any prior relinquishment of rights invalid for partition claims.
A second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC can only be admitted if substantial questions of law arise; in this case, no such questions were found.
The court reinforced that parties must have a fair opportunity to present evidence, especially in cases of partition claims involving ancestral property.
The main legal point established is that the suit for partition is maintainable despite the failure to prove an earlier oral partition in the manner known to law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.