Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
E.S.INDIRESH
Kumara, S/o Shivanna – Appellant
Versus
Shivanna, S/O Late Boraiah – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. joint family properties and ownership claims. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. court's acknowledgment of proceedings and parties. (Para 2 , 6 , 10) |
| 3. dismissal of suit upheld due to lack of contest and merits. (Para 8 , 15) |
| 4. arguments on the nature of properties in question. (Para 11 , 12 , 14) |
ORDER :
E.S. INDIRESH, J.
This appeal is preferred by plaintiffs, challenging the judgment and decree dated 18th April, 2017 passed in Regular Appeal No.38 of 2012 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Mysuru (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 07th December, 2011 passed in Original Suit No.231 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Judge, Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), wherein the suit of the plaintiffs came to be dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are the children of the defendant No.1 and the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties o
The court reaffirmed that properties allotted in a partition retain ancestral status, entitling descendants with rights despite claims of separate property post-partition.
Ancestral properties in joint family require unanimous consent for valid alienation; prior partitions without necessary family consent are not binding on co-parceners.
The court established that evidence must substantiate claims of oral partition, prioritizing the registered Partition Deed as definitive proof for ancestral property entitlements under the Hindu Succ....
The court affirmed that partition shares from ancestral property remain joint family property for descendants, entitling them to assert claims over the inherited property.
A joint family property remains so despite claims of prior partition; a coparcener retains rights to inheritance under the Hindu Succession Act.
A property must reflect active participation from all family members to be considered joint family property; claims based on mere assertions are insufficient for legal recognition.
The ancestral property, while partitioned, remains joint family property, allowing children of a coparcener to claim their legitimate share despite their father's sale to others.
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....
The court affirmed that properties devolving under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act are absolute and not ancestral, emphasizing that mere assertions cannot establish joint family character witho....
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
