The court affirmed a daughter's equal right to inheritance, emphasizing the stringent burden of proof on claims of prior oral partition under the amended Hindu Succession Act.

JUDGMENT :

S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

All these appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and decree dated 14.12.2021 passed in OS No.58/2012 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagalkote (for short, ‘the Trial Court’).

2. The plaintiff is the daughter of late Shivayogayya and Girijavva who had one more son Veerabhadrayya (defendant No.1 herein). The defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the children of defendant No.1. It is an undisputed fact that Shivayogayya expired on 05.08.1999 and his wife Girijavva had predeceased in the year 1988 and left behind the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to succeed as their legal representatives.

3. The plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for partition and separate possession against her brother Veerbhadrayya (defendant No.1), and his children who arrayed as defendant Nos.2 and 3. The suit schedule properties comprised of four items of immovable properties. The defendant Nos.4 and 6 are purchasers of item No.1 of the suit schedule properties vide registered sale deeds dated 11.11.2022 (13.11.2022) and 18.12.2002 executed in their favour by defendant No.1. The defendant No.5 is the wife of defendant No.4 who executed a relinquishment deed in respect of item No.1 in her favour. Similarly, the defendant No.1 sold item No.2 of the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant No.7 vide registered sale deed dated 23.08.2007. So also, the defendant No.1 sold item No.3 of the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant No.8 vide registered sale deed dated 15.05.2012 and item No.4 of the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant No.9 vide registered sale deed dated 27.07.2012. Accordingly, the defendant Nos.4 to 7 are alienees of four items of suit schedule properties as stated supra.

4. The defendants, in particular defendant No.1, filed his written statement specifically contending that during the lifetime of Shivayogayya, the father of both the plaintiff and defendant No.1, there was an oral partition within the family. In this partition, the property bearing CTS No.182/D was allotted to the share of the plaintiff, who thereafter had the khata changed to her name and the said land having been submerged, she has received compensation from the authorities in relation to the said property. The defendant No.1 further asserted that, pursuant to the aforesaid oral partition, a document of surrender/relinquishment was executed by the plaintiff in the year 2000, wherein she acknowledged the allotment of property bearing CTS No.182/D to her share and also relinquishment/giving up of her rights over the remaining properties in favour of the defendant No.1. It was further contended that, upon the aforesaid CTS No.182/D being acquired by the State Government under the Upper Krishna Project, a rehabilitation plot No.2 in Sector No.20 was allotted in favour of the plaintiff in lieu of the acquired property. It was therefore submitted that, by virtue of the earlier partition and the plaintiff’s relinquishment of her claim over the suit schedule properties, the present suit for partition filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.

5. The defendants No.4 to 9 would reiterate the same defence urged by defendant No.1 and also contends that they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the plaintiff’s pre-existing rights. They submitted that the plaintiff’s suit was not maintainable, as defendant No.1, being the absolute owner of all the suit schedule properties, had lawfully alienated the same in their favour.

6. The defendants No.8 and 9 also put forth a counter claim in respect of Item Nos.3 and 4 of the suit schedule properties, seeking a declaration and injunction against the plaintiff. It was therefore submitted by the defendants No.4 to 9 that the plaintiff’s suit was liable to be dismissed.

7. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following:

ISSUES

1. Whether the plaintiff prove herself and defendant No.1 to 3 are members of joint famil