Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, C.M.POONACHA
Prema W/o Shankaragouda Patil – Appellant
Versus
Sagar S/o Ravindragowda Patil – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.
1. This appeal by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.216/2013 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.01.2018 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi [Hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court” for short] whereby the said suit filed by the appellants - plaintiffs against the respondents - defendants for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties was dismissed by the Trial Court. So also, the review petition filed by the appellants - plaintiffs in Misc.No.16/2018 under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Hereinafter referred to as “the CPC” for short] seeking review of the impugned judgment and decree was also dismissed by the Trial Court.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:
The appellants - Plaintiffs are the daughters of defendant No.2 and defendant No.4, while defendant No.1 is the son of Raveendra Gouda, deceased brother of plaintiffs and defendant No.3 is the brother of the plaintiffs. The appellants - plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit for partition and separate possession of their alle
Inpartition suits, all necessary parties and joint family properties must be included; dismissal for non-inclusion without adjudication on merits is legally improper.
A suit for partial partition without including all necessary parties and joint family properties is not maintainable under the Hindu Succession Act.
A suit for partition may be maintainable without including all properties, and claims of prior arrangements need substantial evidence to be valid.
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 prior partition established the ownership of properties among family members, and plaintiffs failed to prove their claims for further partition as required.
Co-ownership rights are upheld in joint family property claims, and previous partitions must be established with clear evidence; mere conversion of property does not negate an heir's share.
The burden of proof lies with the plaintiffs to establish that properties claimed in a partition suit are joint family properties; mere assertions without evidence are insufficient.
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
