Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, C.M.POONACHA
Vinayak, S/o. Raghunathrao Nandgerikar – Appellant
Versus
Sunita, w/o. Dr. Shirish Sonawane – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.
Both these appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.11.2017 passed in O.S.No.379/2013 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi, [Hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”]
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:
(a) One Kashinath, who expired in the year 1946, was the original propositus and he had two sons viz., Balakrishna, who expired in the year 1972 and Raghunath, who expired in the year 1977. The aforesaid Balakrishna left behind Prabhakar as his only son, while Raghunath who was married to Smt.Sulochana left behind two sons and four daughters as his heirs and legal representatives.
(b) The four daughters of Raghunathrao and Sulochana instituted the aforesaid suit in O.S.No.379/2013 for partition and separate possession of the alleged share in the suit schedule properties. In the said suit, Vinayak and Vinod, the brothers of the plaintiffs were arrayed as defendant Nos.1 and 2 and their mother-Sulochana as defendant No.3, so also Prabhakar S/o.Balakrishan Nandagerikar as defendant No.4. The plaintiffs contended that the suit schedule properties were joint family properties and they were entitled
A suit for partial partition without including all necessary parties and joint family properties is not maintainable under the Hindu Succession Act.
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 partition may be maintainable without including all properties, and claims of prior arrangements need substantial evidence to be valid.
The court allowed the introduction of additional evidence and remitted the case to the Trial Court for reconsideration, emphasizing the necessity for clarity in disputes over property rights.
The burden of proof to establish joint family property lies with the plaintiffs, which remains unchanged even when defendants do not contest the suit.
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.
A joint family property remains so despite claims of prior partition; a coparcener retains rights to inheritance under the Hindu Succession Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of providing the parties with an opportunity to file objections to the findings on additional issues, as required under Order ....
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
