Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
G.BASAVARAJA
Mahadevi w/o. Dundayya Hiremath – Appellant
Versus
Gurusiddayya Hiremath @ Mathad Since Deceased By His Lrs Already On Record – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G.BASAVARAJA, J.
This appeal by the appellant is against the judgment and decree dated 17th April, 2009 passed in OS No.110 of 2008 by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Sankeshwar (for short “the trial Court”), which is confirmed by the Senior Civil Judge, Hukkeri at Hukkeri (for short “the appellate Court”) in RA No.20 of 2009, 23rd August 2010. Both the courts have dismissed the suit of plaintiff filed for partition and separate possession.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties here in or referred to as per the rank and status before the trial court.
3. Facts in nutshell leading to this appeal are that the appellant herein filed suit for partition and separate possession claiming 1/6th share in property bearing No.200/1 situate at Kurni village, totally measuring 10 acre 13 guntas, out of which, southern half side i.e. 5 acre 6 guntas 8 anas, is the suit property.
4. Despite service of notice, defendants remained absent and placed ex-parte. To prove the case of the plaintiff, one witness was examined as PW1, and one document was marked as Exhibit P1. The trial Court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to explain as to the extent
The court reinforced that parties must have a fair opportunity to present evidence, especially in cases of partition claims involving ancestral property.
The court allowed the introduction of additional evidence in an appeal, highlighting the necessity to remand the case for reconsideration when vital evidence is not presented at the trial.
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 court emphasized that the production of documents relevant to the title in a partition suit must be considered judiciously, and unjust dismissal of such requests is not permissible.
A partition suit requires inclusion of all necessary parties to adjudicate claims on communal property, ensuring rights are accurately represented and adjudicated.
The defendants were entitled to file a written statement and cross-examine witnesses even without filing the written statement, and the Court must consider their reasonable cause for not filing the w....
The First Appellate Court erred procedurally by relying on additional evidence without properly recording it, warranting reversal of its decision on grounds of arbitrariness.
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 appellate court may only admit additional evidence under specific conditions, which were not met by the petitioners, as they failed to demonstrate due diligence in producing the evidence during t....
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
