Nearly Decade-Long Delay in Patnitop Illegal Construction PIL Appalls J&K&L High Court; Directs PDA CEO to Join Proceedings
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Employees Under CCS Pension Rules Excluded from PG Act Section 2(e) Gratuity: Delhi HC Upholds Forfeiture on Resignation
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Supreme Court Orders No-Fault Vaccine Compensation Policy
11 Mar 2026
Delhi Sessions Court Upholds Conviction Under Sections 354, 354A IPC on Victim's Sole Reliable Testimony Despite No CCTV
11 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Seeks Dileep Response in 2017 Assault Appeal
11 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V.SRISHANANDA
Archanamma, W/o Late Raghunatha.M – Appellant
Versus
Subbamma, W/o Late Sanjevappa – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
Heard Sri G V Narasimhamurthy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri S G Lokesh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 7.
2. The unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants who sued for partition in OS No.9/2016 which came to be dismissed and confirmed in RA No.173 of 2019.
3. Facts in nutshell for the disposal of the present appeal are as under:
3.1 In respect of the following immovable properties, a suit for partition and separate possession was filed by the plaintiffs contending that common prepositus by name Sanjeevappa had six children. One among them is Raghunath, who is the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3. Defendant Nos.2, 3, 6, 7 and Padmavathi are other children of Sanjeevappa. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 are the children of Padmavathi, daughter of Sanjeevappa.
A prior partition established the ownership of properties among family members, and plaintiffs failed to prove their claims for further partition as required.
Oral relinquishments of joint family property rights are insufficient without written documentation; statutory rights persist despite prior agreements made by family members.
A plaintiff can only establish entitlement to partition if they demonstrate joint ownership and the failure to do so, particularly through admissions and evidence of prior partition, warrants dismiss....
The presumption of a joint family exists unless proven otherwise; the burden rests on the party claiming a prior partition.
Partition claims require substantial evidence of family status and prior division; mere admissions during cross-examination do not prove separation.
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 plea of oral partition lacks merit unless supported by documentary evidence, as admissions alone cannot establish prior partition without corroboration.
A joint family property remains so despite claims of prior partition; a coparcener retains rights to inheritance under the Hindu Succession Act.
A registered partition deed is valid unless challenged by a party to it, affecting the right of children to maintain a suit during the parent's lifetime.
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
Listen Article