Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act ensures that joint family property becomes absolute for female heirs, affecting rights in partition cases.

JUDGMENT :

S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

1. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of both the learned counsels, the same is heard and taken up for final disposal.

2. This appeal by the defendants in O.S.No.28/2020 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 06.02.2025 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bilagi [Hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court” for short] whereby the said suit filed by the respondents – plaintiffs for partition and separate possession for their alleged share in the plaint schedule immovable properties was decreed in favour of respondents – plaintiffs against the appellants – defendants by the Trial Court.

3. For ease of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their respective rank before the Trial Court.

4. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:

Plaintiff No.1 – Smt.Parvatevva is the widow of the Late Dundappa Parasagond, propositus, who undisputedly died intestate on 11.08.2004. Plaintiff No.2 is the only daughter of Smt.Parvatevva and Dundappa, who had three sons Late Basappa, Late Shankrappa and Late Lakshman. The aforesaid Basappa had two wives by name Smt.Rukmavva and Smt.Laxmibai (defendant No.6), whose children are defendant Nos.4 and 5, while defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the children of deceased Rukmavva wife of Basappa. Late Shankarappa, the second son of Late Dundappa and Smt.Parvatevva, left behind his wife Smt.Meenakshi (defendant No.9), whose children are arrayed as defendant Nos.7 and 8. Similarly, Late Lakshman deceased son of Dundappa and Smt.Parvatevva left behind his wife Smt.Roopa (defendant No.13) and defendant Nos.10, 11 and 12 are their children. Under these circumstances, the wife and daughter of propositus Late Dundappa instituted the aforesaid suit for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the plaint schedule properties.

5. It is a matter of record that, plaint ‘B’ schedule properties are landed properties compromising of six items, while plaint ‘C’ schedule properties are the house properties bearing plot No.A-102 and plot No.C-12, both situated at Dhavaleshwar village of Bilagi Taluk, allotted by the Government under rehabilitation scheme.

6. A perusal of the plaint averments will indicate and it is specifically contended that, all the plaint schedule properties are ancestral joint family properties and that upon the demise of Dundappa in the year 2004 without leaving behind any Will, the plaint schedule properties were succeeded to by all the parties, who were entitled to their legitimate share in the plaint schedule properties.

7. In the written statement filed by the appellants - defendants, while admitting the relationship between the parties, the appellants - defendants denied and disputed the claim of the respondents - plaintiffs. It was contended that the respondents - plaintiffs did not have any share in the plaint schedule properties and they had relinquished their right over the plaint schedule properties on 14.09.2007 and necessary mutation entries were recorded in this regard and consequently the present suit was not maintainable. It was also contended that insofar as ‘C’ schedule properties are concerned, the respondents - plaintiffs were not entitled to any share in the plaint schedule properties also and the suit in relation to these properties was also liable to be dismissed.

8. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether plaintiffs prove that plaintiffs and defendants are the members of Hindu undivided Mitakshar family?

2. Whether plaintiffs prove that suit schedule ‘B’ properties are the ancestral joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same?

3. Whether defendant No.6, 9. 13 prove that plaintiffs have relinquished their share as per MR No.10/2007-08 dated 14.09.2007?

4. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as sought for?

5. What order or decree?

ADDITIONAL ISSUE

1. Whe