Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
E.S.INDIRESH
D.M. Gangamma, Since Deceased, Rep. By Lrs. – Appellant
Versus
D.M. Hanumanthappa Since Deceased Rep. By Lrs. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
E.S. INDIRESH, J.
In Regular Second Appeal No.2027 of 2015, appellants are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff, challenging the judgment and decree dated 29th August, 2015 passed in Regular Appeal No.222 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), allowing the appeal in-part and decreeing the Original Suit No.111 of 2009 filed BY the plaintiffs on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Nelamangala (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court') in-part.
2. In Regular Second Appeal No.1704 of 2015, appellants are the defendants 1 and 2, challenging the judgment and decree dated 29th August, 2015 passed in Regular Appeal No.222 of 2013 on the file of the First Appellate Court, allowing the appeal in-part and modifying the judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No.111 of 2009 filed by the plaintiffs on the file of the Trial Court.
3. For the sake of convenience, parties in these appeals are referred to in terms of their ranking before the Trial Court.
4. The relevant facts for adjudication of these appeals are that the plaintiff No.1-D.M
Prior oral partition established through documentary evidence negated plaintiffs' claims for additional shares in joint family properties under Hindu Succession Act.
Admissions in pleadings or related documents allow for expedited judgments under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, affirming that clear and unequivocal admissions can preclude the need for further evidence.
(1) Judgment on admission – For exercise of discretion by Court under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, admission must be unequivocal – No particular form of admission is necessary – Judgment on admission is ....
The amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act establishes that daughters are coparceners with equal rights in ancestral property, and oral partitions are not sufficient without formal docume....
The amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act grants daughters equal rights as coparceners, allowing them to claim shares in ancestral properties irrespective of their birth date.
Partition – Decree - When Apex Court held final decree is always required to be in conformity with preliminary decree but that does not mean that preliminary decree before final decree is passed cann....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a partition by metes and bounds for a Partition Deed to be valid under the proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act.
Daughters are entitled to equal shares in ancestral property as coparceners under Hindu law, and claims of oral partition require substantial evidence to be accepted.
The burden of proof in establishing joint family property and partition lies with the party alleging its existence. The court also emphasized the entitlement of daughters to share in joint Hindu fami....
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
