Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V.SRISHANANDA
Gangadhara Madivala, S/o Manjayya Madivala – Appellant
Versus
Nonayya madivala, S/o Manjayya Madivala – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. partition of self-acquired property (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments on prior oral partition (Para 5 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. court's reasoning on evidence and partition (Para 6 , 8 , 16 , 17 , 24) |
| 4. appellate court's dismissal rationale (Para 9 , 25) |
| 5. conclusion of appeal dismissal (Para 26) |
JUDGMENT :
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
Heard Sri.Prasanna V. R., learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.K.Shrihari, Learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Defendant No.1 in O.S.No.6/2013 is the appellant. He suffered the decree whereby the suit ‘A’ schedule property was ordered to be partitioned granting 1/4th share to the plaintiff and 1/4th share each to defendant Nos.1 to 3.
3. During the pendency of suit, defendant No.3 died. Therefore, his legal representatives were brought on record. Suit was filed by brother of defendant No.1 by contending that suit ‘A’ schedule property are the self acquired properties of his father namely Manjayya Madivala resident of Perabe village, Puttur Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. Particulars of suit ‘A’ schedule property is culled out hereunder for ready reference:
Immovable property situated in Perabe village, Puttur Taluk and comprised in.
| S l.No. | RS.No. | Kissam | Ext | |
The trial and appellate courts found the absence of credible evidence for a prior partition; thus, the property was to be equitably shared among the heirs, reaffirming the principle that documentary ....
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 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.
Partition claims require substantial evidence of family status and prior division; mere admissions during cross-examination do not prove separation.
The heavy burden of proof upon the proponent of oral partition before it is accepted, as per the settled principle of law by the Apex Court.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the burden of proof lies on the party claiming a prior partition, and in the absence of documentary evidence, unchallenged evidence of the opp....
A joint family property remains so despite claims of prior partition; a coparcener retains rights to inheritance under the Hindu Succession Act.
Judicial findings must be based on proper appreciation of evidence; previous claims of partition must be substantiated by credible proof.
A plea of oral partition lacks merit unless supported by documentary evidence, as admissions alone cannot establish prior partition without corroboration.
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
