Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V. SRISHANANDA
K. Byrappa, S/o Late Kempaiah – Appellant
Versus
Ankamma (Dead) Smt Bhagya, W/O Mahadevu – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the partition dispute and ownership claims. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. arguments regarding validity and maintainability of the suit. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 15) |
| 3. court's reasoning on the application of the law regarding alienation. (Para 13 , 16 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 29) |
| 4. ratio on the interpretation of the hindu succession act. (Para 17 , 18 , 24 , 30) |
| 5. conclusion and dismissal of civil revision petitions. (Para 31) |
ORDER :
V SRISHANANDA, J.
Heard Sri Ashok G.V., learned counsel for the revision petitioner.
2. Smt. B.Meenakumari who is defendant No.9(b) in O.S.No.1865/2013, who is defendant No.2(b) in O.S.No. 1864/2013 on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, has filed Civil Revision Petition No.433/2023 and Civil Revision Petition No.429/2023 respectively, challenging the validity of the order passed by the Trial Court on I.A.No.8, whereby application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be dismissed in both the suits.
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present Civil Revision Petitions are as under:
A suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the f
The judgment reinforces daughters' coparcenary rights under the Hindu Succession Act, stating that alienation by male relatives does not bar the daughters' claims for partition of property.
The court affirmed daughters' coparcener rights under the Hindu Succession Act, emphasizing that prior sales cannot negate their claims to jointly inherited property.
Section 6(5) is a narrow saving clause not a jurisdictional bar; res judicata applies to successive Order VII Rule 11 applications; daughters retain independent Section 8 succession rights unaffected....
The court emphasized that a plaint must be read meaningfully to determine if it discloses a cause of action, particularly in partition suits regarding ancestral properties.
The court affirmed that ancestral property remains so despite partition, and daughters are entitled to equal shares under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended.
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
