Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.G.UMA
P. Amarendranath S/o Late Pillappa – Appellant
Versus
Muniyamma Since Dead by LRs. R. Munireddy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.G. UMA, J.
1. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 in OS No.139 of 1987 on the file of the learned I Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') have filed the present appeal impugning the judgment and decree dated 25.08.1995 passed by the Trial Court, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs holding that plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for 3/16th share each and legal representatives of plaintiff No.4 together are entitled for 3/16th share, while plaintiff Nos.5 to 9 together are entitled for 3/16th share in the plaint schedule properties, except in item Nos.5, 13, 19, 20, 24 and 25 of the schedule properties, while rejecting the claim of Munireddy to the share of the deceased plaintiff No.1 as her legal representative and directing the Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore Rural District to divide the properties as required under Section 54 of Code of Civil Procedure and deliver the respective shares to the plaintiffs and also to work out equity to allot Sy.Nos.6/4 and 6/5 of the plaint schedule properties being item Nos.1 and 2 to be allotted to defendant Nos.1 to 4 as far as possible, declaring that the partition entered into between defendant No.4 an
Registered partition deeds and burden of proof adjudicate property claims in inheritance matters.
The court reaffirmed that for a valid partition among joint family properties, proper registration and absence of fraud are crucial, emphasizing joint possession and familial rights.
Rule 73 of Rules reads as duties of Registering Officer.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of daughters to claim partition in coparcenary property under the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as per the l....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the Plaintiffs to a 1/4th share in the joint family ancestral properties and the invalidity of the registered Will Deed.
The court established that unregistered documents affecting rights in immovable property are inadmissible in evidence, and that joint family properties are subject to partition among all rightful hei....
A party is estopped from making claims contrary to prior admissions in legal notices, and a partition deed signed by the plaintiff is binding, rendering any claims of joint ownership barred by limita....
The presumption of joint family status in Hindu law requires clear evidence to establish prior partition; the Appellate Court allowed partition of one property acquired post-partition while dismissin....
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
