Registered partition deeds and burden of proof adjudicate property claims in inheritance matters.

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 3/16^th share each and legal representatives of plaintiff No.4 together are entitled for 3/16^th share, while plaintiff Nos.5 to 9 together are entitled for 3/16^th 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 and deceased Pillappa dated 02.05.1980 is not binding on the plaintiffs, which was confirmed vide judgment dated 03.04.2009 passed in RA No.47 of 1995 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District (hereinafter referred as to 'the First Appellate Court') by dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

2. During the pendency of appeal, appellant Nos.1 and 2 have filed IAs.1 and 2 of 2024 to transpose themselves as respondent Nos.11 and 12. The said applications came to be allowed vide order dated 09.01.2025. Thus, defendant No.4 is the only appellant before this Court.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.

4. Facts of the case in brief are that, the plaintiffs filed the suit OS No.139 of 1987 before the Trial Court against defendant Nos.1 to 5 to declare that the partition deed dated 02.05.1980 entered into between defendant No.4 and husband of defendant No.1 is not binding on plaintiff Nos.1 to 9, for partition and separate possession of all the schedule properties by metes and bounds and to allot the shares to the plaintiffs in accordance with law.

5. It is stated by the plaintiffs that one Pillappa was the propositus of the family of plaintiffs and defendants. The said Pillappa had two wives. Plaintiff No.1 is the first wife of Pillappa and plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are their children. Plaintiff Nos.5 to 9 are the children of Muddamma, the other daughter of Pillappa and plaintiff No.1. The said Muddamma died about 7 or 8 years earlier to filing of the suit, leaving behind plaintiff Nos.5 to 9 as her legal representatives. It is stated that defendant No.1 is the second wife of Pillappa, and they have begotten defendant Nos.2 to 4 as their children. It is stated that Pillappa married defendant No.1 during the subsistence of marriage with plaintiff No.1 and hence, it is stated that the said marriage of Pillappa with defendant No.1 is not valid.

6. It is stated that the propositus Pillappa had acquired a residential house at Bengaluru and it was his self-acquired property. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 are residing in the said house. It is stated that Pillappa was residing with plaintiff No.1 at Haralur Nagenahalli till about a year earlier to his death