Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ASHOK S.KINAGI
Jagadish, (Since Dead By His Lrs) – Appellant
Versus
B S Prema (Since Dead By Her Lr) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.
This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 05.03.2013 passed in R.A.No.40/2011 by the learned District Judge, Fast Track Court at Srirangapatna, and the judgment and preliminary decree dated 07.02.2011 passed in O.S.No.270/2006 by the learned Additional civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Srirangapatna.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The deceased appellant was defendant No.1, respondent No.1 was plaintiff No.1, and the deceased respondent No.2 was defendant No.3.
3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows:
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession. It is the case of the plaintiff that one Venkategowda was the original propositor. The plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the children of the original propositor, i.e., Venkategowda, who passed away on 18.12.2005 leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2. The plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the members of a Hindu undivided family and no partition is effected. The suit schedule properties are the ancestral pro
A partition suit must prove ancestral status of properties; claims of prior partition require corroborative evidence, which was insufficient in this case.
A father cannot bequeath his son's share in ancestral property as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 30.
Previous family partition and lack of joint family status preclude the plaintiff from claiming coparcenary rights under Hindu law amendments.
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....
The court affirmed that the recitals in registered sale deeds are pivotal evidence, prohibiting oral contradictions under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, thereby establishing the ancestral nat....
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 absence of conclusive evidence for a prior partition entitles the plaintiff to a share in joint family properties, reaffirming the principle that the burden of proof lies with the defendants.
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
