Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
R.DEVDAS, B.MURALIDHARA PAI
Tangawwa, W/o. Basappa Jaxani, Since Deceased By Lrs. – Appellant
Versus
Ramappa, S/o. Basalingappa Jaxani, Since Deceased By His Lrs. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
B. MURALIDHARA PAI, J.
1. The Defendant Nos.1, 6, 10, 12 and the legal representatives of Defendant No.5 have preferred this regular first appeal praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2019 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi in O.S.No.97/2011 and consequently dismiss the counter claim.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties in this appeal are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit.
3. The suit in O.S. No.97/2011 was maintained by the Plaintiffs namely Sri Ramappa and Sri Laxaman, claiming partition and separate possession of their 1/5th share in 18 items of properties more fully described in Schedule B of the plaint by meets and bounds and for other consequential reliefs on the ground that there was no equitable partition between parties to the suit.
4. The suit summons was served on all the Defendants. In spite of the same, Defendant Nos. 2,3,7,11,17 to 19 remained absent before the trial Court. As such they were placed ex-parte. Defendant No.3 is the mother of minor Defendant No.4. As she failed to appear before the court and protect the interest of minor Defendant No.4, an advocate by name Sri S.B.Muttikalli, Advo
Counter claims must be against plaintiffs and not co-defendants; prior partitions cannot be reopened based solely on alleged inequities.
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.
In disputes regarding partition of joint Hindu family property, the burden of proof lies on the party asserting partition, and the presumption of jointness remains unless clear evidence to the contra....
The court affirmed the joint family status and the trial court's ruling on partition, rejecting claims of prior oral partition due to insufficient evidence.
The court established that there is no presumption of joint ownership in family properties, and the burden of proof to establish such claims lies with the party alleging joint ownership.
A party may not amend a suit's claims regarding ownership of property in a manner contradicting original pleadings without introducing adequate supporting evidence, undermining the integrity of legal....
Counter claims in partition suits must be directed against the plaintiff; co-defendants cannot initiate claims solely against each other without notice, as all parties have interchangeable roles.
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
