Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ASHOK S.KINAGI
Suguna D/o A.P. Muniyappa – Appellant
Versus
M. Thimmaraju S/o Muniyappa – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.
1. RSA No.1272 of 2013 is filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2013 passed in R.A. No.278 of 2010 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-V, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2010 passed in O.S. No.242 of 2006 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Anekal.
2. RSA No.1271 of 2013 is filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2013 passed in R.A. No.91 of 2010 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-V, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, allowing the appeal, and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2010 passed in O.S. No.242 of 2006 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Anekal.
3. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the Trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff, and respondents were the defendants.
4. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of these appeals are as follows.
5. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for a partition and separate possession. It is the case of the plaintiff that the pla
Previous family partition and lack of joint family status preclude the plaintiff from claiming coparcenary rights under Hindu law amendments.
The court reaffirmed that prior sales of property before the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act are protected and binding, setting aside the trial court’s decree granting shares to plaintiffs....
Joint family property retains its character unless proven otherwise; sales by co-parceners without all parties' consent do not extinguish shared rights.
The court reaffirmed that a sale deed executed for family and legal necessity by a joint family member is binding, barring challenge by family members after significant delay without sufficient cause....
A partition suit must prove ancestral status of properties; claims of prior partition require corroborative evidence, which was insufficient in this case.
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
