US Constitution Trumps Presidential Tariff Powers
28 Feb 2026
Non-Compliance with Court Summons Amounts to Contempt: Allahabad HC Issues Warrant Against HDFC Life Branch Head in Cheating Bail Case
02 Mar 2026
Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P.SANDESH
Munikrishnappa S/o Sulalappa – Appellant
Versus
Bachappa S/o Sulalappa – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
H.P. SANDESH, J.
1. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
3. The factual matrix of case of plaintiff before the Trial Court that plaintiff and defendant No.1 constituted Hindu Undivided Joint Family and also it is the contention that suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. The plaintiff is entitled for a share in respect of Item No.1 to 10 properties. Defendant Nos.1 and 3 appeared and filed written statement contending that there was a family partition on 21.04.1989 and hence, the parties have lost the nature of jointness and the family properties by metes and bounds. Hence, there was no status of joint family as on the date of filing of the suit. It is contended that suit schedule properties have been purchased by defendant No.1 and some of the properties by defendant No.3 from their own indepe
The existence of a joint family does not suffice to declare property as joint family property without proof of surplus income used for acquisition.
A prior partition established the ownership of properties among family members, and plaintiffs failed to prove their claims for further partition as required.
Ancestral properties in joint family require unanimous consent for valid alienation; prior partitions without necessary family consent are not binding on co-parceners.
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
Listen Article