Back
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
V SRISHANANDA
CHENGANDA APPACHA @ APPACHU – Appellant
Versus
CHENGANDA KALAPPA S/O LATE KUNJAPPA – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
V.SRISHANANDA, J.
Heard Sri I.S.Devaiah, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Venkatesh R. Bhagat, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.
2. Parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. Facts of the case in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present Appeal are as under:
4. A suit in O.S.No.37/1999 came to be filed on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kodagu, Madikeri, for the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the following properties.
(1) 03 Acres of wet land comprising in S.No.216/1 of 9.15 acres and S.No.218 of 2.20 acres.
This 3 acres of wet land comprises of 4 flats called Anja Theva Kodanga, Yaka and Pali.
(2) 0.80 cents of coffee land in S.No.135/2.
(3) 0.62 cents of coffee land in S.No.222/3.
(4) 0.67 cents of coffee land in S.No.215/2.
(5) 1.00 acres of coffee land in S.No.135/1.
(6) 4.80 acres of coffee land in S.No.222/6.
(7) 0.60 acres of coffee land in S.No.222/4.
Properties are situated at Balamuri village N. Coorg.”
5. In the plaint, it is contented that about 140 years ago, three brothers called Mandanna, Appachu and Kuttappa in Chenganda family own
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.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish the remaining land after a sale of joint family property and the probative value of registered documents in determi....
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 ruled that an oral partition was established and the plaintiff cannot claim partial partition without including all relevant properties, adhering to heirs' rights under Hindu law.
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 burden of proof in establishing the existence and extent of an oral partition lies with the party claiming such partition.
A partition suit must prove ancestral status of properties; claims of prior partition require corroborative evidence, which was insufficient in this case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the burden of proof lies on the party claiming a prior partition, and in the absence of documentary evidence, unchallenged evidence of the opp....
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
