Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V.SRISHANANDA
Shivanegowda @ Chikkonu, S/o. Late. Eregowda – Appellant
Versus
Shivannegowda, S/o. Late. Shivanegowda – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction on civil revision petitions (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. factual background of the partition suit (Para 3) |
| 3. defendants' response and application for rejection (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court's examination of materials and claims (Para 6 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. arguments regarding the maintainability of the suit (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 6. implication of previous partition on current claims (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 7. conclusion on dismissal of revision petition (Para 19) |
ORDER :
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
1. Heard Sri.Jayakirthi M. C., learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri.Prakash M. H., learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
2. Revision petition is filed by Defendant Nos.2 to 14 challenging the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura in O.S.No.196/2017 on 13.10.2020, whereby I.A.No.2 filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC and under Order II Rule 2(3) read with Section 151 of CPC came to be dismissed.
3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:
3.1. A suit for partition and separate possession of the following properties came to be filed by the plaintiff:
The following the agriculture lands situated at Maralebekuppe villag
A previous oral partition that is not acted upon does not bar a party from seeking a partition of ancestral properties; comprehensive resolution requires a full trial.
Prior oral partitions must be supported by evidence during trial; dismissing the application without trial is justified when material facts aren't suppressed.
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 amended Hindu Succession Act entitles daughters to seek partition regardless of prior registered partitions, affirming their rights to joint family properties.
A granddaughter is entitled to seek partition of ancestral property, even during her father's lifetime, establishing daughters as coparceners under Hindu law.
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 burden to prove an oral partition lies with the party asserting it; mere revenue entries do not suffice to establish partition without clear evidence.
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.
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
