Back
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ASHOK S.KINAGI
SRI VENKATARAMANA ALIAS THIMMAPPA – Appellant
Versus
SMT CHALUVAMMA – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.
1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2013 passed in R.A. No.82 of 2010 by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Kanakapura, Ramanagara District.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the Trial Court. The appellants were the plaintiffs, and the respondents were the defendants.
3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
4. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties were acquired by late Melegowda by purchasing the same in the name of his wife Smt.Cheluvamma i.e., defendant No.1. It is the case of the plaintiffs that defendant Nos.2, 3 and the plaintiffs are the children of defendant No.1, and defendant No.4 is the son of defendant No.2; and the suit properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. The said Melegowda had the ancestral properties i.e., property bearing Survey No.133/6 measuring 8½ guntas, Survey No.133/9 measuring 1½ guntas and Survey No.134/3 measuring 13
The court affirmed that the recitals in registered sale deeds are pivotal evidence, prohibiting oral contradictions under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, thereby establishing the ancestral nat....
A partition suit must prove ancestral status of properties; claims of prior partition require corroborative evidence, which was insufficient in this case.
The burden of proof lies on the person claiming property as self-acquired to establish that it was acquired without the aid of joint family funds.
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....
The necessity to provide evidence of entitlement to ancestral property and the importance of including all relevant parties in a partition suit.
Daughters became coparceners under Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989, allowing them equal rights in joint family properties.
The claimant must prove the existence of joint family properties; mere familial ties do not suffice for partition claims.
The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish that the properties are ancestral, and evidence must be pleaded and proved through evidence.
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
