2026 Supreme(Kar) 501

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Jayant Banerji, Tara Vitasta Ganju, JJ.
M/S.Rajesh Exports Limited - Appellant
Versus
Sri. B.Devaraj S/O Balasubramanya - Respondent
Regular First Appeal No. 1165 of 2009 (PAR)
Decided On : 29-08-2026

Property standing in the name of a female Hindu under a registered sale deed is her absolute property under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, unless cogent evidence establishes a joint-family nucleus for its acquisition.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Sections 14, 15 and 16 - Property of a female Hindu - Joint family property - Burden of proof - There is no presumption of joint family property merely on the existence of a joint Hindu family; the person asserting such character must first establish the existence of an adequate joint-family nucleus from which the acquisition could have been made - Section 14(1) of the Act provides that any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner - The word 'acquired' in Section 14(1) has to be given the widest possible meaning and covers every kind of acquisition of property by a female Hindu - In the absence of evidence to the contrary, property standing in the name of a female Hindu, by operation of Section 14(1), is owned solely by her and cannot be treated as joint-family property. (Paras 21, 21.1, 22, 47) - Once property stands in the name of a female Hindu under a registered sale deed, the rights flowing therefrom are required to be considered in accordance with the statutory scheme contained in the Hindu Succession Act - No presumption can be made as to joint family property in the absence of evidence. (Paras 14.3, 22) - Devolution of the estate of a female Hindu dying intestate: under Section 15(1)(a), the property devolves firstly upon the sons and daughters (including children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband; heirs within the same entry take simultaneously and are preferred to heirs in succeeding entries. (Paras 47, 48)

(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - Appeal against decree - Regular First Appeal - Suit for partition and separate possession - The appellate court is to decide the appeal on the basis of the evidence already available on record - Where the Supreme Court sets aside an order of remand and dismisses applications for additional evidence, the appeal must be decided on the basis of the record as was available before the Trial Court. (Paras 5, 5.1)

(C) Benami transaction - Burden of proof - The burden of proving that a particular sale is benami and the apparent purchaser is not the real owner, always rests on the person asserting it to be so - This burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character which would either directly prove the fact of the benami transaction or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising an inference of that fact - The apparent purchaser starts with an initial presumption in his favour - Payment of part sale consideration cannot be the sole criterion to hold a sale/transaction as benami. (Paras 43, 43.1)

Facts of the case:
The suit was filed by the wife and two sons of defendant No.1 (plaintiffs/respondents) seeking partition and separate possession of the Suit Schedule Property, which stood in the name of late Smt. Lalithamma (mother-in-law/grandmother of the plaintiffs) under a registered Sale Deed dated 14.03.1963. The plaintiffs claimed that the property was joint family property, acquired by late Sri D.M. Subbaiah (husband of Smt. Lalithamma) out of joint family funds, and that Smt. Lalithamma was only a nominal purchaser. Defendant No.2 (appellant) purchased the property from defendant No.1 under a registered Sale Deed dated 22.12.2004. The Trial Court decreed the suit, holding the property to be joint family property and that the sale deed was not binding on the plaintiffs' shares. The appellant filed this appeal under Section 96 of the CPC. The Supreme Court had earlier set aside an order of remand and directed the High Court to decide the appeal on merits based on the evidence already on record.

Findings of Court:
The plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of establishing the existence of a joint-family nucleus or that late Smt. Lalithamma was merely a nominal purchaser. The registered Sale Deed of 1963 expressly records her as the purchaser, acknowledges receipt of consideration from her, and delivery of possession to her. Subsequent conduct, including a registered Lease Deed of 1979 executed by her describing herself as the 'sole and absolute owner', and a Sale Deed dated 05.08.1963 executed by her in respect of a portion of the larger property, unequivocally establishes that she dealt with the property as its absolute owner during her lifetime. The oral evidence of PW-1 (plaintiff No.3) was based on hearsay, as she entered the family only in 1979, 16 years after the purchase. By virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, late Smt. Lalithamma held the Suit Schedule Property as its full owner. Upon her intestate death in 1987, the property devolved upon her son, defendant No.1, as her sole legal heir under Section 15(1)(a). Defendant No.1 was competent to alienate the property. The Impugned Judgment was set aside and the suit was dismissed.

Issues: Whether the Trial Court was justified in holding that the Suit Schedule Property constituted joint family property despite the registered Sale Deed standing in the name of late Smt. Lalithamma; whether the Trial Court correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence; whether the Trial Court correctly appreciated the effect of Sections 14 and 15 of the Hindu Succession Act; whether the Impugned Judgment and Decree call for interference.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of cogent and reliable evidence establishing the existence of a joint-family nucleus from which the property could have been acquired, a property standing in the name of a female Hindu under a registered sale deed is her absolute property under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and she is entitled to deal with it as full owner. Upon her intestate death, the property devolves under Section 15(1)(a) of the Act, and her successor-in-interest can validly alienate it.

Result: Appeal allowed. Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court dated 15.09.2009 set aside. Suit filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3/plaintiffs dismissed. Pending applications, if any, closed. No order as to costs.

JUDGMENT :

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.

Table of Contents

I.	Preface
II.	Brief Facts
III.	Impugned Judgment
IV.	Contentions of the Appellant/Defendant No. 2
V.	Contentions of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3/Plaintiffs
VI.	Issues for Consideration
VII.	Analysis and Findings
A.	Nature of Suit Schedule Property
B.	The Statute
C.	The Evidence Produced
D.	Requisites of Joint Family Property
VIII.	Conclusion

I. Preface:

1. This Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 15.09.2009 passed by the learned XXXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S. No.914/2005 [hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”]. By the Impugned Judgment, the suit instituted by respondent Nos.1 to 3/plaintiffs for partition and separate possession came to be decreed. By the Impugned Judgment, the learned Trial Court held that the Suit Schedule Property constituted joint family property, declared that the registered Sale Deed dated 22.12.2004 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the appellant/defendant No.2 was not binding on the 1/4^th shares of respondent Nos.1 to 3/plaintiffs each (3/4^th share in total) and granted them partition and separate possession of their respective shares.

2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and Decree, the appellant/defendant No.2 has preferred the present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as the “CPC”], contending, inter alia, that the learned Trial Court erred in treating the Suit Schedule Property as joint family property despite the registered Sale Deed standing in the name of late Smt. Lalithamma and in consequently holding that defendant No.1 was incompetent to alienate the same in its favour.

2.1 On 02.12.2010, this Court directed that final decree proceedings may continue, but drawing up of the final decree was stayed and the Appeal was admitted.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter also be referred to as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court.

3.1 Since the dispute arises out of a family arrangement and subsequent alienation of the Suit Schedule Property, the relationship between the parties is set out herein for ease of reference. Late Sri D.M. Subbaiah was the husband of late Smt. Lalithamma, who is stated to have acquired the Suit Schedule Property under a registered Sale Deed. They had a son, Sri S. Balasubramanya, who was arrayed as defendant No.1 in the suit. Smt. B. Sarojamma, wife of defendant No.1, and their two sons, Sri B. Devaraj and Sri B. Yogesh, are the plaintiffs in the suit. The appellant herein, M/s. Rajesh Exports Limited, was arrayed as defendant No.2, being the purchaser under the registered Sale Deed dated 22.12.2004 executed in its favour by defendant No.1. Defendant Nos.3 to 5 are tenants in occupation of portions of the Suit Schedule Property and are formal parties to the proceedings.

4. During the pendency of the present appeal, plaintiffs filed three applications: (i) I.A. No.1/2013 under Order XLI Rule 27(1) read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking permission to adduce additional evidence; (ii) I.A. No.2/2013 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking amendment of the plaint; and (iii) I.A. No.2/2017 under Order XLI Rule 27(aa) and (b) read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking permission to produce additional documents. By Judgment dated 08.12.2023, this Court allowed the aforesaid applications, set aside the Impugned Judgment and remanded the matter to the learned Trial Court for fresh adjudication.

5. The aforesaid Judgment dated 08.12.2023 was assailed before the Supreme Court by the defendant No.2 under Civil Appeal Nos. 5430 /2025 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SC Judgment’). The Supreme Court by the order dated 22.04.2025, allowed the Civil Appeal, set aside the Judgment dated 08.12.2023 passed by this Court, dismissed I.A. Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 filed before this Court, and restored this Appeal to the file of this Court for consideration on merits. The Supreme Court observed that the appea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document