H Rudramuniyappa S/o Late Sri Chikkarudraiah vs Doddamma W/o Late Sri Chikka Uddandaiah

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Concurrent findings of fact - Scope of interference - When two courts have concurrently held that properties are not available for partition, the appellate court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100, does not find merit in interfering with such factual findings. (Para 28)

(B) Hindu Joint Family - Alienation of ancestral property - Legal necessity - Sale of property by the father acting as Karta for the purpose of performing marriages of female members and meeting livelihood expenses is within permissible competence and binding. (Para 23)

(C) Suit for Partition - Burden of proof - The plaintiff seeking a share is required to place on record material evidence that the properties are still available for partition, especially when the defendants maintain that a partition has already occurred and been acted upon. (Paras 24-27)

Facts of the case:
A suit for partition and separate possession was filed regarding ancestral properties. The plaintiff challenged the sale of one of the properties by the father to a third party, alleging it was done without consent and without legal necessity. The defendants contended that the father, as Karta, sold the property for family necessity and that a prior partition had already taken place among the family members through a traditional arrangement, which was subsequently acted upon by the parties selling their respective shares.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the sale of the first property was for the legal necessity of the family, specifically for marriages and maintenance. Regarding the remaining properties, the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that they were still available for partition.

Issues: Whether the sale of the ancestral property was for family necessity and whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the non-availability of properties for partition could be disturbed in a second appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: The Karta of a Hindu Joint Family possesses the authority to alienate ancestral property for family necessity. Furthermore, concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts regarding the non-availability of properties for partition are generally not subject to interference in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Suit for partition and separate possession of ancestral properties — dismissal by trial court and first appellate court. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )

2. Plaintiff contended properties were joint family assets; defendants argued valid sale for family necessity and prior partition. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )

3. Plaintiff's own admissions and registered sale deed proved prior partition; sale for family necessity was within karta's competence. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 )

4. A co-parcener who admits to a prior partition cannot seek partition of properties already alienated or divided. (Para 27 , 28 )

5. Admission declined; appeal dismissed under Section 100 CPC. (Para 29 )

6. Can a suit for partition be maintained when the plaintiff admits to a prior partition of joint family properties?

No. If the plaintiff admits to a prior partition under which shares were allotted and acted upon, the suit properties are no longer joint family assets available for partition. (Para 27 , 28 )

7. What is the standard for interference under Section 100 CPC when lower courts concurrently find facts?

When two courts have concurrently recorded a factual finding, the High Court under Section 100 CPC will not interfere unless a substantial question of law arises. (Para 28 )

8. Is a sale by the karta of joint family property for family necessity binding on other coparceners?

Yes. A sale by the karta for legal necessity, such as marriage expenses of female members, binds the joint family including other coparceners. (Para 23 )

JUDGMENT :

V SRISHANANDA, J.

Heard Smt.N.Roopa for Sri N.Sridhar for the appellant.

2. Unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant, challenging the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.123/2014, confirmed in R.A.No.66/2018.

3. Facts of the case, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal, are as under:

A suit for partition and separate possession was filed in O.S.No.38/2008, which was re-numbered as O.S.No.123/2014, in respect of the following properties, hereinafter referred to as suit properties:

“Item No. 1:

Land bearing Sy no. 39/4, measuring One Acre Five Guntas (1 Acre Guntas) situated at Channenahalli Village, Tavarekere Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, bounded on:-

East by: Land of Hanumaiah,

West by: Land of Honnamma,

North by: Land of Chikkanna.

South by: Land of Channaiah.

Item No. 2:

Vacant site bearing no. 15, situated at Janatha Colony, Jattipalya Village, Tavarekere Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk measuring to extent of East to West 40 feet, and North to South 30 feet, bounded on:-

East by: Private Property,

West by:House belongs to Rangappa,

North by:Road,

South by: House belongs to Doddaiah.

Item No. 3:

House property bearing no. 26, situated at Janatha Colony, Jattipalya Village, Tavarekere Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk measuring to extent of East to West 70 feet, and North to South 14 feet, together with Mangalore Tiled roof House bounded on:-

East by: Raja Beedi,

West by: Land belongs to Hanumanthaiah,

North by: House belongs to Doddaiah,

South by: House belongs to Jinnaiah.

Item No. 4:

Property bearing Old Sy no. 63, Present New Sy No. 110, measuring to an extent of 4-39 guntas situated at Yelachaguppe Village, Tavarekere Hobli Bangalore south bounded on:-

East by: Land belongs to Rangaswamaiah

West by: Halla

North by: Land belongs to Rangaswamaiah

South by: Land belongs to Smt. Doddakka

4. In the plaint, it is contended that plaintiff and second defendant are the sons of Chikkauddandaiah and the first defendant is their mother. Plaintiff further contended that, plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 constitute a Hindu Joint Family. The suit properties are ancestral properties of the father of the plaintiff late Chikkauddandaiah, who had acquired the suit properties, which had fallen to his share. After his death in the year 2002, plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 continued to be in joint possession of the said properties and cultivating the same. Second defendant being the elder member of the family, was looking after the affairs of the joint family.

5. Plaintiff further contended that, in the first week of January 2008, third defendant attempted to trespass into the suit property. Therefore, his illegal act was questioned by the plaintiff. At that juncture, it is proclaimed by the third defendant that, she is the purchaser of the suit property and therefore, she is entitled to enjoy the property.

6. On enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that, defendant No.3 got a sale deed in her favour dated 17.03.1992.

7. On further enquiry, it was noticed that, there was a sale transaction that has taken place behind the back of the plaintiff and he has not consented for the same and thus, sought for filing of the suit.

8. Suit was initially filed for partition of Item No.1 of the suit properties alone, but subsequent to the filing of the written statement, Item Nos. 2 to 4 were also included.

9. After amendment of the plaint in the suit, defendant Nos. 4 and 5 who are the sisters of the plaintiff, and defendant No.6, being the purchaser, were also impleaded as parties.

10. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendants Nos.1 and 2 entered appearance and filed written statement, contending that husband of the first defendant Chikkauddandaiah had two sons and three daughters, first son is the second defendant and the second son is the plaintiff.

11. It is also contended that Chikkauddandaiah did not have adequate income to maintain the family and he, being the karta, had to perform the marriages of the female members of the joint family and all of them were

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Kar) 677

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V SRISHANANDA, J.
H Rudramuniyappa S/o Late Sri Chikkarudraiah - Appellant
Vs.
Smt Doddamma W/o Late Sri Chikka Uddandaiah - Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 472 Of 2022 (PAR)
Decided On : 09-07-2026

A Karta may alienate ancestral property for legal necessity. Concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts regarding the non-availability of properties for partition are generally not disturbed in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

6. Can a suit for partition be maintained when the plaintiff admits to a prior partition of joint family properties?

7. What is the standard for interference under Section 100 CPC when lower courts concurrently find facts?

8. Is a sale by the karta of joint family property for family necessity binding on other coparceners?

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(Kar) 677

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUV SRISHANANDA, J.H Rudramuniyappa S/o Late Sri Chikkarudraiah - AppellantVs.Smt Doddamma W/o Late Sri Chikka Uddandaiah - RespondentRegular Second Appeal No. 472 Of 2022 (PAR)Decided On : 09-07-2026

A Karta may alienate ancestral property for legal necessity. Concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts regarding the non-availability of properties for partition are generally not disturbed in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

6. Can a suit for partition be maintained when the plaintiff admits to a prior partition of joint family properties?

7. What is the standard for interference under Section 100 CPC when lower courts concurrently find facts?

8. Is a sale by the karta of joint family property for family necessity binding on other coparceners?

Cases Referred (2)

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V SRISHANANDA, J.
H Rudramuniyappa S/o Late Sri Chikkarudraiah - Appellant
Vs.
Smt Doddamma W/o Late Sri Chikka Uddandaiah - Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 472 Of 2022 (PAR)
Decided On : 09-07-2026