Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 23499
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT, MR. JUSTICE G. BASAVARAJA, JJ
SRI. T. NARAYANA REDDY, S/O. LATE THIMMAIAH REDDY – Appellant
Versus
SMT. NIRMALA, D/O. T. NARAYANA REDDY – Respondent
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 491 OF 2016 (PAR)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHARADA VANI B
For the Respondents: SRI. B. RAMESH, SRI. A. G. RAVIKUMAR, SRI. VENKATESHWARA BALU, SRI. MAHADEVASWAMY
The properties in question are determined to be ancestral based on admissions, affirming joint family property entitlement under Hindu law principles.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 14 - Nature of property - Whether properties are ancestral or self-acquired - Court concluded that properties identified are ancestral as per admissions and evidence presented, therefore, all grandchildren of the matriarch entitled to a share. (Paras 1, 2, 5, 6)
(B) Admission as Evidence - The court emphasized that admission constitutes strong evidence against the party making it, and cannot be lightly disregarded as shown in the provisions of the Evidence Act and prior case law.
(C) Partition - Ancestral property - Marriage dynamics and shared economic benefits acknowledged as grounds for affirming joint family property status, indicating that properties considered joint family in the context of Hindu law principles.
Facts of the case:
The partition suit filed by Smt. Nirmala is for recognition of her share in the ancestral property purchased by Smt. Eramma, raising questions about the nature of property post-1970 family partition.
Findings of Court:
Court upheld earlier judgments, recognizing joint family property resulting from admissions from Appellant's side and established grounds requiring equitable division.
Issues: Determining character of property (ancestral vs self-acquired) and entitlement of shares among descendants.
Ratio Decidendi: Admissions made by the Appellants indicated ancestral nature of the properties and the presumption upheld that properties acquired as joint family assets affirm their status.
Result: Appeal dismissed but observations for equitable consideration urged for the future proceedings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. original acquisition of properties by matriarch confirms joint ownership. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments on property classification and admissions affecting claims. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's reasoning based on the doctrine of admissions and familial property. (Para 5 , 6) |
JUDGEMENT
This Appeal by Defendant Nos. 1 & 5, father & son seeks to lay a challenge to the judgement & Decree dated 18.12.2015 whereby the partition suit in O.S.No.2697/2010 filed by first Respondent- Smt. Nirmala has been decreed. Their operative portion reads as under:
“Suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs.
The plaintiff is entitled to get 1/6th share in the suit properties by metes and bounds along with mesne profits.
Separate enquiry is to be held regarding mesne profits.
Draw preliminary decree accordingly.”
2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
(a) One Smt.Eramma W/o Thimmaiah had bought suit properties vide registered sale deeds dated 10.4.1944, 10.6.1950 and 12.7.1953. Copies of these sale deeds are sought to be produced in the Appeal with leave of the Court vide Appellants’ Application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which merits to be allowed for the limited purpose of deciding the nature of property i.e., whether they are ancestral or otherwise, there being no serious objections from the side of Respondents herein.
(b) Smt.Eramma had two sons namely Mr.Narayana Reddy i.e., the first Defendant (Appellant No.1 herein) and Mr.Ramaiah. She had a daughter too namely Smt.Munithayamma. There was a family partition vide registered deed dated 27.7.1970 (Ex.P.5) whereby, these properties were partitioned between the children, Rs.1,000/- having been given to Smt.Eramma as her share. Suit properties are those that had fallen to the share of Mr.Narayana Reddy.
(c) Mr.Narayana Reddy has one son i.e., Defendant No.5 in the suit who happens to be Appellant No.2 herein and four daughters, as well; 1st Respondent herein who was the Plaintiff is one of them. Other daughters happen to be the Respondents in this Appeal and they were Defendants in the subject suit for partition. Only the 1st Appellant had filed the Written Statement and the learned Trial Judge had framed the following three principal issues:
(i) Whether the plaintiff proves that, the suit schedule property is joint family property?
(ii) Whether the defendants prove that, the plaintiff has taken amount as her share and attested as a witness to the Sale Deed executed by him?
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for reliefs as sought for?
(d) From the side of Plaintiff, she got herself examined as PW.1 and in her deposition, as many as seven documents came to be marked as exhibits P.1 to P.7. They comprised of undisputed Genealogical Tree, revenue documents, Partition Deed of 1970, Encumbrance Certificates and Sketch. From the side of Defendants, the 2nd Appellant got examined as DW.1; in his deposition, as many as nine documents came to be marked as per Exhibits D1 to D9. These documents comprised of four Gift Deeds, one Sale Deed, one Rectification Deed, one Mortgage Deed and two GPAs.
(e) The learned Trial Judge having considered pleadings of the parties and weighed both the oral and documentary evidence, has entered the subject judgement & decree that are put in challenge by the Defendant Nos.1 & 5 who happen to be the father and son. The learned Judge in his wisdom treated the subject properties as being ancestral ones and therefore, all the grandchildren of Smt.Eramma are entitled to a share. In the absence of a Counter Claim or the like, 1/6th share has been granted to the Plaintiff alone.
3. SUBMISSION OF APPELLANTS:
(a) Learned counsel appearing for Appellants vehemently argues that the properties having been bought by Smt.Eramma, she was the absolute owner thereof and she was in the exclusive possession. Because of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 , she had full ownership over these properties videTULASAMMA vs. SESHA REDDI (DEAD) BY L.Rs, AIR 1977 SC 1944 . Ev
