Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 219
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KRISHNA S DIXIT, MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, JJ
SMT. SHYLAJA – Appellant
Versus
SMT. SHARADAMMA – Respondent
RFA 379/2012
SRI. B ROOPESHA., ADVOCATE; SMT.H.V. VASANTHALAKSHMI., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI.N. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT., ADV., FOR R4 & R5
Only joint family property is subject to partition, and mere contributions do not negate the registered owner's title.
Headnote:(A) Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 - Section 3 - Hindu Law - Partition Suit - The appeal challenges the dismissal of a partition suit on grounds that the property belonged to the mother, not the joint family. The trial court found no evidence of joint family ownership, despite claims of contributions from family members. (Paras 1-4)
(B) Joint Family Property - Only joint family property can be partitioned; separate property cannot be the subject of partition. The court emphasized that mere contributions do not negate the registered owner's title. (Paras 4(i), 4(ii))
(C) Admissions - Admissions in a sale deed carry significant weight, and plaintiffs are estopped from claiming partition due to their prior consent as witnesses to the sale. (Paras 4(ii))
(D) Legal Precedent - The court referenced a Supreme Court decision to support the invocation of the Benami Transactions Act against claims of joint ownership. (Paras 4(iii))
Findings of Court:
The appeal was dismissed as the evidence did not support the claim of joint family ownership.
Issues: The main issues were whether the property was joint family property and the admissibility of evidence regarding ownership.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that separate property cannot be partitioned, and contributions do not establish joint ownership.
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
This appeal is directed against the judgment & decree dated 17.01.2012, whereby, the partition suit filed by the appellant in O.S.No.7759/2008 has been negatived on the ground that the subject property does not belong to Joint Family but belongs to the 1st defendant-mother.
2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: (a) Appellant had filed a partition suit in O.S.No.7759/2008; the contesting respondents had filed the Written Statement resisting the suit. On the basis of pleadings of the party and the documents accompanying the same, learned Trial Judge had framed as many as three principal issues and two additional issues because of Sale Deed dated 07.06.2001 & Gift Deed dated 20.09.2001 held by co-defendants. (b) To prove their case the 1st plaintiff got herself examined as PW-1 and got marked as many as 7 documents vide Ex.P1 to P7. These documents comprised NC: 2024:KHC:24618-DB RFA No. 379 of 2012 of certified copies of four sale deeds of different dates, one gift deed and encumbrance certificate. From the side of defendants, the 2nd defendant-Mr.B.V.Narendra Kumar and the 4th defendant Mr.B.P.Rao were examined as DW-1 & DW-2; in their deposition 12 documents came to be marked as per Ex.D-1 to D-12; these documents comprised of the judgement in W.P.No.1286/2008, Gift Deed of 2004, Government Licence, Driving Licence, Ledger Account of Can Bank and Demand Notices of the bank.
(c) Learned Trial Judge having considered pleadings of the parties and after weighing evidentiary material placed on record dismissed the suit vide impugned judgement & decree. The same are put in challenge in this appeal.
3. CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES: (a) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant- plaintiff vehemently argues that the subject property was bought from the proceeds of Joint Family; the property NC: 2024:KHC:24618-DB RFA No. 379 of 2012 stood nominally in the name of 1st defendant-mother;
- learned Trial Judge has wrongly invoked the provisions of Sec.3 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. So arguing he seeks for the allowing of appeal by decreeing the suit.
- (b) Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents oppose the appeal making submission in justification of the impugned judgment & decree and the reasons on which they have been structured. They contend that subject property is the separate property of 1st defendant-Smt.Sharadamma; absolutely no material is produced to show that the said property belongs to Joint Family. Sharadamma is still alive and therefore no decree for partition can be granted. So contending they seek dismissal of the appeal.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, this court declines indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
- NC: 2024:KHC:24618-DB RFA No. 379 of 2012 (i) It has been a settled position of law that it is only the Joint Family property that can be partitioned. In Mulla’s Hindu Law, 21st Edition, LexisNexus at page 491 it is stated as under:
- “§ 302. Subject of partition – The only property that can be divided on a partition is coparcenary property (§ 219). Separate property cannot be the subject of partition (§ 220) nor can property, which by custom, descends to one member of the family to the exclusion of other members…”
- Absolutely no material is produced to show that the subject property is the Joint Family property/Coparcenary property when it stands in the name of the 1st Defendant- mother. Some contribution is made from the family towards part of acquisition price, is too feeble a ground to establish that the person in whose name the said property stands in the records & title deeds, is not the absolute owner thereof. Amongst hindus it is not uncommon that when a female member buys the property in her name, other members gratuitously make small contribution out of love & affection. Such contribution does not raise the presumption that the registered owner holds the property NC: 2024:KHC:24618-DB RFA No. 379 of 2012 for & on behal
