Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 23
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR ASHOK S.KINAGI, J
SRI K.S. RAVI – Appellant
Versus
SRI VASUDEVA K.S. – Respondent
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1578 OF 2013 (PAR)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. VEMAREDDY S.
For the Respondents: SRI. PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, SRI. G. M. ANANDA
A relinquishment deed effectively bars claims to share in certain ancestral properties; amendments in succession laws influence entitlement rights.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 - Section 6 - Partition and separate possession of ancestral properties - Suit filed by plaintiff for partition - Court held that the plaintiff executed relinquishment deed relinquishing rights over certain properties, thus affecting share entitlements - The First Appellate Court modified the plaintiff's entitlements based on the amended provisions of the Act. (Paras 2, 4, 18)
(B) The plaintiff claimed entitlement on the basis of ancestral rights while defendants emphasized the impact of relinquishment documents.
Facts of the case:
The appeal stemmed from a suit for partition where the plaintiff claimed a share in suit schedule properties, arguing non-partition; while defendants cited prior relinquishment and partition deeds as barriers to claims.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the relinquishment deed, executed by the plaintiff in favor of properties, inhibited his claim for a share in certain properties while affirming other entitlements based on the established joint family structures.
Issues: Whether the relinquishment deed negated the plaintiff's claim on ancestral properties and whether the amendment to the Succession Act impacted rights to inherit after Subbanna Gowda's demise.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that a relinquishment deed effectively bars claims to share in the stipulated properties while recognizing entitlement adjustments post-amendment to the Hindu Succession Act.
Result: The appeal is dismissed; the First Appellate Court’s judgment affirmed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's claim based on ancestral rights hindered by relinquishment. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 8 , 10) |
| 2. defendants emphasize prior relinquishment which undermines plaintiff’s claims. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 3. court affirms the relinquishment deed's impact on share claims. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 4. modification of shares upheld due to statute amendments. (Para 18) |
| 5. final order dismissal conforming previous rulings. (Para 19) |
JUDGMENT
This Regular second appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.02.2012 passed in R.A.No.27/2001 by the Additional District Judge, Chikkamagalur and also the judgment and decree dated 04.07.2001 passed in O.S.No.58/1997 by the Civil Judge, (Sr.Dn.), Chikkamgalur.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. Appellant is defendant No.2, respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 9 are the other defendants.
3. The brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal are as under:
The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession in respect of suit schedule properties. It is the case of the plaintiff that, plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 8 are the members of the Hindu undivided family. It is contended that suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 8. It is contended that there is no partition effected by metes and bounds and the plaintiff is entitled for 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff requested the defendants to effect the partition, but the defendants refuse to effect the partition. Hence, cause of action arose to the plaintiff to file the suit for partition and separate possession.
4. Though summons were duly served on defendant Nos.5 to 9, they remained absent. Hence they placed exparte. Defendant No.2 filed the written statement contending that suit filed by the plaintiff for partition and separate possession is not maintainable. It is contended that, the plaintiff has relinquished his right over the suit schedule properties by executing the relinquishment deed dated 23.08.1989 and the said relinquishment deed is binding on the plaintiff. Further, it is contended that during the life time of Subbanna Gowda i.e., original propositus of the family, defendant Nos.1 to 4 were partitioned the joint family properties under the registered partition deed. Hence, suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 filed the memo adopting the written statement of defendant No.2.
6. The Trial Court, on the basis of the above said pleadings, framed the following issues:
1. Whether plaintiff proves that the suit schedule properties are joint family property?
2. Whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled for legitimate share in the suit schedule properties?
3. Whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled for mesne profit?
4. Whether the defendants prove that plaintiff has executed a release deed in favour of the defendants?
5. whether the defendants prove that earlier partition is made?
6. Whether the defendants prove that plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the suit property?
7. Whether the plaintiff proves that alleged release deed is fabricated one?
8. What order or decree?
7. The plaintiff in order to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 31 documents as Ex.P1 to 31. The defendants have not led either oral or documentary evidence. The trial court after assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit of the plaintiff in part and it is ordered and decreed that the plaintiff is entitle for 1/50th share in the share of Subbanna Gowda in item Nos.5 and 6 of suit schedule properties.
8. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in respect of other properties, has filed an appeal in R.A.No.27/2001, before the first Appellate Court.
9. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the parties, has framed the following points for con
