The right to seek partition of joint family properties is a statutory inheritable right under the Hindu Succession Act, and delays in filing appeals can be condoned under certain circumstances, reflecting the importance of equitable distribution among legal heirs.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 8 - Right to seek partition of joint family properties is a statutory inheritable right - Delay in filing appeals condoned due to the nature of partition suits involving inheritance rights. (Paras 14-15)

(B) Pleadings - Parties are bound by their pleadings - Judicial admissions constitute binding evidence. (Paras 24-25)

(C) Partition - Division of estate must consider all legal heirs based on intestate succession principles. (Paras 31-34)

(D) Final decree - Dependent on the framework of preliminary decree; subject to modification. (Paras 40-41)

Facts of the case:
The appeals involve disputes over the partition of properties following the intestate death of R. Williams, with plaintiffs claiming legal shares against defendants who denied their relationship.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the relationship of the parties was established and that the preliminary decree must be modified to reflect fair shares among all legal heirs.

Issues: Whether appeals can be entertained despite delays; the nature of item No.3 as self-acquired property; the quantification of shares; and validity of the final decree.

Ratio Decidendi: Rights to inherit joint family property must be recognized irrespective of delays and judicial admissions bind parties in their claims. The statutory framework of inheritance dictates the distribution of shares.

Result: Appeals allowed; preliminary decree modified; final decree set aside.

ORAL JUDGMENT

RFA No.1842/2024 and RFA No.1866/2024 are filed by defendant Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 challenging the preliminary decree drawn in O.S.No.9695/2015 on the file of the LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-59), while RFA No.1847/2024 and RFA No.1872/2024 are filed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 and defendant No.5 questioning the final decree drawn in FDP No.64/2022 on the file of LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH No.59).

2. For the sake of brevity, the ranks of the parties are referred as they are ranked in OS.No.9695/2015.

3. The genealogical tree of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 reads as under;

4. The children of late R.Williams i.e., W.Shivashankar and W.Mahesh Kumar, who are the plaintiffs, have filed a suit in O.S.No.9695/2015 admitting that their mother Lakshmi - second wife of R.Williams and that all the suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of their father - R.Williams. The plaintiffs also specifically pleaded that item No.3 though purchased in the name of defendant No.2 is the absolute property of their father R.Williams and hence, they have filed a partition suit alleging that despite repeated request to the defendant Nos.1 to 3 and though panchayath was conveyed with the aid of the elders and relatives and well- wishers on 23.06.2015, the defendants, however, were reluctant in giving the plaintiffs' legitimate share in the suit schedule properties. Therefore, the present suit for partition is filed by the plaintiffs alleging that their father - R.William died intestate leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 to 4 as his legal heirs and hence, prayed to allot their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties.

5. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 tendered appearance and filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. The defendants, on the contrary, seriously disputed the plaintiffs relationship with R.Williams. While specifically denying the averments made in para Nos.2 to 12 of the plaint, the defendants claimed that plaintiffs are totally strangers to the defendants' family and therefore, they are not entitled for the relief sought in the partition suit.

6. Per contra, the defendants have claimed that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule properties and they have inherited the property after the demise of R.Williams. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 contended that they are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and plaintiffs have no right and title over the suit schedule properties and sought for dismissal of the suit.

7. The plaintiffs to substantiate that their mother - defendant No.1 was married to R.Williams have led in oral and documentary evidence. Plaintiff No.1 is examined as P.W.1 and in all 61 documents are produced by the plaintiffs to substantiate their relationship with R.Williams and also to demonstrate that all the suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of R.Williams.

8. The defendants examined defendant No.3 as D.W.1 and defendant No.2 as D.W.2 and defendants in all relied on 14 documents, which are marked as Exs.D.1 to D.14.

9. The learned Judge on appraisal of oral and documentary evidence answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the Affirmative and held that the plaintiffs have succeeded in establishing their relationship with the deceased R.Williams. While answering issue Nos.2 and 3 in the Affirmative, the Trial Court held that the plaintiffs have succeeded in proving that they along with defendant Nos.2 to 4 constitute a joint family and therefore, they are entitled for their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties.

10. The learned Trial Judge, having answered the core issues in the affirmative in favour of the plaintiffs, proceeded to draw a preliminary decree. However, while doing so, the Trial Court treated the two branches, one representing Mrs.Sumithra and the other representing Mrs.Lakshmi as independent, and accordingly,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document