Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24104
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
K. MANMADHA RAO, J
SMT. THAYAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LR SRI. MUNISHAMAPPA, S/O LATE THAYAMMA & NARAYANAPPA – Appellant
Versus
SRI. SUBRAMANYA – Respondent
R.S.A. NO.1730 OF 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.KISHAN G.S.
For the Respondents: SMT. AMRUTHA N., SRI MANJUNATHA H.A.
A suit for partial partition cannot be maintained if it does not include all joint family properties, as per Hindu Succession Act principles.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Sections 6 and 8 - Property litigation - The plaintiff claimed partition of ancestral property originally belonging to deceased father - Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff asserting joint ownership, while the lower appellate court found the suit unsustainable due to non-inclusion of other joint family properties - The appellate court held that a suit for partial partition is not maintainable when other joint family properties are not included. (Paras 20, 21, 31)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the dispute and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. plaintiff's claim of joint family property. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. defendant no.3's defenses and counterclaims. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. trial court's issues and findings. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. lower appellate court's reasoning and rulings. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. substantial questions of law raised. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 7. appellant's arguments against prior decisions. (Para 25 , 26) |
| 8. court's conclusions on partition law. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 9. final order of the court. (Para 33 , 34) |
CAV JUDGMENT
The present Regular Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2018 in R.A.No.15010/2017, on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli (‘the lower appellate Court’ for short) and with a prayer to restore the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2017, in O.S.No.1072/2007, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli (‘the trial Court’ for short).
2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff before the trial Court and respondent No.1 before the lower Appellate Court and respondent No.3 herein is the defendant No.3 before the trial Court and appellant before the lower appellate Court.
3. The respondents No.1 and 2 herein are the defendants No.1 and 2 before the trial Court and the respondents No.1 and 2 before the lower appellate Court.
4. For sake of reference the parties herein are referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.
5. The plaintiff had filed O.S.No.1072/2007 against the defendants seeking partition and separate possession in the suit schedule property.
6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that Sri Ramaiah, father of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2, constituted an undivided joint family with his children. After the death of Ramaiah, defendant No.1 assumed the role of Kartha of the family. The suit schedule property, bearing land in Sy.No.384 measuring 04 acres 39 guntas situated at Bagalur Village, Jala Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, was the self-acquired property of Ramaiah, purchased under a registered Sale Deed dated 29.07.1963 from one A.Appaiahshamaiah. After his demise, the revenue records were mutated in the names of defendants No.1 and 2, and the plaintiff along with them continued to enjoy the said property as joint family property.
7. The grievance of the plaintiff is that defendant No.1, without his consent, sold the suit property in favour of defendant No.3, which was neither for legal necessity nor for the benefit of the undivided Hindu joint family. The plaintiff asserts that his demand for partition of the suit schedule property was refused, and that the Sale Deed executed in favour of the 3rd defendant is not binding on his 1/3rd share, thereby necessitating the present suit.
8. Per contra, defendant No.3 filed written statement by denying the plaint averments while admitting that the schedule property was acquired by late Ramaiah from A. Appaiahshamaiah and subsequently stood in the names of defendants No.1 and 2. However, it is contended that the property is not joint family property and that defendant No.3 is a bonafide purchaser in possession under a valid Sale Deed. It is alleged that defendants No.1 and 2, motivated by rising land prices, attempted to extort additional sums from defendant No.3, and upon failure, colluded with the plaintiff to institute this frivolous suit. It is further contended that defendant No.1 had already paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff on 13.05.2005 and defendant No.2 had paid another Rs.1,00,000/- on 19.05.2005 in connection with the said sale transaction, in the presence of one B.R. Krishnamurthy, a stamp vendor.
9. Further, it is averment of defendant No.3 that he was put in possession on the date of sale, his name was duly entered in the revenue records, and thereafter he formed a private layout comprising of 126 sites, measuring 30' x 40', of which 118½ sites have been sold to bonafide purchasers, with roads a
