Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
MR ASHOK S.KINAGI, J
SMT. MUNITHAYAMMA – Appellant
Versus
SRI. NANJAPPA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. suit for partition and ancestral property rights. (Para 3) |
| 2. arguments for and against daughters' claims under the succession law. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. discussion on legal interpretations of property rights and consent. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. justification for dismissing the appeal and affirming lower court decisions. (Para 13) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the plaintiffs, and the respondents were the defendants.
The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties owned by one Bayyiga and succeeded by his son Sri. Muniyappa, the father of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. The plaintiffs claimed coparcenary rights as per Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. It is contended that defendant No.1 sold ‘B’ schedule property in favour of defendant No.2 under the registered sale deed dated 21.08.1997 and the said fact came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs only when they demanded for partition of the suit schedule properties
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
