Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 33145
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
E.S. INDIRESH, J
DHONDIBA BAKARE S/O. VITHAL BAKARE, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S. – Appellant
Versus
VISHNU BAKARE S/O. RAMACHANDRA BAKARE, SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S. – Respondent
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 294 OF 2006
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI
For the Respondents: SRI. VIJAYKUMAR B. HORATTI, SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI
Admitted facts and admissions during litigation solidify joint family property claims; evidence of acquisition through partnership profits directly influences ownership determinations.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure - Section 100 - Joint Hindu Family - Dispute regarding joint family properties and partnership firm - The appeal contested by the defendant asserting failure of Courts below to acknowledge severance of joint family status and validity of partnership - Admissions regarding profit from joint family conduct emphasized - The appellate court found that suit properties purchased from joint family business income reasserted the joint nature. (Paras 4, 16, 22, 24)
(B) Admission of Facts - Legal recognition of admissions made by parties in the proceeding - Judicial and evidentiary admissions pertinent in establishing authority related to partnership firm and properties acquired through its income - Such admissions cannot be ignored in adjudicating rights to the properties. (Paras 18, 12)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff and defendants are members of a Hindu joint family and claimed joint ownership of properties acquired through a family-run partnership firm 'Ambika Saree Stores.' Disagreements over ownership led to the suit filed for partition and separate possession. Both lower courts decreed the plaintiff's suit partially, leading to the current appeal.
Findings of Court:
The courts below rightly found that suit properties were acquired using profits from joint family business and that admissions of defendants supported this conclusion, validating the joint family claim.
Issues: The core issues involved whether the original propositus's existence sustained the joint family claim and whether properties were independently acquired by defendants.
Ratio Decidendi: The courts emphasized that admissions in pleadings effectively illustrate the joint family relationship and are binding, thereby supporting the plaintiff's ownership claims.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the case and party identification (Para 1 , 2) |
CAV JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is preferred by the defendant No.2 challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2005 in R.A.No.146/2001 on the file of the District Judge, Bagalkot, [hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’] dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2000 in O.S.No.24/1984 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Jamkhandi2, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in part.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. The facts in nutshell as averred in the plaint by the plaintiff are that:hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’
3.1 The plaintiff and defendants are the members of the Hindu joint family and have succeeded to the estate of the original propositus – Ramachandra (died on 29.09.1974). It is the case of the plaintiff that the original propositus - Ramachandra and his children were weavers and dealers in saree and have joint family Partnership Firm known as ‘Ambika Saree Stores’. The said firm had sufficient profits and as such some of the suit properties were acquired from the income derived in the saree business. It is also stated in the plaint that, the original propositus – Ramachandra became weak on account of aged ailments and as such the defendant No.1 being the eldest son of late Ramachandra became karta of the joint family and look after the family business. It is also stated that the defendant No.1 has invested funds of the joint family in number of societies and pledged some of the goods in the bank and also the defendant No.1 had purchased two suit schedule properties in the name of defendant No.2, who had no independent source of income and therefore it is the contention of the plaintiff that the two items of the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants and not solely belong to defendant No.2.
3.2 It is also averred in the plaint that there were misunderstanding in the family during 1965-66 and as such an effort was made to settle the family dispute, however, the original propositus – Ramachandra, approached the Civil Judge, Bijapur for appointment of arbitrator, resulting in filing of suit in O.S.No.56/1980 (old O.S.No.255/1973) filed by defendant No.2 at the instance of defendant No.1 seeking injunction restraining the plaintiff and brothers of plaintiff from the exclusive possession of the suit lands. It is also averred that, O.S.No.61/1980 (old O.S.No.20/1974) filed by plaintiff and his brothers seeking relief of injunction against the defendants No.1 and 2 before the Munsiff Court at Banahatti. O.S.No.56/1980 filed by the defendant No.1 was dismissed as abated and O.S.No.61/1980 filed by the plaintiff and his brothers is pending consideration before the competent Court. As the dispute is relating to title of the suit lands and therefore the plaintiff has filed O.S.No.24/1984 seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties.
3.3 After service of notice, the defendants entered appearance. Defendant No.1, 2 and 10 have filed separate detailed written statement. Defendant No.13 and 14 together have filed common written statement. Defendant No.3 to 9, 11, 12 and 15 have adopted the written statement filed by defendant No.10. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant No.1, 10, 10B, 11, 12 and 14 were dead and their legal representatives were brought on record.
3.4 It is the specific contention of defendants No.1 and 2 that, the defendants No.1 and 2 are residing separately from the original propositus – Ramachandra, plaintiff, defendant No.10 and late Tukaram for more than 27 years. These defendants denied the existence of joint family of original propositus – Ramachandra. The suit properties are not the joint family properties. It is stated that TMC No.299 is the ancestral property of propositus Ramachandra. CTS No.641
