Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 20319

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Sachin Shankar Magadum, J
A.D. Lavanya Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Uma Devaraj – Respondent
RFA No. 2432 of 2024 | RFA No. 2276 of 2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K. Shrihari, S. Susheela, Dayalu .K.N
For the Respondents: S. Susheela, Dayalu .K.N, K. Shrihari

A registered partition deed that has been acted upon cannot be challenged decades later by a party who has derived benefits from it. Furthermore, serious allegations of fraud must be pleaded with specific particulars and substantiated by the party's own testimony; failure to testify warrants an adverse inference.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 4 - Pleadings - Requirement of specific particulars of fraud, coercion, or undue influence - Failure to plead specific particulars renders allegations vague and speculative, failing to satisfy the mandatory requirements of the Code. (Paras 18, 45, 87)

(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114(g) - Adverse Inference - Failure of a party to enter the witness box to substantiate serious allegations regarding matters of personal knowledge permits the court to draw an adverse inference against such party. (Paras 19, 65, 91)

(C) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 6 - Daughter's coparcenary rights - Amendment cannot reopen a partition validly effected under a registered instrument prior to the amendment. (Paras 28, 38, 85)

(D) Limitation Act, 1963 - Articles 58 and 59 - Suit for declaration - Period of limitation for challenging a registered document expires three years after the right to sue accrues; a challenge made decades later is time-barred. (Paras 14, 39, 86)

Facts of the case:
The suit for partition and separate possession was filed by a daughter claiming a share in ancestral properties, seeking to nullify a 1974 registered partition deed, a 2006 registered gift deed, and a 2005 Will. The plaintiff alleged the transactions were vitiated by fraud, coercion, and undue influence but did not testify in court, opting to have her spouse testify as a power of attorney holder.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the 1974 partition had been consistently acted upon through multiple subsequent registered transactions, from which the plaintiff herself derived benefits. The allegations of fraud regarding the gift deed and Will lacked specific particulars and supporting evidence. The court noted that because the plaintiff declined to enter the witness box, adverse inferences were drawn regarding the unproven nature of her claims.

Issues: Whether the registered partition deed was binding; whether the challenges to the gift deed and Will were substantiated; whether the suit was barred by limitation; and whether the burden of proving allegations of fraud in the absence of personal testimony was discharged.

Ratio Decidendi: A party alleging fraud must plead specific particulars and give personal evidence; failing this, the court must draw an adverse inference. A registered partition deed that has been acted upon for decades and from which a party has received benefits cannot be reopened by the same party decades later, nor can the law be applied retrospectively to unsettle established familial arrangements.

Result: Appeals allowed; the suit for partition and declaration was dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural context and factual history of the partition suit. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. contentions regarding validity of deeds and burden of proof. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
3. binding nature of 1974 partition and limitation bar. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
4. insufficient pleading and proof of fraud regarding gift deeds. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)
5. proof of will and evidentiary value of contemporaneous affidavits. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61)
6. adverse inference for failure to enter witness box. (Para 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67)
7. appellate court's scope to reverse erroneous trial findings. (Para 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82)
8. final order dismissing the suit for partition. (Para 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95)

ORAL JUDGMENT

These two appeals are filed assailing the judgment and decree dated 10.09.2024 passed in O.S.No.62/2015 on the file of the LXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. RFA.No.2432/2024 is filed by the plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the one-third (1/3rd) share granted by the trial Court. RFA.No.2276/2024 is filed by the defendants being aggrieved by the findings recorded by the Trial Court, particularly in regard to the validity of the partition deed dated 13.06.1974, the due execution of the gift deed dated 31.10.2006 and the proof of the Will dated 04.04.2005. Both the appeals arise out of the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and therefore, are taken up together for consideration.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The family tree is as under:

Late A.N.Devaraj

Smt. Uma Devaraj (Wife)

73 Years

(D1)

A.D. Lavanya

(Daughter)

56 Years

(Plaintiff)

A.D.Suroop

(Son)

53 years

(D2)

4. Facts leading to the case are as under:

The plaintiff instituted a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S.No.62/2015, claiming one-third share in the suit schedule properties on the assertion that the properties constitute joint family ancestral properties. The plaintiff contended that she, being the daughter of late Devaraj and defendant No.1, is entitled to her legitimate share in the joint family estate. In the said suit, the plaintiff has also challenged the registered gift deed dated 31.10.2006 executed by late Devaraj in favour of defendant No.2, her brother, contending that the same is not binding on her share. The plaintiff has further sought a declaration that the partition deed dated 13.06.1974, alleged to have been entered into between her father Devaraj and defendant No.2, is also not binding on her. The plaintiff has also disputed the Will dated 04.04.2005, under which Devaraj is alleged to have made a testamentary disposition bequeathing item No.2 of the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant No.2.

5. Upon service of summons, defendant No.2 entered appearance and contested the suit, placing reliance on the registered gift deed executed by his father in respect of item No.3 of the suit properties and also on the Will dated 04.04.2005 executed by his father in respect of Item No.2 of the suit schedule properties.

6. The Trial Court, on the basis of the rival pleadings, framed appropriate issues and called upon the parties to adduce their oral and documentary evidence.

The plaintiff did not enter the witness box. Instead, her husband, acting as her General Power of Attorney holder, stepped into the witness box and tendered oral and documentary evidence. On the other hand, defendant No.2 examined himself and also adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of the Will. In order to prove the Will, defendant No.2 examined one of the attesting witnesses and also examined the son of the other attesting witness who was predeceased. The defend

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 20319

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKASachin Shankar Magadum, JA.D. Lavanya Prasad – AppellantVersusUma Devaraj – RespondentRFA No. 2432 of 2024 | RFA No. 2276 of 2024

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Sachin Shankar Magadum, J
A.D. Lavanya Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Uma Devaraj – Respondent
RFA No. 2432 of 2024 | RFA No. 2276 of 2024