Relying on Ambiguous 'Hiriyaru' (Elders) Term in Prior Compromise Decree Not Enough to Prove Property is Ancestral; Case Remanded: Karnataka HC - 2025-10-09

Karnataka High Court Remands Partition Suit, Orders Re-evaluation of Ancestral Property Claim

KALABURAGI: The Karnataka High Court has set aside a trial court's dismissal of a partition suit, remanding the matter for a fresh hearing. The division bench, comprising Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice T.M. Nadaf , ruled that the plaintiffs should be given another opportunity to prove their claim that the suit properties were ancestral, as their initial reliance on an ambiguous admission in a prior compromise decree was insufficient.

Background of the Case

The appellants, Smt. Sonali and Smt. Vidhya, are the daughters of Sharanappa Sunagar (an ex-MLA) from his first wife. They filed a suit for partition (O.S. No.66/2018) against their father, his two wives, and his children from the second marriage, claiming a 1/3rd share in the family properties.

The daughters contended that the properties were ancestral, having been passed down through their grandfather, Tippanna Sunagar. Their primary evidence was a compromise decree from a previous suit (O.S.No.78/2016) filed by their uncle, Bhimaraya Sunagar. In that suit's plaint and compromise petition, it was admitted that the properties came from their "Hiriyaru" (elders/ancestors) and were joint family assets. The appellants, however, were not parties to that suit.

The trial court in Sindagi dismissed their suit, holding that they failed to discharge the initial burden of proving the properties were ancestral. It reasoned that simply relying on the previous compromise decree was not enough, and any admission by the father (DW-1) regarding its contents was inadmissible under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act as he was not properly confronted with it.

Key Arguments in the High Court

• Appellants' Stance: Senior Counsel Sri. G.V. Chandrashekhar argued that the trial court erred in disregarding the father's admission in the prior suit. He contended that the term "Hiriyaru" clearly means "ancestors," establishing the ancestral nature of the properties. Citing Supreme Court precedents, he asserted that an admission in pleadings is the best form of evidence and does not require confrontation in the witness box.

• Respondents' Defence: Senior Counsel Sri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande countered that the burden of proof squarely lay on the plaintiffs to establish the properties were ancestral. He argued that the genealogy in the previous suit began with Tippanna, making him the propositus. Therefore, the word "Hiriyaru" should be interpreted as referring only to Tippanna, not his forefathers. He submitted that without independent evidence showing that Tippanna himself inherited the properties, the daughters' claim could not succeed.

High Court's Analysis and Ruling

The High Court bench conducted a detailed analysis of the evidence and legal principles. The court found that the plaintiffs' entire case rested on the interpretation of the word "Hiriyaru" used in the previous suit's documents (Exhibits P1-P4).

The court observed:

"In the absence of any clear indication regarding that the suit schedule properties came to Thippanna through his ancestors in the earlier suit and mere describing that they came through their elders i.e., Hiriyaru, cannot be stretched to an extent that it would be construed as ancestor and family properties as joint family properties, in the absence of any independent evidence..."

While acknowledging the dictionary meaning of "Hiriyaru" could include "ancestor," the court noted the ambiguity created by the lack of specific pleadings in the earlier suit about inheritance beyond Tippanna. It concluded that relying solely on these documents was insufficient for the plaintiffs to discharge their initial burden of proof.

However, the court also found fault with the trial court's definitive finding that the properties were self-acquired by the defendants. Recognizing that substantive rights in immovable property were at stake, the High Court held that fairness demanded another opportunity for the plaintiffs.

The court stated:

"...it would be reasonable to provide one more opportunity to the plaintiffs to prove their case independently other than Exhibits P1 to P4 by placing cogent evidence to substantiate their claims that the properties are in fact ancestral properties..."

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the trial court's judgment and decree. The case was remanded to the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Sindagi, with directions to: 1. Afford both parties a fresh opportunity to present independent and cogent evidence to prove their respective claims. 2. Dispose of the suit, originally filed in 2018, within a one-year timeframe. 3. The parties were directed to appear before the trial court on November 3, 2025.

This judgment underscores the critical importance of discharging the initial burden of proof with clear, independent evidence in partition suits, especially when relying on admissions from prior litigation that may contain ambiguities.