Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Venkubai, mother of the deceased Ravindra Shanbhag, filed a Regular First Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 03.03.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Honavar, in O.S.No.15/2014. The suit was filed for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The trial court partly decreed the suit, granting 1/4th share each to the plaintiff (appellant) and the defendants (respondents) in Sl.No.4 of the plaint 'A' schedule properties. Aggrieved by the denial of a larger share, the appellant preferred the appeal. The respondents are the widow (Jyoti) and two minor children (Adarsha and Ranjita) of Ravindra Shanbhag. The appellant claimed that the suit properties were ancestral joint family properties and that she was entitled to a share by birth. The respondents contended that the properties were self-acquired by Ravindra Shanbhag and that the appellant was only entitled to a share as a Class I heir under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The High Court analyzed the evidence and found that the properties were acquired by Ravindra Shanbhag through sale deeds and were not ancestral. The court held that the burden to prove ancestral nature was on the appellant, which she failed to discharge. Consequently, the court upheld the trial court's decision granting 1/4th share to the appellant, as she was one of the four Class I heirs (mother, widow, and two children). The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Hindu Succession Act - Succession to Self-Acquired Property - Section 8 - Mother's Share - The court considered whether the suit properties were ancestral or self-acquired. It held that the properties were self-acquired by Ravindra Shanbhag, and upon his death, succession opened under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The mother (appellant) is a Class I heir and entitled to an equal share along with the widow and children. The trial court's grant of 1/4th share to the mother was upheld. (Paras 1-20) B) Hindu Succession Act - Ancestral vs Self-Acquired Property - Burden of Proof - The court held that the burden to prove that a property is ancestral lies on the person asserting it. In this case, the appellant failed to prove that the properties were ancestral. The properties were acquired by Ravindra Shanbhag through sale deeds and were his self-acquired properties. (Paras 10-15) C) Hindu Succession Act - Section 6 - Coparcenary - The court noted that Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, dealing with coparcenary property, was not applicable as the properties were self-acquired. The appellant's claim that she had a right by birth in the properties was rejected. (Paras 16-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit properties are ancestral joint family properties or self-acquired properties of the deceased Ravindra Shanbhag, and what is the share of the mother (appellant) in the said properties.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 03.03.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Honavar, in O.S.No.15/2014 is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Hindu Succession Act
- 1956
- Section 8
- Section 6
- Section 30
- Partition
- Joint Family Property
- Self-Acquired Property
- Coparcenary
- Class I Heirs
- Mother's Share
