Case Note & Summary
The High Court dismissed an appeal filed by defendant No.4 against a trial Court decree granting the plaintiff a 1/5th share in suit item No.5 in a partition suit. The appellant argued that item No.5 was self-acquired through his independent income as a contractor and should not be treated as joint family property. The Court found that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove self-acquisition, as the property was purchased during the joint family's existence and with income linked to family sources. Relying on the presumption under Hindu law and the burden of proof, the Court upheld the trial Court's decision, confirming that item No.5 was joint family property subject to partition.
Headnote
The High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad dismissed a Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) -- The appeal challenged the judgment and decree dated 09.07.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Gangavathi in O.S.No.58/2014 -- The trial Court had decreed the suit for partition, granting the plaintiff and defendants a 1/5th share in suit schedule item Nos.3, 5, 6, and 8, treating them as joint family properties -- The appellant, defendant No.4, contended that item No.5 was self-acquired through his independent income as a contractor and should not be subject to partition -- The Court held that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving self-acquisition, as the evidence indicated that the property was purchased during the existence of the joint family and with income derived from joint family sources -- The presumption under Hindu law that property standing in a family member's name is joint family property was not rebutted -- The appeal was dismissed, upholding the trial Court's decree in respect of item No.5
Issue of Consideration
The Issue of whether the trial Court erred in granting a share in suit item No.5 to the plaintiff, treating it as joint family property, despite the appellant's claim of self-acquisition through independent income
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial Court's judgment and decree in respect of granting a share in suit item No.5
Law Points
- Burden of proof lies on the party asserting self-acquisition of property to establish independent income and separate acquisition
- Presumption under Hindu law that property standing in the name of a family member is joint family property unless rebutted
- Principles of partition under Hindu law entitle all coparceners to equal shares in joint family properties
- Documentary evidence such as sale deeds and revenue records are crucial in determining ownership and nature of property
Case Details
2026 LawText (KAR) (01) 56
Regular First Appeal No.100414 of 2018
Dr. Justice K. Manmadha Rao
Sri. Sridhar S/o Late G. Krishnamurthy
Lalitha D/o Late G. Krishnamurthy, Smt. Srilakshmi W/o Late G. Krishnamurthy, Smt. Valaramati W/o Radhakrishna, Smt. Renuka W/o Veeresh Gonal
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Partition suit for separate possession of alleged joint family properties
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought to set aside the trial Court's judgment and decree granting a share in suit item No.5 to the plaintiff
Filing Reason
The appellant contended that the trial Court erred in treating item No.5 as joint family property, as it was self-acquired through his independent income
Previous Decisions
The trial Court decreed the suit in part, granting a 1/5th share to the plaintiff and defendants in suit schedule item Nos.3, 5, 6, and 8
Issues
Whether the trial Court erred in granting a share in suit item No.5 to the plaintiff, treating it as joint family property, despite the appellant's claim of self-acquisition through independent income
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that item No.5 was purchased with his independent income as a contractor and should not be subject to partition
The appellant contended that the trial Court failed to consider evidence of loans taken for medical expenses and lack of surplus income from joint family properties
Ratio Decidendi
The burden of proving self-acquisition of property lies on the party asserting it, and the appellant failed to discharge this burden as the evidence indicated the property was acquired during the joint family's existence with income from family sources, thus the presumption under Hindu law that property in a family member's name is joint family property was not rebutted
Judgment Excerpts
The trial Court based on the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit in part with costs
It is held that the plaintiffs and defendants are entitled to a 1/5th share in the suit schedule item Nos.3, 5, 6 and 8 properties
Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant No.4 submitted that the finding of the trial Court granting a share in item No.5 of the suit schedule property is perverse, against both oral and documentary evidence
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed O.S.No.58/2014 for partition and separate possession -- The trial Court decreed the suit in part on 09.07.2018 -- The appellant filed Regular First Appeal No.100414 of 2018 under Section 96 of CPC -- The appeal was heard and reserved for judgment on 20.01.2026 -- Judgment was delivered on 30.01.2026
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96
- Hindu Law: Principles of partition, Presumption of joint family property
