High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Appeal in Partition Suit — Upholds Daughter's Right to 1/6th Share in Self-Acquired Property. The court held that the suit properties were self-acquired by the mother and not ancestral, and that daughters are entitled to equal share under Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Prosecution

Admin

2026-05-18 15:52:47

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a Regular First Appeal filed by Defendant Nos. 1 and 5, father and son, against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2015 passed by the 42nd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S. No. 2697/2010. The suit was filed by the first respondent, Smt. Nirmala, seeking partition and separate possession of her 1/6th share in the suit properties. The properties were originally purchased by Smt. Eramma, wife of Thimmaiah, through a registered sale deed. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/6th share in the suit properties by metes and bounds along with mesne profits, and directed a separate enquiry regarding mesne profits. The appellants challenged the decree, arguing that the properties were ancestral and not self-acquired. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the properties were self-acquired by Eramma and not ancestral, and that the daughters are entitled to equal share under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The court held that there was no substantial question of law involved and dismissed the appeal with costs, confirming the trial court's decree.

Headnote

A) Hindu Law - Partition - Self-Acquired Property - Suit properties purchased by mother Eramma through registered sale deed - Held that properties are self-acquired and not ancestral, thus daughters are entitled to equal share under Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Court upheld the trial court's decree granting 1/6th share to plaintiff (Paras 2-5).

B) Civil Procedure - Regular First Appeal - Section 96 CPC - Appeal against preliminary decree in partition suit - Held that no substantial question of law arises - Appeal dismissed with costs (Paras 1-6).

Issue of Consideration

Whether the suit properties are ancestral or self-acquired, and whether the plaintiff-daughter is entitled to a share in the properties.

Final Decision

Appeal dismissed with costs. The judgment and decree dated 18.12.2015 passed in O.S. No. 2697/2010 by the 42nd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is confirmed.

Law Points

Partition suit
Hindu Succession Act
1956
self-acquired property
daughter's right to share
mesne profits
preliminary decree
Regular First Appeal under Section 96 CPC

Case Details

NC: 2024:KHC:6869-DB

Regular First Appeal No. 491 of 2016 (PAR)

2024-02-19

Krishna S Dixit, G Basavaraja

NC: 2024:KHC:6869-DB

Sri. Sadanand Shastri (for A2), Sri. B Ramesh (for R1), Sri. A G Ravikumar (for R2), Sri. Venkateshwara Balu (for R3), Sri. Mahadevaswamy (for R4)

Sri. T. Narayana Reddy and Sri. Lokesh

Smt. Nirmala, Smt. Manjula N, Smt. Sukanya, Smt. Lakshmi

Nature of Litigation

Regular First Appeal against judgment and decree in a partition suit.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought to challenge the trial court's decree granting 1/6th share to the plaintiff-respondent.

Filing Reason

Appellants contended that the suit properties were ancestral and not self-acquired, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to a share.

Previous Decisions

Trial court decreed the suit in O.S. No. 2697/2010 on 18.12.2015, granting 1/6th share to the plaintiff.

Issues

Whether the suit properties are ancestral or self-acquired? Whether the plaintiff-daughter is entitled to a share in the suit properties?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the properties were ancestral and not self-acquired. Respondents supported the trial court's finding that properties were self-acquired and daughters are entitled to share.

Ratio Decidendi

The suit properties were self-acquired by Smt. Eramma and not ancestral, hence the daughters are entitled to equal share under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. No substantial question of law arises.

Judgment Excerpts

This Appeal by Defendant Nos. 1 & 5, father & son seeks to lay a challenge to the judgement & Decree dated 18.12.2015 whereby the partition suit in O.S.No.2697/2010 filed by first Respondent- Smt. Nirmala has been decreed. The plaintiff is entitled to get 1/6th share in the suit properties by metes and bounds along with mesne profits.

Procedural History

The suit O.S. No. 2697/2010 was filed by Smt. Nirmala for partition. The trial court decreed the suit on 18.12.2015. The defendants filed Regular First Appeal No. 491 of 2016 before the High Court of Karnataka. The appeal was heard and dismissed on 19.02.2024.