High Court of Karnataka Allows Second Appeal in Partition Suit — Reverses First Appellate Court's Decree for Partition. Held that the plaintiff failed to prove joint family status and title over the suit property, and the First Appellate Court erred in reversing the Trial Court's dismissal without proper consideration of evidence.

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

Admin

2026-05-18 19:24:43

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a second appeal filed by the defendant (appellant) against the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.54/2016 dated 11.07.2018, which reversed the Trial Court's dismissal of the suit for partition and separate possession. The plaintiff (respondent) had filed the suit claiming 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property, alleging it to be joint family property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove that the property was joint family property and that he had any title or possession. The First Appellate Court reversed this decision and decreed the suit. The defendant appealed under Section 100 CPC. The High Court heard the appeal and framed a substantial question of law regarding the correctness of the reversal. The Court analyzed the evidence and found that the plaintiff had not produced any document to show that the property was acquired from joint family funds or that it was ancestral. The First Appellate Court had not properly appreciated the evidence and had merely reversed the Trial Court's findings without adequate reasoning. The High Court held that the First Appellate Court's judgment was perverse and unsustainable. Consequently, the second appeal was allowed, the First Appellate Court's judgment was set aside, and the Trial Court's decree dismissing the suit was restored.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The High Court, in a second appeal, can interfere with findings of fact only if they are perverse or based on no evidence. The First Appellate Court's reversal of the Trial Court's decree was set aside as it failed to properly appreciate the evidence regarding the plaintiff's failure to prove joint family status and title. (Paras 1-10)

B) Property Law - Partition - Burden of Proof - Joint Family Property - The plaintiff must prove that the suit property is joint family property and that he has a share therein. In the absence of such proof, the suit for partition cannot be decreed. (Paras 4-8)

C) Evidence Act - Appreciation of Evidence - Reversal of Findings - The First Appellate Court, while reversing the Trial Court's findings, must record reasons and demonstrate how the Trial Court's appreciation of evidence was erroneous. Failure to do so renders the reversal unsustainable. (Paras 5-9)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in reversing the Trial Court's judgment and decree dismissing the suit for partition and separate possession, without properly appreciating the evidence on record?

Final Decision

The second appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 11.07.2018 passed in R.A.No.54/2016 by the III Addl. District Judge, Mysuru, is set aside. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court dismissing the suit is restored.

Law Points

Partition suit
burden of proof
joint family property
reversal by first appellate court
substantial question of law
Section 100 CPC

Case Details

2024 LawText (KAR) (07) 17

R.S.A. NO.1971/2018 (PAR)

2024-06-22

H.P. Sandesh

Sri H C Shivaramu (for appellant), Sri Vinay N (for Sri Manmohan P N, for C/R3), Smt. Sinchana M R (for R2)

D Lingegowda

Smt. Gowramma (deceased), Nagesha, P. Narayana

Nature of Litigation

Second appeal against judgment and decree of First Appellate Court in a partition suit.

Remedy Sought

Appellant (defendant) sought to set aside the First Appellate Court's decree granting partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share to the plaintiff.

Filing Reason

The First Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court's dismissal of the suit for partition, and the defendant challenged that reversal.

Previous Decisions

Trial Court dismissed the suit; First Appellate Court reversed and decreed the suit.

Issues

Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in reversing the Trial Court's judgment without proper appreciation of evidence? Whether the plaintiff proved that the suit property is joint family property?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the plaintiff failed to prove joint family status and title over the property. Respondents supported the First Appellate Court's judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

In a partition suit, the plaintiff must prove that the property is joint family property and that he has a share. The First Appellate Court's reversal without proper appreciation of evidence is perverse and unsustainable under Section 100 CPC.

Judgment Excerpts

This second appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree of reversal passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.54/2016 on 11.07.2018 granting the relief of partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Trial Court to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

Procedural History

The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession before the Trial Court, which dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed to the First Appellate Court, which reversed the Trial Court's decision and decreed the suit. The defendant then filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC before the High Court.