Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by defendants 2, 3, and 4 against the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Krishna Raja Pete, in R.A.No.12/2006, which dismissed their appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 12.06.2003 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, K.R.Pet, in O.S.No.241/1995. The original suit was filed by the plaintiff, Smt. Puttalakshmamma, seeking partition and separate possession of her 5/12 share in the suit properties. The plaintiff claimed that the suit properties were joint family properties of herself, her husband (since deceased), and the defendants, who were her husband's brothers and their families. The defendants contested the suit, denying the plaintiff's relationship and alleging that there had been a prior partition in the family, by which the properties had been divided and the plaintiff had no subsisting share. The trial court, after considering the evidence, decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, holding that she was entitled to a 5/12 share. The lower appellate court affirmed this decision. In the second appeal, the High Court framed a substantial question of law regarding whether the concurrent findings were perverse or based on no evidence. The court examined the evidence and found that the plaintiff had successfully proved her relationship with the propositus and that the suit properties were joint family properties. The defendants failed to produce any documentary evidence to support their claim of prior partition, such as a partition deed or mutation entries showing division of title. The oral evidence of the defendants' witnesses was not sufficient to establish a prior partition. The High Court concluded that the findings of the courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose, and the second appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court in a second appeal can interfere only if there is a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence cannot be re-opened unless perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 1-3) B) Hindu Law - Partition - Joint Family Property - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff must prove that the suit properties are joint family properties and that she is a coparcener. Once the plaintiff establishes her relationship with the propositus and that the properties were ancestral, the burden shifts to the defendants to prove any prior partition. (Paras 2-4) C) Evidence - Prior Partition - Proof - The defendants failed to produce any documentary evidence such as a partition deed or revenue records showing division of title. Oral evidence of witnesses was not sufficient to prove a prior partition. (Paras 4-5) D) Hindu Law - Succession - Share of Widow - The plaintiff, as the widow of the propositus's son, is entitled to a share in the joint family properties. The trial court correctly granted her 5/12 share. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court confirming the trial court's decree for partition suffers from any perversity or raises a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Partition suit
- burden of proof
- joint family property
- prior partition
- concurrent findings of fact
- substantial question of law
- Section 100 CPC
