Case Note & Summary
The case involves a partition suit filed by the plaintiffs, who are the wife and son of the deceased Santhosh, against defendant No.1, the father of Santhosh, and other defendants. The plaintiffs claimed that the suit schedule properties were joint family properties and that they were entitled to a 1/2 share. They challenged a gift deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and a subsequent sale deed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3, arguing that these transfers were not binding on them. The defendants contended that the properties were not joint family properties and that the transfers were valid. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs, and the first appellate court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the share. The High Court, in this second appeal under Section 100 CPC, upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, holding that the properties were joint family properties and that the gift deed and sale deed were not binding on the plaintiffs. The court dismissed the appeal, confirming the decree for partition and separate possession.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Joint Family Property - Gift Deed - Validity - The suit schedule properties were held to be joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1, being the father of the deceased Santhosh. The gift deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 was not binding on the plaintiffs, who are the wife and son of the deceased Santhosh, as they had a right by birth in the joint family property. (Paras 1-10)
B) Transfer of Property Act - Sale Deed - Binding Nature - The sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 was also held not binding on the plaintiffs, as defendant No.2 had no valid title to convey. The court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the properties were joint family properties and the plaintiffs were entitled to a share. (Paras 11-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and whether the gift deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and the subsequent sale deed in favour of defendant No.3 are binding on the plaintiffs.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, which had partly allowed the appeal and modified the share. The court held that the suit schedule properties were joint family properties and that the gift deed and sale deed were not binding on the plaintiffs.
Law Points
- Partition
- Joint Family Property
- Gift Deed
- Sale Deed
- Binding Nature
- Legal Heirs' Rights
Case Details
2023 LawText (KAR) (10) 2
R.S.A. No.1090/2020 (PAR)
Sri A. Madhusudhana Rao (for appellant), Sri Vinod Gowda (for C/R1 and R2), Sri G. Chandrashekharaiah (for R3), Sri S.D.N. Prasad (for R4)
Smt. T.N. Susheelamma (since dead by LRs: Smt. A.C. Savitha)
Sri. Chirag Raghavendra, Smt. M.D. Prathima, Sri M.C. Nagesh, Sri A.A. Chandregowda
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against the judgment and decree in a partition suit.
Remedy Sought
The plaintiffs sought partition and separate possession of their share in the suit schedule properties, and a declaration that the gift deed and sale deed were not binding on them.
Filing Reason
The plaintiffs claimed that the suit schedule properties were joint family properties and that the gift deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and the subsequent sale deed were not binding on them.
Previous Decisions
The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. The first appellate court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the share. The present appeal is against the first appellate court's judgment.
Issues
Whether the suit schedule properties are joint family properties?
Whether the gift deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is binding on the plaintiffs?
Whether the sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 is binding on the plaintiffs?
Submissions/Arguments
The plaintiffs argued that the properties were joint family properties and that they had a right by birth, making the gift deed and sale deed not binding.
The defendants contended that the properties were not joint family properties and that the transfers were valid.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the suit schedule properties were joint family properties and that the plaintiffs, being the wife and son of the deceased son, had a right by birth. Therefore, the gift deed executed by the father in favour of another son and the subsequent sale deed were not binding on the plaintiffs.
Judgment Excerpts
The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and 2 in this appeal that suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 who is the father of deceased Santhosh and plaintiffs are the wife and son of the deceased Santhosh and they are entitled for share in the suit schedule properties of ½ share and gift deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is not binding.
Procedural History
The plaintiffs filed O.S. No.53/2014 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudigere, seeking partition. The trial court decreed the suit. The defendants appealed in R.A. No.70/2017 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, which partly allowed the appeal. The appellant then filed the present second appeal under Section 100 CPC before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): 100
