Case Note & Summary
The appeal was filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 09.10.2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag, in O.S.No.91/2013, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession was decreed. The plaintiffs, Bharati (wife of Tanaji Nikam) and Kumari Varsha (daughter of Tanaji Nikam), sought partition of the suit schedule properties claiming that they are entitled to a share in the properties which are the separate property of the first defendant, Tanaji Nikam. The defendants, who are the brothers and sisters of Tanaji Nikam, contested the suit. The trial court decreed the suit granting 1/3rd share each to the plaintiffs in the 1/6th share of the first defendant. The High Court, in appeal, considered the submissions and held that the plaintiffs, being the wife and daughter of the first defendant, are entitled to a share in his separate property as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The court noted that the first defendant was alive and the claim was for maintenance and future share. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the trial court's decree.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Partition - Separate Property - Entitlement of Wife and Daughter - The plaintiffs, wife and daughter of the first defendant, sought partition of suit properties which were the separate property of the first defendant. The trial court decreed the suit granting 1/3rd share each to the plaintiffs in the 1/6th share of the first defendant. The High Court upheld the decree, holding that under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the wife and daughter are Class I heirs and entitled to succeed to the separate property of the deceased. However, since the first defendant was alive, the court considered the claim for maintenance and future share. The appeal was dismissed. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiffs, being the wife and daughter of the first defendant, are entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties which are the separate property of the first defendant?
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 09.10.2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag, in O.S.No.91/2013 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Hindu Succession Act
- 1956
- Section 8
- Section 15
- Section 16
- Partition
- Separate Property
- Coparcenary Property
- Share of Widow and Daughter
Case Details
2022 LawText (KAR) (03) 20
Regular First Appeal No.100256/2015
H.T.Narendra Prasad, Rajendra Badamikar
Smt. Bharathi G. Bhat (for appellants), Sri. Sangram S. Kulkarni (for respondents)
Tanaji S/o Nayaku Nikam (since dead by L.Rs. Smt. Vandana W/o Tanaji Nikam, Kumar Shree S/o Tanaji Nikam, Sambhaji S/o Nayaku Nikam, Shivaji S/o Nayaku Nikam, Rajaram S/o Nayaku Nikam, Babita W/o Ramachandra Bhosle, Deepali W/o Mohan Patil)
Bharati W/o Tanaji Nikam, Kumari Varsha D/o Tanaji Nikam (minor represented by guardian mother Bharati)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for partition and separate possession of suit schedule properties.
Remedy Sought
Plaintiffs sought partition and separate possession of their share in the suit schedule properties.
Filing Reason
Plaintiffs claimed that they are entitled to a share in the properties which are the separate property of the first defendant, being his wife and daughter.
Previous Decisions
The trial court decreed the suit granting 1/3rd share each to the plaintiffs in the 1/6th share of the first defendant.
Issues
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties which are the separate property of the first defendant?
Whether the trial court's decree granting 1/3rd share each to the plaintiffs in the 1/6th share of the first defendant is sustainable?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the suit properties are not joint family properties but separate properties of the first defendant, and the plaintiffs have no right to claim partition during his lifetime.
Respondents argued that as wife and daughter, they are entitled to maintenance and a share in the property under the Hindu Succession Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The plaintiffs, being the wife and daughter of the first defendant, are entitled to a share in his separate property as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The trial court correctly granted 1/3rd share each to the plaintiffs in the 1/6th share of the first defendant.
Judgment Excerpts
This appeal is filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 09.10.2015 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag, in O.S.No.91/2013, whereby the learned Senior Civil Judge has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs by awarding them 1/3rd share each in the 1/6th share of first defendant in the suit schedule properties.
Procedural History
The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.91/2013 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag, seeking partition and separate possession. The trial court decreed the suit on 09.10.2015. The defendants appealed to the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, by filing Regular First Appeal No.100256/2015. The High Court dismissed the appeal on 15.03.2022.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Section 96, Order 41 Rule 1
- Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Section 8, Section 15, Section 16
