Case Note & Summary
The case involves a regular first appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2013 in O.S.No.248/2006 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad, which dismissed his suit for partition, separate possession, and mesne profits. The parties are the sons of late Pawadeppa Guddad; the plaintiff and four defendants. The plaintiff contended that all suit schedule properties were joint family properties acquired from the income of the family commission agency business, originally carried on by their father, and that he was entitled to a 1/5th share. He had been employed elsewhere, which led to his removal from the partnership for convenience, but he never relinquished his rights. He claimed that in 2004, defendants induced him to sign documents under false pretenses and later used them to assert a prior partition. The defendants, on the other hand, denied the joint family nature of the properties. They argued that many properties were separate properties of the father acquired through purchase or gift, and that the plaintiff had already received his share through gifts and had executed a relinquishment deed in 2004, thereby recognizing a partition. They also contended that the business was not a joint family venture. The trial court dismissed the suit, leading to this appeal. The judgment text provided is incomplete and does not contain the court's analysis, findings, or final decision; only the introductory part, facts, and pleadings are available. Therefore, the court's reasoning, final order, and legal principles applied are not captured. The appeal was heard by a division bench of the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, and judgment was reserved.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit properties are joint family properties or separate properties; Whether there was a prior partition by way of relinquishment deeds; Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a share in the properties; Whether the partnership business is joint family business
Case Details
2021 LawText (KAR) (09) 39
Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.B.Bajanthri, Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.G.S. Kamal
Shri K.L.Patil (Appellant), Shri R.H. Angadi (Respondents 1(a-c), 2 & 3)
Shri Somashekhar S/o.Pawadeappa Guddad
Channappa S/o.Pawadeppa Guddad (since deceased) rep. by LRs Smt.Dakshayani, Sri.Mallikarjun, Smt.Danamma; Sri.Shivappa S/o.Pawadeppa Guddad; Sri.Basavaraj S/o.Pawadeppa Guddad; Smt.Mahananda W/o.Shripad Bagi; Sri.Basavaraj S/o.Shankaralingappa Gadag
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for partition, separate possession, and mesne profits of joint family properties
Remedy Sought
Appellant/plaintiff sought partition of properties, separate possession of his 1/5th share, and mesne profits
Filing Reason
Defendants refused to partition the joint family properties and denied plaintiff's share, claiming prior partition and separate ownership
Previous Decisions
Trial Court (Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad) dismissed the suit in O.S.No.248/2006 by judgment dated 30.11.2013
Issues
Whether the suit properties constitute joint family properties
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a share in the properties
Whether there was a valid prior partition or relinquishment by the plaintiff
Whether the partnership business is a joint family business
Whether the suit is maintainable
Submissions/Arguments
Plaintiff: Suit properties are joint family properties acquired from income of commission agency business; he was a member of partnership and his name was removed for convenience; he never relinquished his rights; documents signed in 2004 were misused; he is entitled to 1/5th share.
Defendants: Many properties were separate properties of the propositus; there was a valid relinquishment deed executed by plaintiff in 2004; plaintiff was gifted portions earlier and had separated; the business was not joint family; plaintiff has no right to partition; suit is barred by estoppel and limitation.
Judgment Excerpts
The properties subject matter of the above suit are: (A-1) Partnership business, its assets and properties named as P.C.Guddad and Sons... which is a Commission Agency business in food grains.
That the Original Popositus one Pawadeppa Guddad... was carrying on the business of commission agency... all the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants.
defendants are making adverse claim against the interest of the plaintiff by asserting that the partition had been effected and that the plaintiff did not have any share in the properties.
Procedural History
Suit O.S.No.248/2006 filed before Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad, dismissed on 30.11.2013; Regular First Appeal No.100032/2014 filed before High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96
