Case Note & Summary
The litigation arose from two suits concerning a house property bearing Municipal No. 8-11-181/800 in Raichur, claimed as joint family property of which Jambulingayya Hiremath was the Karta. In O.S. No. 49/2003, his son Chandrashekhar Hiremath sought partition of the suit house and cancellation of a Gift Deed executed in 1999 by Jambulingayya in favour of his eldest son Veeresh (deceased), alleging the gift was unauthorized and void as the property had a building and was not a vacant plot. In O.S. No. 31/2006, the widow and sons of Veeresh sought a declaration that a Revocation Deed executed in 2004 by Jambulingayya was illegal and void, and sought permanent injunction. The Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Raichur, heard both suits together and passed a common judgment on 31.03.2010. Appeals were dismissed by the I Additional District Judge, Raichur, on 31.03.2015, confirming the trial court's judgment. The LRs of Jambulingayya and Chandrashekhar filed second appeals before the High Court. The High Court heard the appeals and reserved judgment on 05.02.2020, but the provided text does not include the final decision or reasoning.
Issue of Consideration
Validity of a gift deed executed by a Hindu joint family karta in favour of one coparcener, and validity of a subsequent revocation deed.
Case Details
2020 LawText (KAR) (02) 57
R.S.A.No.200221/2015 c/w R.S.A.No.200220/2015
Dr. Justice H.B. Prabhakara Sastry
Sri Ameetkumar Deshpande for appellants, Sri V.K. Nayak for respondents, and Arun Kumar V. Hiremath party-in-person
LRs of Jambulingayya Hiremath (Smt. Hemavathi, Sadyojot, Shivakumar, Smt. Sridevi, Chandrashekhar)
Smt. Akkamahadevi @ Shashikala, Arun Kumar, Kirankumar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suits involving declaration that a revocation deed is illegal and void (O.S. No. 31/2006) and suit for partition and cancellation of a gift deed (O.S. No. 49/2003), leading to second appeals before the High Court.
Remedy Sought
In O.S. No. 31/2006, plaintiffs sought declaration that the Revocation Deed No. 2409/03-04 dated 31-03-2004 is illegal and void, and permanent injunction restraining interference. In O.S. No. 49/2003, plaintiff sought partition and separate possession of the suit house and cancellation of Gift Deed No. 1471/99-2000 dated 09-09-1999.
Filing Reason
The plaintiff in O.S. No. 49/2003 alleged that the Gift Deed executed by the Karta in favour of one coparcener was unauthorized and void. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 31/2006 alleged that the Revocation Deed was illegal.
Previous Decisions
The Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Raichur, passed a common judgment on 31-03-2010 in both suits. The I Additional District Judge, Raichur, dismissed the appeals R.A. No. 55/2010 and R.A. No. 58/2010 on 31-03-2015, confirming the trial court's judgment.
Judgment Excerpts
R.S.A.No.200221/2015 has arisen from a common judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raichur ... in R.A.No.55/2010 dated 31-03-2015, which in turn, had arisen from a common judgment and decree dated 31-03-2010 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Raichur in O.S.No.31/2006
The plaintiff in O.S.No.49/2003 has further contended that, his suit is for partial partition only with regard to the suit house, reserving his right to the other joint family properties, since the rights and interest of brothers of defendant No.1 were involved.
Procedural History
O.S. No. 49/2003 was filed for partition and cancellation of Gift Deed; O.S. No. 31/2006 was filed for declaration that Revocation Deed is void and for injunction. The Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Raichur, tried both suits together and passed a common judgment on 31-03-2010. Appeals were filed as R.A. No. 55/2010 and R.A. No. 58/2010. The I Additional District Judge, Raichur, dismissed both appeals on 31-03-2015. Second appeals R.S.A. No. 200221/2015 and R.S.A. No. 200220/2015 were filed before the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench. The appeals were heard and reserved on 05-02-2020, and judgment was pronounced on 28-02-2020.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100, Order 41 Rule 1
- Hindu Succession Act, 1956:
