Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 8.3.2013 in O.S. No.14/2008 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Itinerary Court, Shikaripura, decreeing the suit for partition, separate possession, and declaration. The appellants, Sri P. Kumaraswamy and Sri P.K. Jagadish, were the defendants in the suit, while the respondents, Smt. Jayamma and others, were the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought partition and separate possession of their share in the suit schedule properties, claiming they were daughters of the propositus Gurushanthappa and entitled to a share in the joint family property. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs had established their share and that the suit was not barred by limitation. The defendants appealed, arguing that the suit was barred by limitation and that the plaintiffs had no right to the property. The High Court of Karnataka, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's decree. The court held that the suit for partition was not barred by limitation as the property remained joint and no ouster was proved. It further held that under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, daughters are coparceners by birth and entitled to equal share in joint family property. The court also found that the defendants failed to prove adverse possession or ouster. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Partition Suit - Limitation - Suit for partition is not barred by limitation as long as the property remains joint and no ouster is proved - The court held that the plaintiffs, being daughters, are entitled to a share in the joint family property under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the suit was filed within time (Paras 10-15). B) Hindu Law - Coparcenary Rights - Daughters' Share - Under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, daughters are coparceners by birth and entitled to equal share in joint family property - The court upheld the trial court's finding that the plaintiffs had established their share (Paras 16-20). C) Limitation Act - Adverse Possession - Ouster - For a claim of adverse possession against a co-owner, ouster must be pleaded and proved - The court found that the defendants failed to prove ouster, and therefore the suit for partition was not barred by limitation (Paras 21-25).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit for partition was barred by limitation and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the trial court's decree for partition and separate possession. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Partition suit
- limitation
- joint family property
- share of daughters
- Hindu Succession Act
- 1956
- Section 6
- coparcenary rights
- adverse possession
- ouster
- limitation for partition
- Article 65 of Limitation Act
- 1963
