Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree of the I Additional District Judge, D.K. Mangalore, in R.A.No.12/2008 dated 05.09.2009, which dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the I Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Mangalore, in O.S.No.19/2001 dated 04.12.2007. The suit was for partition of the suit schedule property, where the plaintiff claimed a 1/6th share. The bone of contention was whether tenancy rights in respect of a joint Hindu family could be partitioned. The trial court and the first appellate court both held that tenancy rights are not joint family property and cannot be partitioned. The High Court, in the second appeal, framed a substantial question of law: whether tenancy rights can be partitioned. The court answered in the negative, holding that tenancy rights are not joint family property and cannot be partitioned. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the decisions of the lower courts.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Partition - Tenancy Rights - Tenancy rights are not joint family property and cannot be partitioned - The suit for partition of tenancy rights was dismissed as tenancy is a right to possess and cultivate land under a landlord, not an asset that can be divided among co-sharers - Held that the courts below correctly dismissed the suit (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether tenancy rights in respect of a joint Hindu family property can be partitioned among the members of the family.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree of the I Additional District Judge, D.K. Mangalore, in R.A.No.12/2008 dated 05.09.2009, confirming the judgment and decree of the I Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Mangalore, in O.S.No.19/2001 dated 04.12.2007, are confirmed.
Law Points
- Tenancy rights are not joint family property
- Tenancy rights cannot be partitioned
- Section 100 CPC
- Second appeal limited to substantial question of law
