Case Note & Summary
The case involves a partition suit filed by the plaintiffs, who are the daughters of the deceased K.R. Basegowda, against the defendants, who are the legal representatives of K.R. Annegowda. The plaintiffs sought a half share in the suit schedule properties, claiming that the properties were joint family properties. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, granting them an equal half share. The defendants appealed to the first appellate court, which reversed the trial court's judgment and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs then filed a second appeal before the High Court. The High Court considered the evidence and found that the first appellate court had erred in reversing the trial court's decree. The High Court noted that the trial court had properly appreciated the evidence and that the first appellate court had failed to consider the legal principles regarding joint family property and the burden of proof. The High Court held that the plaintiffs, as daughters, are entitled to a share in the joint family properties under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the first appellate court's judgment, and restored the trial court's decree for partition.
Headnote
A) Hindu Succession Act - Daughter's Right to Share - Section 6, 8, 15 - The plaintiffs, daughters of the deceased K.R. Basegowda, claimed a share in the joint family properties. The trial court decreed equal half share, but the first appellate court reversed it. The High Court held that the plaintiffs are entitled to a share as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and that the first appellate court erred in its reasoning. (Paras 1-10)
B) Partition - Joint Family Property - Burden of Proof - The burden to prove that the properties were not joint family properties lies on the party asserting separate ownership. The first appellate court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and wrongly shifted the burden. (Paras 5-8)
C) Appellate Court's Power - Reversal of Findings - The first appellate court must not lightly reverse a well-reasoned trial court judgment. The High Court found that the first appellate court's judgment was perverse and not based on evidence. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiffs, as daughters of the deceased K.R. Basegowda, are entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties, and whether the first appellate court was justified in reversing the trial court's decree for partition.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Judgment and decree of the first appellate court in RA No.16/2003 dated 16-12-2008 set aside. Judgment and decree of the trial court in OS No.175/1997 dated 10-06-2003 restored. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Hindu Succession Act
- 1956
- Section 6
- Section 8
- Section 15
- Partition
- Joint Family Property
- Coparcenary
- Daughter's Right to Share
- Burden of Proof
- Appellate Court's Power to Reverse Findings
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (05) 4
Sri B H Shamanna & A S Girish for A-1 to A-5, Sri Suhas P for Sri Ravi and Ravi for A-6, Smt. Deepika Joshi for Sri H V Ramachandra Rao for R1(a), Sri Deviprasad Shetty for R1(b)
Pallavi, Pruthvi, Sri Ashwath, Sri Ajith, Sri Abhiman, Smt. Bhavani
K.R. Annegowda (since dead by his L.Rs: K.A. Shekar, K.A. Sathish, K.A. Shaila)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil second appeal against judgment and decree in partition suit.
Remedy Sought
Plaintiffs sought setting aside of first appellate court's judgment and restoration of trial court's decree granting equal half share in suit schedule properties.
Filing Reason
Plaintiffs, daughters of deceased K.R. Basegowda, claimed share in joint family properties; trial court decreed in their favor, but first appellate court reversed.
Previous Decisions
Trial court decreed suit in OS No.175/1997 on 10-06-2003 granting equal half share to plaintiffs. First appellate court in RA No.16/2003 on 16-12-2008 allowed appeal and dismissed suit.
Issues
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties as daughters of the deceased?
Whether the first appellate court was justified in reversing the trial court's decree?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the trial court correctly decreed partition and the first appellate court erred.
Respondents argued that the properties were not joint family properties and plaintiffs had no right.
Ratio Decidendi
The plaintiffs, as daughters of the deceased, are entitled to a share in the joint family properties under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The first appellate court erred in reversing the trial court's well-reasoned judgment without proper appreciation of evidence and legal principles.
Judgment Excerpts
This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Chikmagalur, in R.A.No.16/2003 on 16-12-2008.
The said Regular Appeal was preferred by the defendants in OS No.175/1997 as the suit filed by the plaintiffs came to be decreed by the learned trial Judge on 10-06-2003 holding that plaintiffs are entitled for equal half share in all the suit schedule properties.
The learned Principal District Judge, Chikmagalur, allowed the appeal preferred by the defendants and consequently, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking partition.
Procedural History
Plaintiffs filed OS No.175/1997 for partition before Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Chikmagalur, which was decreed on 10-06-2003. Defendants appealed in RA No.16/2003 before Principal District Judge, Chikmagalur, which was allowed on 16-12-2008, dismissing the suit. Plaintiffs filed RSA No.354/2009 before High Court of Karnataka, which was allowed on 27-05-2019, restoring trial court decree.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Section 100
- Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Section 6, Section 8, Section 15
