Case Note & Summary
The Regular First Appeal No.4169 of 2012 was filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, by Smt. Mahiboobbi W/o Noorsab Dhalayat, who was defendant no.5 in the original suit. The respondents were the plaintiffs and other defendants in the suit. The suit, O.S.No.10/2010, was filed before the Senior Civil Judge, Bilagi, seeking partition and separate possession of the suit land bearing Survey No.403/1A measuring 1 acre 20 guntas in Bilagi town. The plaintiffs claimed a 5/7th share in the property. The trial court partly decreed the suit on 1.9.2012, granting the plaintiffs' claim. The appellant, being aggrieved, filed the present appeal. The appellant contended that she had purchased a portion of the suit property and had acquired independent title or, alternatively, title by adverse possession. The respondents argued that the property was joint family property and the appellant had no independent right. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the appellant failed to produce any evidence to prove her claim of adverse possession or independent title. The court noted that the appellant did not establish exclusive possession or ouster of the co-owners. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, and the trial court's decree was upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Appeal against decree - Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Regular First Appeal against judgment and decree in partition suit - The appellant, defendant no.5, challenged the trial court's decree granting 5/7th share to plaintiffs - Held that the appeal was devoid of merit and dismissed (Para 2-3). B) Property Law - Partition - Joint family property - Suit for partition and separate possession - Plaintiffs claimed 5/7th share in suit land bearing Survey No.403/1A measuring 1 acre 20 guntas - The trial court partly decreed the suit - Held that the plaintiffs established their share in the joint family property (Para 2). C) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Burden of proof - Appellant claimed independent title and adverse possession - The appellant failed to produce evidence of exclusive possession or ouster of co-owners - Held that the appellant did not prove adverse possession (Para 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant, a purchaser of a portion of the suit property, had acquired title by adverse possession or independent title, and whether the trial court erred in granting 5/7th share to the plaintiffs.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit. The judgment and decree of the trial court are upheld.
Law Points
- Adverse possession
- Burden of proof
- Partition suit
- Joint family property
- Independent title
- Section 96 CPC
