Case Note & Summary
This is a defendant's appeal against a judgment and decree dated 28.07.2009 passed by the XV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in O.S.No.5821/1990, decreeing the suit for partition and separate possession. The plaintiff, M. Ramaswamy Reddy, claimed that he and the defendant, P.V. Krishnappa (since deceased, represented by legal representatives), were co-owners of land bearing survey no.16/1, Byatarayanapura, Yelahanka hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring about 2 acres and 9 guntas. The land was acquired under a sale deed dated 24.4.1972 from Nanjappa and four others for Rs.10,000/-. The plaintiff alleged that he contributed Rs.7,000/- and the defendant contributed Rs.3,000/-, and that the defendant acknowledged this ratio in a document dated 10.1.1982. The plaintiff also claimed to have paid the land revenue for the entire property. Differences arose, and the plaintiff demanded partition in the ratio of 70:30, which the defendant refused, leading to the suit. The defendant denied the plaintiff's claim, asserting that they were equal owners and that there was no acknowledgment. The trial court framed issues and, after trial, decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff and defendant were co-owners in equal shares. The defendant appealed. The High Court, after hearing arguments, dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's judgment. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the acknowledgment or his alleged contribution of Rs.7,000/-. The sale deed and revenue records did not specify any shares, and in the absence of evidence, co-owners are presumed to hold equal shares. The court also noted that the plaintiff did not examine any witness to prove the acknowledgment. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Partition Suit - Co-ownership - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff claimed 70% share based on alleged contribution and acknowledgment, but failed to prove the acknowledgment or the contribution. The trial court correctly held that the sale deed and revenue records showed equal shares. The appellate court affirmed that the burden was on the plaintiff to prove his claim, which he failed to discharge. (Paras 3-6) B) Evidence - Acknowledgment - Proof of Document - The plaintiff relied on an acknowledgment dated 10.1.1982 to prove the defendant's admission of 70:30 sharing. However, the defendant denied the document, and the plaintiff did not examine any witness to prove it. The court held that the acknowledgment was not proved and could not be relied upon. (Paras 3-5) C) Property Law - Co-ownership - Equal Shares - Presumption - In the absence of evidence to the contrary, co-owners are presumed to hold equal shares. The sale deed and revenue records showing joint names without specifying shares support equal ownership. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff and defendant were co-owners of the suit property in the ratio of 70:30 or as equal shares?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's judgment and decree dated 28.07.2009 in O.S.No.5821/1990, which decreed the suit for partition and separate possession in equal shares. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Partition suit
- co-ownership
- burden of proof
- acknowledgment
- sale deed
- revenue records
- Section 96 CPC
