Case Note & Summary
The case involves a partition suit filed by the respondents (daughters and widow) against the appellants (sons) for partition of suit schedule properties. The trial court partly decreed the suit, holding some properties as joint family and others as self-acquired. The appellants appealed against the inclusion of items 1 and 3 to 9, claiming they were self-acquired or held adversely. The High Court re-appreciated the evidence and held that the trial court's finding on item 1 (ancestral property) was correct, but items 3 to 9 were not proved to be joint family property. The court modified the decree accordingly, granting the respondents shares only in the joint family properties. The appeal was partly allowed.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Partition - Joint Family Property - Presumption - Properties standing in the name of a coparcener are presumed to be joint family property if the family is joint, but the presumption can be rebutted by evidence of separate acquisition. The court examined whether the suit properties were ancestral or self-acquired. Held that the trial court correctly held some properties as joint family properties but erred in others. (Paras 1-20)
B) Evidence - Adverse Possession - Burden of Proof - The party claiming adverse possession must prove hostile possession for the statutory period. The appellants failed to establish adverse possession over certain items. Held that the claim of adverse possession was not proved. (Paras 21-30)
C) Civil Procedure - Appeal - Regular First Appeal - Under Section 96 CPC - The appellate court can re-appreciate evidence and modify the trial court's decree. The court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the shares in respect of certain properties. (Paras 31-40)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit schedule properties are joint family properties liable for partition, and whether certain items are self-acquired or held adversely by the appellants.
Final Decision
The High Court partly allowed the appeals, modifying the trial court's decree. It upheld the finding on item 1 as joint family property but excluded items 3 to 9 from partition, holding them as self-acquired or not proved to be joint family. The respondents were granted shares only in the joint family properties.
Law Points
- Partition
- Joint Family Property
- Self-Acquired Property
- Adverse Possession
- Burden of Proof
- Hindu Succession Act
- 1956
- Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
Case Details
2015 LawText (KAR) (07) 18
Regular First Appeal No.169 of 2009 and Regular First Appeal No.342 of 2009
Shri B.V. Acharya, Senior Advocate for Shri Ajesh Kumar S. and Shri Shanmukappa (for appellants in RFA 169/2009); Shri Uday Holla, Senior Advocate for Shri Vivek Holla (for respondent No.1 in RFA 169/2009 and appellant in RFA 342/2009); Shri Ramesh P. Kulkarni (for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in RFA 169/2009)
S. Sundaramurthy and Shanmugam (in RFA 169/2009); Saraswathi Lakshmanan (in RFA 342/2009)
Saraswathi Lakshmanan and others (in RFA 169/2009); S. Sundaramurthy and others (in RFA 342/2009)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for partition and separate possession of joint family properties.
Remedy Sought
The plaintiffs (respondents) sought partition of suit schedule properties and allotment of their shares.
Filing Reason
Dispute over whether certain properties were joint family or self-acquired, and whether the appellants had acquired title by adverse possession.
Previous Decisions
The trial court partly decreed the suit on 6.1.2009 in O.S.No.1672/1993, holding some properties as joint family and others as self-acquired.
Issues
Whether the suit schedule properties are joint family properties liable for partition.
Whether the appellants have acquired title to certain items by adverse possession.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that items 1 and 3 to 9 were self-acquired or held adversely, not joint family property.
Respondents argued that all properties were joint family and liable for partition.
Ratio Decidendi
The presumption of joint family property can be rebutted by evidence of separate acquisition. The burden of proof lies on the party claiming a property to be joint family. Adverse possession must be proved by clear and hostile possession for the statutory period.
Judgment Excerpts
The trial court's finding on item 1 as ancestral property is correct.
Items 3 to 9 are not proved to be joint family property.
Procedural History
The suit was filed in 1993 as O.S.No.1672/1993 before the XXXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, which partly decreed the suit on 6.1.2009. The appellants filed RFA 169/2009 and the respondent filed RFA 342/2009 against the decree. The High Court heard both appeals together and delivered judgment on 21.7.2015.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96
- Hindu Succession Act, 1956:
