Case Note & Summary
The case involves a partition suit filed by the respondents (daughters and mother) against the appellants (sons) seeking partition of joint family properties. The trial court partly decreed the suit, ordering partition of items 1 and 3 to 9 of the suit schedule properties. The appellants appealed, arguing that those properties were self-acquired and not joint family properties. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the appellants failed to prove that the properties were self-acquired. The court upheld the trial court's finding that the properties were joint family properties, but modified the decree to exclude certain items that were not properly proved. The appeal was partly allowed, and the decree was modified accordingly.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Joint Family Property - Partition - Burden of Proof - The appellants contended that certain properties were self-acquired and not joint family properties, but failed to discharge the burden of proof. The court held that the presumption of jointness in a Hindu family continues until rebutted, and the trial court correctly found the properties to be joint family properties. (Paras 1-10)
B) Civil Procedure - Appeal - Regular First Appeal - Section 96 CPC - The appeal was filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment and decree of the trial court. The High Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the decree in respect of certain items. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit schedule properties are joint family properties liable for partition, and whether the trial court erred in decreeing partition in respect of items 1 and 3 to 9.
Final Decision
The High Court partly allowed the appeals, modifying the trial court's decree in respect of certain items. The court upheld the finding that the properties were joint family properties but excluded items that were not properly proved.
Law Points
- Partition
- Joint Family Property
- Burden of Proof
- Hindu Succession Act
- 1956
- Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
Case Details
2015 LawText (KAR) (07) 24
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, Advocates (for appellants in RFA 169/2009); Shri Uday Holla, Senior Advocate for Shri Vivek Holla, Advocate (for respondent No.1 in RFA 169/2009 and appellant in RFA 342/2009); Shri Ramesh P Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (in RFA 169/2009)
Sri. S. Sundaramurthy and Sri. Shanmugam (in RFA 169/2009); Smt. Saraswathy Lakshmanan (in RFA 342/2009)
Smt. Saraswathi Lakshmanan and others (in RFA 169/2009); Sri. 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 appellants sought to set aside the trial court's decree in respect of items 1 and 3 to 9 of the suit schedule properties.
Filing Reason
The appellants contended that the trial court erred in decreeing partition of properties that were self-acquired and not joint family properties.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (XXXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore) partly decreed the suit in O.S.No.1672/1993 on 6.1.2009, ordering partition of items 1 and 3 to 9.
Issues
Whether the suit schedule properties are joint family properties liable for partition.
Whether the trial court erred in decreeing partition in respect of items 1 and 3 to 9.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that items 1 and 3 to 9 were self-acquired properties and not joint family properties.
Respondents argued that the properties were joint family properties and the trial court correctly decreed partition.
Ratio Decidendi
In a Hindu joint family, there is a presumption of jointness, and the burden lies on the party claiming a property to be self-acquired to prove it. The appellants failed to discharge this burden.
Judgment Excerpts
The appeal is partly allowed.
The judgment and decree of the trial court is modified.
Procedural History
The suit was filed in 1993 before the XXXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, which partly decreed the suit on 6.1.2009. Two regular first appeals were filed against that decree.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96
