Case Note & Summary
This regular first appeal arose from a suit for partition and separate possession concerning property bearing Municipal Nos.43, 44 and 45 at Subedar Chatram Road, Bengaluru. The plaintiffs, who are the wife and two sons of defendant No.1, claimed that although the suit property stood in the name of late Smt. Lalithamma, it had been acquired by her husband late Sri D.M. Subbaiah from the income and resources of the joint family and was held in her name only for convenience. Defendant No.1, the husband and father, executed a registered Sale Deed dated 22.12.2004 in favour of the appellant purchaser, which the plaintiffs sought to have declared not binding on their shares. The Trial Court decreed the suit, held that the suit schedule property constituted joint family property, declared the sale deed not binding on the plaintiffs' 1/4th share each, and granted partition and separate possession. The appellant challenged this decree under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. During the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiffs filed applications for additional evidence and amendment of the plaint. The High Court initially allowed these applications and remanded the matter, but the Supreme Court set aside that remand, dismissed the applications, and directed the High Court to decide the appeal on merits based on the existing trial court record. The core legal questions before the High Court were whether the suit property was joint family property despite the registered sale deed in the name of Smt. Lalithamma, whether defendant No.1 had a right to alienate the entire property, and whether the sale deed was binding on the plaintiffs' shares. The appellant contended that Lalithamma was the absolute owner and defendant No.1 succeeded to the property and validly sold it; the plaintiffs contended that the property was joint family property and defendant No.1 had no exclusive right to alienate. The Supreme Court also noted that the plaintiffs had taken a contrary stand in their original plaint regarding legal heirs, which affected the High Court's decision to allow the amendment. The final operative portion of the High Court's CAV judgment is not included in the provided excerpt, but the judgment structure indicates that the court examined the nature of the suit property, relevant statutes, evidence, and the requisites of joint family property before concluding.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Regular First Appeal - Section 96 CPC - Appeal against decree for partition and separate possession challenging trial court's finding that suit property was joint family property and sale deed executed by defendant No.1 was not binding on plaintiffs' shares - High Court was required to decide appeal on merits after Supreme Court set aside earlier remand and dismissed applications for additional evidence and amendment - Held that appeal to be examined on basis of existing trial court record (Paras 1-5).
B) Hindu Law - Joint Family Property - Acquisition in name of female member - Plaintiffs pleaded that property purchased in name of Smt. Lalithamma was acquired by her husband from joint family funds and held for convenience; defendant No.2 contended she was absolute owner under registered Sale Deed dated 14.03.1963 - Central issue was whether property retained joint family character despite being registered in an individual name - Trial Court held it to be joint family property but appellate analysis was to be conducted afresh on merits (Paras 6-8).
C) Civil Procedure - Additional Evidence and Amendment - Order XLI Rule 27, Order VI Rule 17 CPC - Plaintiffs filed applications for additional evidence and plaint amendment during appeal; Supreme Court dismissed these applications, observing the High Court erred in allowing them and remanding without considering the contrary stand in the original plaint and absence of alleged co-owner from court - Appeal restored for decision on existing record, limiting High Court's review to evidence already before the Trial Court (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Suit Schedule Property constituted joint family property; whether defendant No.1 had exclusive right to alienate the property under Sale Deed dated 22.12.2004; whether the sale deed was binding on plaintiffs' shares; and whether the appeal should be decided on existing record after dismissal of applications for additional evidence and amendment.
Law Points
- Legal principles relating to joint family property
- benami acquisition from joint family funds
- binding effect of sale deed executed by coparcener
- scope of Section 96 CPC appeal
- and restrictions on additional evidence after Supreme Court remand
Case Details
2026 LawText (KAR) (08) 84
Regular First Appeal No. 1165 of 2009 (PAR)
Jayant Banerji, Tara Vitasta Ganju
Rohan Kothari, C. Shankara Reddy, P. Usman, K.R. Ashok Kumar
M/s. Rajesh Exports Limited (represented by its Authorised Officer M.K. Narang)
Sri B. Devaraj, B. Yogesh, Smt. B. Sarojamma, S. Balasubramanya (deleted), M/s. Volga Restaurant, M/s. Hotel Adora, Srinivasa Shetty (deceased, represented by LRs Smt. Nagalakshmi, S. Aruna Kumar, S. Venkatesh Babu)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Regular first appeal under Section 96 CPC against judgment and decree in a suit for partition and separate possession, challenging findings that suit property was joint family property and subsequent sale deed was not binding on plaintiffs' shares.
Remedy Sought
Appellant/defendant No.2 sought to set aside the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2009 and to dismiss the plaintiffs' suit, contending that the sale deed in its favour was valid and plaintiffs had no share.
Filing Reason
The Trial Court decreed the suit, holding the suit schedule property to be joint family property and the registered Sale Deed dated 22.12.2004 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 not binding on plaintiffs' 1/4 share each.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court decree dated 15.09.2009 in O.S. No.914/2005; High Court judgment dated 08.12.2023 allowing applications for additional evidence and amendment and remanding; Supreme Court order dated 22.04.2025 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5430/2025 setting aside the remand and restoring the appeal.
Issues
Whether the Suit Schedule Property was joint family property despite being registered in the name of late Smt. Lalithamma.
Whether defendant No.1 had a right to alienate the entire Suit Schedule Property by the Sale Deed dated 22.12.2004.
Whether the Sale Deed dated 22.12.2004 was binding on the plaintiffs' shares.
Whether the plaintiffs' applications for additional evidence and amendment should have been allowed, and the effect of the Supreme Court's remand directions.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant/defendant No.2 contended that late Smt. Lalithamma acquired the Suit Schedule Property under a registered Sale Deed dated 14.03.1963 and was its absolute owner; upon her demise, defendant No.1 succeeded and validly executed the Sale Deed in favour of defendant No.2 for valuable consideration.
Respondents/plaintiffs contended that although the property stood in the name of late Smt. Lalithamma, it was acquired by her husband late Sri D.M. Subbaiah from the income and resources of the joint family and held in her name for convenience, thus retaining joint family character; therefore defendant No.1 had no exclusive right to alienate.
Supreme Court observed that the plaintiffs took a completely contrary stand in their original plaint by stating they were the only legal heirs, and that the alleged co-owner had not appeared before the court, which undermined the High Court's decision to allow amendment and remand.
Judgment Excerpts
In our considered view, the High Court, in allowing the amendment of the plaint and remitting the matter to the Trial Court, has committed two errors.
By the Impugned Judgment, the learned Trial Court held that the Suit Schedule Property constituted joint family property, declared that the registered Sale Deed dated 22.12.2004 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the appellant/defendant No.2 was not binding on the 1/4th shares of respondent Nos.1 to 3/plaintiffs each (3/4th share in total) and granted them partition and separate possession of their respective shares.
Procedural History
The plaintiffs instituted O.S. No.914/2005 before the XXXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, seeking partition and separate possession. The Trial Court decreed the suit on 15.09.2009. The appellant/defendant No.2 filed Regular First Appeal No.1165 of 2009 under Section 96 CPC. On 02.12.2010, the High Court stayed drawing up of final decree but allowed final decree proceedings to continue and admitted the appeal. During the appeal, plaintiffs filed I.A. No.1/2013 for additional evidence, I.A. No.2/2013 for amendment of plaint, and I.A. No.2/2017 for production of additional documents. By judgment dated 08.12.2023, the High Court allowed these applications, set aside the impugned judgment, and remanded the matter to the Trial Court. The appellant challenged this before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 5430/2025; by order dated 22.04.2025, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's remand order, dismissed I.A. Nos.1 and 2 of 2013, and restored the appeal to the High Court for decision on merits based on existing record. The High Court heard the matter, reserved judgment on 29.06.2026, and pronounced the CAV judgment on 29.08.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96, Order XLI Rule 27(1), Order XLI Rule 27(aa) and (b), Order VI Rule 17, Section 151, Order XX Rule 12
