Appeal against decree dismissing partition suit. Held sale prior to amendment in Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act bars partition claim. Appeal dismissed.
Suit for partition dismissed; appeal against dismissal accordingly dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
R.S.A. NO.5902/2013 (PAR & DEC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SUSAVVA W/O. GADIGEPPA CHALAWADI AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. SANGAL, TQ: RAMDURG DIST BELGAUM-590016.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI G I GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND :
: 2 :
KESHAVAPUR HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580020.
... RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD:21.09.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.114/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HUBLI, ALLOWING THE APPEAL, FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD:11.09.2012 AND THE DECREE PASSED IN O.S. NO.676/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AT HUBLI, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND DECLARATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THIS COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
: 3 :
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the plaintiff in O.S. No.676/2011 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge, Hubli. She brought a suit for partition against her father and brothers in respect of landed properties in Sy. No.34/1A measuring 36 guntas and Sy. No.35/DA measuring 1 acre. The trial Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to 1/6th share in these two properties. But, he ignored the fact that on 21.05.2004 defendants No.1 to 5 had sold away the suit properties to defendant No.6. This judgment and decree being appealed to the court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubli, the learned Appellate Judge held that the sale by defendants No.1 to 5 in favour of defendant No.6 being prior to 20.12.2004, the plaintiff does not get right to seek partition.
: 4 :
rightly come to the conclusion that the suit has to be dismissed. Therefore, substantial question of law does not arise to admit this appeal. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
hnm
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the sale of suit properties prior to 20.12.2004 precludes the plaintiff from seeking partition.
Smt. Susavva W/O. Gadigepa Chalawadi
Tuljansa S/O. Dharmasa Dharmadas
Gurappa S/O. Mukundappa Budappanavar
Maruti S/O. Gurappa Budappanavar
Bhimananna S/O. Gurappa Budappanavar
Hanumanthappa S/O. Gurappa Budappanavar
Sreenivas Harish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
