The High Court heard Regular First Appeal against a decree dismissing a suit for partition. The court held the property was the absolute property of the first defendant, acquired by her from her father, and rejected the appellant's claim that it was ancestral property derived from the sale of another prior property.
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.
RFA No. 195 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 195 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
SMT. SUMALATHA D/O SRI KASIPATI SASTRY W/O SRI MANJUNATH R AGED 36 YEARS, R.AT NO.473, 39TH C CROSS, 9TH MAIN RAOD, 5TH BLOCK. JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560041.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAGHU PRASAD B S.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka
(BY SRI. B.S.SATHYANAND, ADVOCATE)
RFA No. 195 of 2020
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.08.2019 PASSED IN OS NO.2202/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-32) BANGALORE CITY DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION, PARTITION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J. , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is presented by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2019 in OS No.2202/2013 on the file of XX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-32), Bangalore City.
RFA No. 195 of 2020
property. The plaintiff brought the instant suit seeking partition and separate possession contending inter alia that the suit property was purchased by Seethalakshmi immediately after selling an ancestral property situated in Balepet and thus, she was entitled for her share in the property.
RFA No. 195 of 2020
defendant has acquired the property from her matrimonial side and as per provision of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the suit property became the absolute property of first defendant. She has executed gift deed dated 19.08.2002 in favour of second defendant.
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of herself and defendants?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the partition and separate possession?
3. Whether the Defendant No.1 proves that suit schedule property is her absolute property she inherited the property through her grandmother?
4. Whether the Defendants further prove that the plaintiff was given in adoption to one Shantha and Srinivasa Babu by her natural parents and plaintiff
RFA No. 195 of 2020
looses all her right title interest over the person and properties belongs to the natural family?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
the reliefs sought for?
6. What order or decree?
Additional Issues:
1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
2. Whether the court fee paid is insufficient?
7. Plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and got
marked 13 documents as Exs.P.1 to 13. On behalf of the defendants, 2 witnesses have been examined as DWs.1 and 2 and got marked 3 documents as Exs.D1 to D3.
Answering issues No.1, 2, additional issues No.2 and 5 in the negative and issues No.3, 4, additional issue No.1 in the affirmative, the suit has been dismissed.
RFA No. 195 of 2020
RFA No. 195 of 2020
appellant/plaintiff is that the suit schedule property is ancestral property.
RFA No. 195 of 2020
proceeds, she has purchased the suit property for Rs.2,50,000/-.
” Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a Will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil court or under an award where the terms of the gift, Will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such property".
her father’s property and hence, it was her streedhana.
RFA No. 195 of 2020
After selling the said property, she has purchased the suit schedule property.
hereinabove, in our considered opinion, suit schedule property was the absolute property of first defendant. The gift made in favour of second defendant has not been challenged. Hence, no exception can be taken to the judgment and decree passed by trial court. Accordingly, we answer both points in the negative.
accordingly dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit property constitutes ancestral property or absolute property of the first defendant?
Whether the judgment and decree should be interfered with on the appeal filed under Section 96 CPC?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Sumalatha D/o Sri Kasipati Sastry
Smt. Seethalakshmi
Sri Sreevidhya
P.S. Dinesh Kumar
G Basavaraja
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
