Partly allowed

Sri. Ananda Reddy v. Smt. Radhamma

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2024RFA/1633/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A partition appeal where the appellant challenged a trial Court decree holding that a family partition deed bearing a forged signature of plaintiff No.1 was invalid. The High Court confirmed forgery via fingerprint expert evidence, held the mother's self-acquired Streedhan property could not be conveyed by such a deed, but faulted quantification of defendants' shares.

What did the court decide?

Trial Court's decree quantifying defendants' shares set aside; plaintiffs' 1/7th share upheld; partition deed dated 30.06.2000 declared invalid and forged; Schedule A property excluded from division u

Sri. Ananda Reddy Vs Smt. Radhamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

R.F.A NO.1633 OF 2013 (PAR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. ANANDA REDDY S/O LATE MUNI REDDY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE STREET OPP. VENKATESHWARA INSTITUTE OF COMMERCE NEAR MARATHALLI, BUS STOP, MARATHALLI BANGALORE-37.

¶9

...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. G. KRISHNAMURTHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R. PURUSHOTHAM, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . SMT. RADHAMMA W/O LATE GOPAL REDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.86, CHURCH STREET MARATHALLI, BANGALORE-560 037

¶13

2 . SMT. NALINI D/O GOPAL REDDY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT KOTHANUR VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK

¶14

¶15

3 . SRI. SRINIVASA BABU S/O LATE MUNI REDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.260, 5^TH B MAIN ROAD CHODESHWARI LAYOUT MARATHALLI BANGALORE-37.

¶16

4 . SMT. M. SAROJAMMA D/O LATE MUNI REDDY W/O MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT CHIKKNAGALI VILLAGE JADEGENAHALLI POST, JADEGENAHALLI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT

¶17

5 . SMT. SHANTAMMA D/O LATE MUNI REDDY W/O THAYAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT SADARAMANGALA K.R.PURAM HOBLI, K.R. PURAM POST BANGALORE-560 016

¶18

6 . SMT. SULOCHANA D/O LATE MUNI REDDY W/O NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT SARVAREDDYPALLI RAMASAGARA POST, KAYASAMBLLI HOBLI BANGALORE TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-560 116

¶19

7 . SMT. M. PADMA D/O LATE MUNI REDDY W/O KESHAVA REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT KODIGEHALLI

¶20

¶21

K.R. PURAM HOBLI, K.R.PURAM POST, BANGALORE-560 016 (SINCE THE DEFENDANT NO.1 DEAD, THERE LRS ARE ALREADY ON RECORD)

¶22

8 . MRS. APLANA AICH W/O AMOL BARAN AICH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

¶23

9 . AMAL BARAN AICH S/O LATE SURENDRA NATH AICH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS

¶24

BOTH ARE R/AT G-D-297 SECTOR, III, SALT LAKE CITY CALCUTTA-700 091.

¶25

ALSO AT C/O K. SARAKAR BLOCK A, FLAT NO.109 NATASH GOLF VIEW APARTMENT DOMALUR BANGALORE-560 071.

¶26

10 . R. SHANMUGAM

¶27

S/O M. RANGASWAMY ACHARI AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT NO.G-767, 5TH CROSS HAL CENTRAL TOWNSHIP MARATHALLI POST BANGALORE-560 037

¶28

11 . BIBIAN BRIGITTA SHANTHA .Y D/O R. YESUDAS AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RA/T NO.428, 13TH CROSS ANANDAPURAM, BDA JEEVAN BHEEMA NAGARA BANGALORE-560 075

¶29

¶30

12 . SMT. S. LAKSHMI

¶31

W/O I. DHANUMURTHY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.758/E, KONENA AGRAHARA BEHIND RAJESHWARI THEATER HAL POST BANGALORE-560 017.

¶32

13 . SMT. B. SHYMALA W/O P.K. SAHADEV AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT 758/E KONENA AGRAHARA BEHIND RAJESHWARI THEATER HAL POST, BANGALORE-560 017

¶33

14 . SMT. CHITRA W/O V. KOLU SIVALINGAM AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.FB 17, HAL COLONY VIMANAPURA POST BANGALORE-560 017

¶34

15 . USHA R. W/O K. RAMACHANDRA AGED AOBUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO.6, 1 MAIN ROAD SHAMANNNA GOWDA LAYOUT SARASWATHIPURAM EXTENSION ULSOOR, BANGALORE-560 008

¶35

16 . R. ANIL KUMAR DAS S/O N. RAVINDRA DAS RA/T GITANJALI TC NO. 55/923, 703, SANKAR NAGAR KAIMMAN P.O. TRIVANDRUM-695040 KERALA STATE

¶36

¶37

17 . K. SELVA KUMAR S/O KANAKARAJ AGED ABOUT 56 YERAS R/AT 248/A, 2ND CROSS 5TH MAIN, HAL III STAGE BDA LAYOUT, KONENA AGRAHARA BANGALORE-560 017

¶38

18 . M. BABU REDDY S/O LATE MUNISWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS NO.18, MUNEKOLALU VILLAGE MARATHALLI POST BANGALORE-37

¶39

19 . S. VINESH S/O SHAMANNA REDDY AGED ABUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.712, MUNNEKOLALU VILLAGE MARATHALLI POST BANGALORE-37

¶40

20 . R. SUNDER S/O RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.14, 2ND FLOOR MARATHALLI, OPP: GANESHA TEMPLE BANGALORE-37

¶41

21 . K.S. THANGAMMA @ THARA D/O SUBRAMANI MAJOR R/AT NO.2455/A, 4TH MAIN 11TH CROSS , BDA LAYOUT HAL II STAGE BANGALORE-17

¶42

¶43

22 . SRI. HARISHA .K S/O KARUNAKARA AGED ABOUT R/AT NO.13, VIVEKANANDA LAYOUT 1ST CROSS, RING ROAD MARATHAHALLI POST BANGALORE-37

¶44

23 . B.K. SRINATHA S/O B.L. KRISHNAMURTHY MAJOR R/AT NO.51-B, 4TH BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-10

¶45

23(A) SRI. B.S. PRASHANTH S/O B.K. SRINATH AGED MAJOR R/AT NO.51-B, 4^TH BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560 010

¶46

23(B) SRI. RAMA SRINATH S/O B.K. SRINATH AGED MAJOR R/AT NO.51-B, 4^TH BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560 010

¶47

[AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 27.02.2023]

¶48

24 . SRI. M. RAJESH THAMPY S/O METHANATH PAPPU THAMPY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT PANNAGADRI NILAYA 7TH MAIN, CHOWDESHWARI LAYOUT MARTH HALLI,BANGALORE-37

¶49

¶50

25 . DR. KARANAM KRISHNAMRUTHY S/O KARANAM KESAVA RAO AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO.298, 7TH CROSS DOMLUR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-37

¶51

26 . MRS. ALPHOSA SILVESTER W/O A.M. SILVESTER AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO.71, III MAIN, K.R. GARDEN MURGESHPALYA BANGALORE-17

¶52

27 . P.A. SAJI S/O P.P. APPU AGED ABOUT 50 YERAS R/AT ARANYAGIRI ESTATE SAKALWARA ROAD, BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE-83

¶53

…RESPONDENTS

¶54

(BY SRI. T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 AND R2; SRI. G. MANIVANNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. T. JAGANNATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R7; SRI. ADITYA .D, ADVOCATE FOR R23(A); SRI. SANTLEY SAM, ADVOCATE FOR R20, R22, R26 & R27; R4, R6, R8, R9, R16, R17 AND R23 ARE SERVED; V/O DATED 18/01/2019 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R5, R10 TO R15, R18 TO R21 AND R24 TO R26 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶55

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER RFA FILED U/O-41, RULE-1, R/W SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED25.07.2013 PASSED IN O.S.* 7674 /2001 ON THE FILE OF THE I-ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU,

¶56

Corrected vide Chamber Order dated 15.11.2024

¶57

¶58

DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.

¶59

THIS RFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 02.08.2024, THIS DAY JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER:

¶60

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶61

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

¶62

The captioned first appeal is filed by defendant No.2 assailing the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2013 rendered by the trial Court in O.S.No.* 7674 /2001 declaring the partition deed dated 30.6.2000 as not binding on plaintiffs’ legitimate share in all the suit schedule properties and granting 1/7^th share jointly to the plaintiffs.

¶63

For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

¶64

The family tree is as under:

¶65

Corrected vide Chamber Order dated 15.11.2024

¶66

¶67

MUNI REDDY (PROPOSITUS)

¶68

SMT. GOWRAMMA

¶69

(WIDOW OF DECEASED MUNI REDDY i.e., D1)

¶70

GOPALAREDDY ANANDA REDDY SRINIVASA BABU SAROJAMMA SHANTHAMMA SULOCHANA PADMA (DEAD) (SON) (SON) (DAUGHTER) (DAUGHTER) (DAUGHTER) D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7

¶71

RADHAMAMMA (WIDOW OF DECEASED

¶72

GOPALA REDDY) (P1)

¶73

NALINI (DAUGHTER OF DECEASED GOPALA REDDY) (P2)

¶74

Plaintiffs are widow and daughter of one Gopal Reddy, predeceased son of Defendant No.1/Gowramma and Muni Reddy. Plaintiffs claim that

¶75

suit schedule B and C are ancestral properties and schedule A property is the self acquired property of

¶76

¶77

defendant No.1. However, plaintiffs claim that defendant No.1 though acquired schedule A property under the registered gift deed dated 17.4.1961, the same is thrown in common hotchpotch and it is treated as a joint family ancestral property. Plaintiffs contend that this is clearly evident from the contents of the partition deed dated 30.6.2000.

¶78

Plaintiffs have alleged that defendants with an intention to deprive the plaintiffs’ legitimate share in the suit schedule properties have created partition deed by forging first plaintiff’s signature on the partition deed by impersonation and misrepresentation. Plaintiffs having gained knowledge about the concocted partition deed have lodged a complaint. The present suit is filed alleging that inspite of repeated requests, the defendants were not in a mood to effect partition by metes and bounds and hence, the present partition suit.

¶79

¶80

Defendants 1 to 7 on receipt of summons

¶81

tendered appearance and filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. Defendants 1 to 7 while refuting the claim of plaintiffs contended that division of schedule B and C properties were made as per the family arrangements through partition deed dated 30.6.2000. Defendants 1 to 7 denied the allegations that the partition deed dated 30.6.2000 is a concocted document and the signature of plaintiff No.1 is forged. Defendants 1 to 7 on the contrary claimed that an arrangement was entered into in respect of the suit schedule B and C properties through a partition deed dated 30.6.2000 and plaintiffs’ share are determined and first plaintiff has conceded and accepted the settlement arrived at in terms of partition deed and same is acted upon by all the parties and hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

¶82

¶83

Defendants 8 and 9, who are the purchasers

¶84

filed written statement and claimed that they are the bonafide purchasers and that they have formed layout by making huge investments and the plots are sold to various bonafide purchasers. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶85

The trial Court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence answered issue No.1 partly in the affirmative and issue No.2 in the affirmative and issue No.4 in the negative. While answering issue No.2 in the affirmative and 4 in the negative, the trial Court taking cognizance of the finger print expert’s report and evidence of finger print expert who is examined as C.W.1 held that plaintiff No.1’s signature was forged on the alleged partition deed. Referring to the opinion in the finger print expert’s report, the trial Court held that the disputed LTMs found on the partition deed and in the thumb impression register at Ex.P26 are not that of

¶86

¶87

plaintiff No.1. Trial Court having answered issue No.4 in the negative, answered Issue No.2 in the affirmative and held that plaintiffs have succeeded in substantiating that partition deed is not binding on the plaintiffs and consequently, answered Issue No.1 partly in the affirmative and consequently held that defendants 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 22, 24, 25, 26 and 27 are not bonafide purchasers of schedule “B’ property. Accordingly, the trial Court has proceeded to decree the suit granting 1/7^th share to the plaintiffs.

¶88

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for

¶89

defendant No.2 reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal would vehemently argue and contend that the findings recorded on the partition deed vide Ex.P4 is purely based on expert’s opinion. He would urge this Court to re-examine the signatures found in Ex.P4. He would submit that expert’s opinion is not a conclusive

¶90

¶91

proof and therefore, trial Court erred in placing reliance on the finger print expert’s report. Learned Senior Counsel while admitting plaintiffs’ right in schedule B and C properties however would seriously dispute the plaintiffs’ right in schedule A property. Taking this Court through para 4 of the plaint, he would vehemently argue and contend that plaintiffs have admitted that schedule A property is the self acquired property of deceased Gowramma. and therefore, the partition effected by defendant No.1 insofar as Schedule A property is concerned would bind the plaintiffs. By way of arrangement, defendant No.1/mother has conveyed her property through family arrangement and therefore, schedule A property is not available for partition even otherwise.

¶92

To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the following judgments:

¶93

¶94

1. Trojan and Co. Limited .vs. N.N. Nagappa Chettiar [AIR 1953 SC 235];

¶95

2. Akella Lalitha .vs. Konda Hanumantha Rao [2022 SCC Online SC 928]

¶96

3. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd .vs. Jain Studios Ltd. [(2006)2 SCC 628]

¶97

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for plaintiffs while supporting the findings recorded by the trial Court has vehemently argued and contended that the clinching evidence let in by plaintiffs which is further substantiated by the expert’s opinion clearly clinches the issue relating to plaintiff No.1 being party to the alleged partition deed as claimed by the defendants. The expert’s opinion supported by other relevant circumstances clearly establishes beyond doubt that plaintiff No.1’s signature was forged by defendants 1 to 7 by the act of impersonation and the trial Court has rightly taken cognizance of this fact. While countering the claim of the learned Senior Counsel in regard to

¶98

¶99

schedule A property, he would point out that admittedly defendant No.1 being absolute owner, the alleged arrangement indicated in the partition deed will not convey any right and title in favour of defendants 1 to 7. To support his arguments, he has relied on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in the case of Venkat .vs. Anitha [RFA.No.6041/2013 DD.17.12.2019] . Reliance is placed on paragraphs 18 and 19 of the said judgment. Learned counsel would conclude his arguments by contending that the judgment and decree rendered by the Court below and the findings recorded therein are based on legal evidence let in by plaintiffs and in absence of rebuttal evidence and therefore, no indulgence is warranted at the hands of this Court.

¶100

The counsel appearing for purchasers have supported defendants 1 to 7 and they claim to be bonafide purchasers.

¶101

¶102

Heard the learned counsel on record and I

¶103

have meticulously examined the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties.

¶104

The following points would arise for

¶105

consideration:

¶106

"(i) Whether trial Court erred in recording a finding that the partition deed dated 30.6.2000 is not valid and that the signature of plaintiff No.1 is forged and thereby the same is not binding on the plaintiffs’ legitimate share in the suit schedule properties?

¶107

(ii) Whether trial Court was justified in granting 1/7^th share in all the suit schedule properties including schedule A property which was distributed by defendant No.1 mother among sons under the partition deed?

¶108

(iii) Whether trial Court erred in quantifying the shares of defendants 1 to 7 in absence of prayer in the written statement?"

¶109

¶110

15. Finding on Point No.1:

¶111

The plaintiffs have raised a dispute regarding the authenticity of Plaintiff No. 1's signature on the partition deed dated 30.06.2000, which is marked as Exhibit P4. This is a crucial issue in the case, as the plaintiff’s claim to the suit property depends on whether Plaintiff No. 1 had consented to and participated in the alleged family partition by signing the deed in question. The Court has carefully examined the signatures purportedly belonging to Plaintiff No. 1, comparing the disputed signatures and the Left Thumb Mark (LTM) on the partition deed with the signatures that are undisputed and admitted by Plaintiff No. 1. Even with a cursory, unaided examination, this Court finds that the signatures on the partition deed (Exhibit P4) do not match the admitted signatures of Plaintiff No. 1.

¶112

Moreover, this Court considered the report provided by a fingerprint expert who conducted a

¶113

¶114

thorough scientific examination of the signatures. The expert verified that the Xerox copies of the signatures were clear, readable, and appropriate for comparison. Following a detailed analysis, the expert concluded that the person who signed the red-enclosed standard signatures, marked ‘S1 to S24,’ was not the same person who signed the disputed signatures, marked ‘Q1 to Q13.’ This discrepancy further casts doubt on the validity of the partition deed. During cross-examination, the expert was challenged by the defendants with the suggestion that Plaintiff No. 1 might have deliberately signed differently to invalidate the partition deed. However, the expert refuted this claim, stating categorically that there was no indication that Plaintiff No. 1 attempted to forge her own signature to discredit the partition deed. The expert further asserted that all the standard signatures marked from ‘S1 to S24’ were thoroughly reviewed, and the signs of forgery were evident in the disputed

¶115

¶116

signatures, which exhibited signs of imitation and differed significantly from the standard ones.

¶117

Based on a comprehensive evaluation of the

¶118

evidence, this Court concludes that there is a deliberate attempt by the defendants to unlawfully acquire the property by forging Plaintiff No. 1’s signature. The compelling evidence presented by the plaintiffs supports the claim that Plaintiff No. 1’s signature on the partition deed (Exhibit P4) is forged, and that the document was registered through an act of impersonation. There is a conspicuous absence of credible rebuttal evidence from Defendants 1 to 7, which would contest this claim. The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that Plaintiff No. 1 did not participate in the alleged family partition and is not the actual signatory on the partition deed marked as Exhibit P4. As a result, the partition deed (Exhibit P4) cannot be considered legally binding on the plaintiffs, since the signature of Plaintiff No. 1 on this document is

¶119

¶120

conclusively proven to be forged. Accordingly, Point No. 1 is answered in the negative, establishing that the trial court was correct in its finding that the partition deed is not valid.

¶121

18. Finding on Point No.2:

¶122

The matter also requires consideration of whether the trial court was justified in granting 1/7th share to the plaintiffs in all the suit properties, including Schedule A property, which was claimed to have been distributed among the sons by Defendant No. 1 under the disputed partition deed. From the plaint’s averments, it is not contested that Schedule A property is the self-acquired property of Defendant No. 1 (Gowramma), who received it through a gift deed executed by her father, which is marked as Exhibit P2. The defendants have argued that by virtue of the voluntary arrangement purportedly made by Defendant No. 1 in the partition deed (Exhibit P4), the plaintiffs are barred from claiming any rights in Schedule

¶123

¶124

A property. They further assert that Schedule A property, having been conveyed to the sons through the registered partition deed, cannot be subject to any further claim by the plaintiffs. The defense hinges on the premise that, in a family partition, even self-acquired property of a family member, such as the mother, can be included in the collective property pool (common hotchpotch), thereby making the terms of the partition deed binding upon all family members, including the plaintiffs, with respect to Schedule A property.

¶125

However, this Court is not inclined to accept the defendants’ argument. This Court finds that since Schedule A property is the self-acquired property of Defendant No. 1, the legal principles established in the case of Sri Aralappa S/o. Sri Chowrappa, Major vs Sri Jagannath S/o. Late Sri Chikka¹ are applicable to this case. In a family partition or arrangement, members

¶126

1 ILR 2007 KAR 339

¶127

¶128

of a joint family may relinquish their shares in the property, whether the property is coparcenary or joint family property. Such relinquishment is legally permissible because family members have pre-existing rights in the family property, and any member may give up those rights in the course of a family arrangement.

¶129

In the present case, however, Schedule A property is characterized as “Streedhan,” which is a woman’s exclusive property, and there is no evidence to suggest that Defendants 2 to 7 have any pre-existing rights in this property. Therefore, consistent with the principles laid down in the aforementioned judgment, the property held by Defendant No. 1, being her selfacquired "Streedhan," cannot be validly transferred through the partition deed. The partition deed (Exhibit P4) does not amount to a lawful conveyance of Schedule A property. Legally, no rights are created in Schedule A

¶130

¶131

property under Exhibit P4, as the document does not constitute a valid conveyance under Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, this Court concludes that the trial court correctly determined that the plaintiffs are entitled to a share in Schedule A property. Accordingly, Point No. 2 is answered in the affirmative, affirming that the partition deed does not affect the plaintiffs’ rights in Schedule A property.

¶132

21. Finding on Point No.3:

¶133

It is a trite law that in a partition suit it is only the plaintiffs’ claim that forms the subject matter of the partition suit unless defendants specifically plead and pray for partition in the written statement and pay Court fee accordingly. Defendants 2 to 7 have not prayed for partition by metes and bounds and no Court fee is paid. Therefore, learned Judge erred in quantifying the shares of defendants 2 to 7. Though this decree enures to the

¶134

¶135

benefit of defendants 2 to 7, they are disputing with a hope to create complications during final decree proceedings. Though the decree quantifying the share of defendants 2 to 7 is not sustainable, the preliminary decree in favour of plaintiffs remains intact and is very much enforceable. The learned Judge was not justified in quantifying the shares of defendants 2 to 7 in absence of prayer and payment of Court fee. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the trial Court erred in quantifying the shares of defendants 2 to 7 while drawing preliminary decree. Accordingly, point No.3 is answered in the affirmative.

¶136

In view of the findings recorded above, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶137

ORDER

¶138

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶139

¶140

(ii) The judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 25.07.2013 in O.S.No.* 7674 /2001 in so far as quantifying defendants' share in absence of prayer is set aside.

¶141

(iii) The judgment and decree of the trial court in so far as granting 1/7^th share to plaintiffs are upheld.

¶142

(iv) It is declared that the partition deed dated 30.06.2000 (Exhibit P4) is not valid and binding on the plaintiffs with respect to their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties, as the signature of Plaintiff No. 1 on the said document is forged.

¶143

(v) The plaintiffs are entitled to 1/7th share each in all the suit schedule properties, including Schedule A property.

¶144

(vi) It is further declared that Schedule A property, being the self-acquired property

¶145

Corrected vide Chamber Order dated 15.11.2024

¶146

¶147

of Defendant No. 1, was not lawfully included in the partition deed (Exhibit P4) and, therefore, is not subject to any division under the said document.

¶148

(vii) Draw the decree accordingly.

¶149

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶150

*alb/-

Sri. Ananda Reddy v. Smt. Radhamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Ananda Reddy v. Smt. Radhamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr M Veeresh Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri C Chethan Kumar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Thimmakka Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Chandrachari Vs Smt Sharadamma

Smt. Manjula H T Vs the State of Karnataka

Muniyappa S v Vs the Commissioner