Plaintiff's suit for partition and separate possession of alleged joint family properties was dismissed by both courts below, which found a prior partition on the strength of PW.1's admission in cross-examination. The High Court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the second appeal, confirming the decrees.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1022 OF 2021 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SARASWATHAMMA S/O RANGAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT KALINGAIAHNAPALYA HOLAKALLU POST, GULURHOBLI - 572 118 TUMKURU TALUK.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR N.K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
GURULU HOBLI
TUMAKURU TALUK - 572 118
…RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.08.2021 PASSED IN RA.NO. 249/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.10.2019 PASSED IN OS.NO. 10/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
ORAL JUDGMENT
This second appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2021, passed in R.A.No.249/2019 by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge at Tumakuru, confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2019 passed in O.S.No.10/2017 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge at Tumakuru.
their ranking before the trial Court. The appellant is the
plaintiff, and respondents 1 to 3 are the defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession.
It is contended that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the daughters of the late Narayanappa and Thimmavva. The parents of the plaintiff and the defendants expired. The suit schedule properties are joint family property of the plaintiff and the defendants, and they are members of the Hindu Undivided family, and no partition is effected between the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff requested the defendants to effect a partition, but the defendants refused to effect a partition. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for partition and separate possession.
4. The defendants filed a written statement
contending that there was a prior partition between the
plaintiff and the defendants, and on the basis of the partition, respective parties are in possession of the respective shares, and on the basis of the partition, the names of the respective parties are entered in the revenue records. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff for partition and separate possession is not maintainable. Accordingly,
prayed to dismiss the suit.
pleadings, framed the issues.
herself as PW.1 and got marked 19 documents as Exs.P1 to P19. In rebuttal, defendant No.2 was examined as DW1 and got examined one witnesses as DW.2 and got marked 2 documents as Exs.D1 and D2. The trial Court after assessing the oral and documentary evidence of the parties, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment dated 19.10.2019.
the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants, and they are the members of the Hindu Undivided family, and no partition is effected. He submits that both the courts below have
committed an error in not properly appreciating the material placed on record. He submits that both the courts below have passed the judgments on a stray admission of PW.1. He submits that both the courts below have committed an error in holding that there was an oral partition between the plaintiff and the defendants. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.
submissions of learned counsel for the plaintiff.
to the share of defendant No.1. It is not the case of the plaintiff that after the oral partition, the plaintiff and the defendants reunited and thereafter, they started cultivating the suit schedule properties jointly. As PW.1 herself has admitted in the course of cross-examination regarding prior partition, the suit schedule properties have fallen to the share of defendant No.1. Hence, there was a severance of status, and further, the suit schedule properties are not a joint family property as on the date of filing of the suit and the plaintiff and the defendants are also not the members of the joint family properties. Both the courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of facts that the defendants have proved that there was a prior partition between the plaintiff and the defendants, and the suit schedule properties have fallen to the share of defendant No.1. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgment or any substantial question of law that arises for my consideration in this appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:41548 RSA No. 1022 of 2021
pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed .
The judgments and decree passed by the
courts below are hereby confirmed.
No order as to the costs.
Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE
SSB
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the courts below erred in holding that a prior oral partition severed joint family status between the parties, barring a suit for partition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Saraswathamma
Smt Siddagangamma
Smt Sumangala
Sri Kiran V
Ashok S. Kinagi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
