Kum.B.Bharati D/O B Bhujanganagouda v. Bhujanganagouda S/O Bennehalli Pampanagouda
Case brief
What is this about?
Partition and separate possession of ancestral joint family property; coparceners' equal shares; daughters' equal entitlement; no partition before the Act of 2005; Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1 relied on; Prakash v. Phulavathi AIR 2016 SC 769 held no longer good law; notional division of propositus's share among nine children corrected; cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22(1) and (2) CPC; appeal under Section 96 CPC; final decree proceedings; purchasers' equity (defendants No.9 and 10); impleadment of plaintiff's daughter; liberty to seek inclusion of omitted properties; Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Hagaribommanahalli; Ballari; Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench; decided 15 July 2025.
What did the court decide?
RFA No.100371/2023 allowed in part: plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 8 declared entitled to 1/9th share each in the suit schedule properties; purchasers (defendants No.9 and 10) to work out their equity in the final decree proceedings. RFA Crob. No.100018/2024 allowed in part: defendant No.11 declared entitled to half share out of the plaintiff's 1/9th share. Defendant No.4 may seek inclusion of additional properties in the final decree proceedings, which the final decree Court may independently decide. Office directed to draw a decree accordingly; parties to bear their own costs.