Dismissed¶15

Sri Thippeswamy v. Sri Chandrappa

Karnataka HC13 Oct 2025RSA/1079/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KHC 2025:KHC:40372; HC-KAR Bengaluru; RSA No.1079/2018 (PAR); partition & separate possession; joint family property vs self-acquired property; no presumption that joint family has joint property; 1951 registered sale deed in name of Basappa; joint family nucleus not proved (Lakkamma); PW1 admitted division & separate enjoyment; non-impleadment of Nagappa/Hanumappa branches; S.100 CPC; R.A.No.90/2016; O.S.No.156/2008; Chitradurga courts; no substantial question of law; appeal dismissed; Anant Ramanath Hegde J; 13-10-2025.

What did the court decide?

Even assuming the existence of the joint family is established, that does not mean that property standing in the name of an individual is joint family property. ¶11

Sri Thippeswamy Vs Sri Chandrappa — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the property purchased in 1951 under registered sale deed in the name of Basappa is joint family property acquired from joint family nucleus (giving the Rangappa-branch plaintiffs a share), or the self-acquired property of Basappa belonging to his legal representatives alone. +2 more

¶2

Court's answer

Even assuming the existence of the joint family is established, that does not mean that property standing in the name of an individual is joint family property.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

There is no presumption under Hindu law that every joint family has joint family property; property in the name of an individual is presumed to be his self-acquired property unless proved otherwise.

¶11

Key takeaways

The purchase in Basappa's name in 1951 is admitted, and the plaintiffs led no evidence to rebut the presumption arising from the said sale deed in Basappa's name.ratio¶12
The existence of any joint family nucleus was not established by leading evidence; no document was produced to show that Lakkamma (mother) possessed property which would have formed the nucleus for acquiring the property in Basappa's name; hence the plaintiff's contention that the suit property was acquired on behalf of the joint family cannot be accepted.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Partition suit (O.S.No.156/2008, Chitradurga) — concurrent findings of Trial Court and First Appellate Court upheld; regular second appeal under S.100 CPC dismissed (Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, 13.10.2025). Held: (i) assuming a joint family is established does not make property in an individual's name joint family property; there is no presumption under Hindu law that every joint family has joint family property — property in an individual's name is presumed self-acquired unless proved otherwise (para 11); (ii) plaintiffs led no evidence rebutting the presumption arising from the 1951 sale deed in Basappa's name (para 12); (iii) joint family nucleus was not established and no document showed Lakkamma possessed nucleus-forming property, so the claim that the land was bought on behalf of the joint family cannot be accepted (para 14); (iv) defendants established the property was acquired by Basappa (para 14), and PW1 admitted prior division and separate enjoyment of properties (para 13); (v) dismissal purely for non-impleadment of all family branches would not have stood had joint family character been shown (para 10). No substantial question of law arose (para 15). Appeal against respondent No.6 abated as on 09.02.2022.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:40372 RSA No. 1079 of 2018

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1079 OF 2018 (PAR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI THIPPESWAMY, S/O RANGAPPA,AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

¶10

SMT SUNANDAMMA, W/O CHANDRAPPA,AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶11

SMT. ANJAMMA, D/O CHANDRAPPA,AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

¶12

SMT RATHNAMMA, D/O CHANDRAPPA,AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,

¶13

SRI OBAIAH @ OBALESH, S/O CHANDRAPPA,AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT

¶14

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶15

BHEEMASAMUDRA VILLAGE,HIREGUNTANUR HOBLI, CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT - 577501.

¶16

…APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SRI SIDDAPPA B M.,ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

SRI CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶20

SMT GOWRAMMA, W/O RAMAPPA,AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶21

SRI MANJUNATHA, S/O RAMAPPA,AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶22

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:40372 RSA No. 1079 of 2018

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

SRI OBALESH, S/O RAMAPPA,AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶25

SRI RANGANATH, S/O RAMAPPA,AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶26

SRI BASAVARAJU, S/O RANGAPPA,AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶27

SRI SHIVANNA, S/O RANGAPPA,AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT R/AT BHEEMASAMUDRA VILLAGE, HIREGUNTANUR HOBLI, CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT - 577501.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI G BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5 AND R7, V/O/DT 09.02.2022 APPEAL AS AGAINST R6 STANDS ABATED)

¶30

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.09.2017 PASSED IN R.A.NO.90/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.09.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO. 156/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE Ist ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHITRADURGA.

¶31

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:40372 RSA No. 1079 of 2018

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶36

This appeal is against the concurrent finding in a suit

¶37

for partition and separate possession.

¶38

Defendants No.1 and 2 who are the grand

¶39

children of late Basappa took a defense that Basappa purchased the property in the year 1951 under registered sale deed, as such the suit property is the self-acquired property of Basappa. The Trial Court accepted the defense and dismissed the suit. First Appellate Court also concurred with the findings of the Trial Court. Hence, the present second appeal.

¶40

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶41

plaintiffs/appellants would contend that Basappa was the elder member of the family and the property was purchased in the year 1951 in the name of Basappa is the joint family property in which the plaintiffs have share, as such, the Trial Court could not have dismissed the suit. He would also submit that First Appellate Court has not

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:40372 RSA No. 1079 of 2018

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

considered the contentions in proper perspective and erroneously dismissed the appeal.

¶45

It is urged on behalf of the appellants that the

¶46

existence of the joint family is established which would lead to the presumption that the suit property is the joint family property. Thus, it is prayed that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court are to be set-aside and the suit is to be decreed.

¶47

In addition, he would also contend that the suit

¶48

is dismissed on the premise that all the family members are not made parties to the suit. It is his contention that if that is the case, the Trial Court should have given an opportunity to the plaintiff to implead all the family members.

¶49

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents

¶50

would contend that the Trial Court has considered the documentary evidence in the name of Basappa to come to the conclusion that the suit property is the self acquired

¶51

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40372 RSA No. 1079 of 2018

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

property of Basappa and rightly held that the property belongs to the legal representatives of Basappa and to no other persons and plaintiffs not being the legal representatives of deceased Basappa, are not entitled to any share.

¶54

This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.

¶55

8. The admitted genealogy is as under:

¶56

Lakkamma - Mother (dead)

¶57

Basappa Hanumappa Rangappa Nagappa
(dead) (dead) (dead) (dead)
Gangamma Sidamma
(dead) (dead) Obamma
Obamma (dead)
(wife) (1) (2) (3) (1) (2)
Shivappa Hanumanthappa Thippeswamy Thippeswamy Chandrappa
Rangappa Nagappa Gopala Manjappa Rajappa
(dead)
Gowramma (dead)
(1) (2) (3)
Shivanna Nagaraja Basavaraja (dead)
Janamma

¶58

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:40372 RSA No. 1079 of 2018

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

One Lakkamma was the propositus. She had four sons

¶62

Basappa, Hanumanthappa, Rangappa and Nagappa. The suit is filed by the children of Rangappa i.e., the grand children of Lakkamma. The members of the family of Nagappa and Hanumappa are not made parties. The suit is filed only against the branch of Basappa. This is one of the reasons why the Trial Court has dismissed the suit and First Appellate Court has concurred with the finding of the Trial Court.

¶63

The Trial Court could not have dismissed the suit on the premise that all the family members are not made parties if the properties are shown to be the joint family properties.

¶64

On perusal of the evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the contention that the property is purchased in the name of Basappa by the joint family nucleus as he was the eldest member of the family is not established. Assuming that the existence of the joint family is established, that does not mean that the property in the name of an individual is a joint family property. There is no presumption under Hindu law that every joint family has a joint family property. The property in the name of an individual is presumed to be his self-acquired property unless proved otherwise.

¶65

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:40372 RSA No. 1079 of 2018

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

Admittedly, the property is purchased in the name of Basappa in the year 1951. No evidence is led to rebut the presumption arising from the said sale deed in the name of Basappa.

¶68

In addition to that, the Trial Court has noticed that PW1 in the cross examination has admitted that there is already division of the properties and the parties are enjoying the properties separately.

¶69

The defendants have established the fact that the property was acquired by Basappa. It is also relevant to notice that existence of any joint family nucleus is not established by leading evidence. No document is produced to show that Lakkamma - mother was possessing the property which would have formed nucleus to acquire the property in the name of Basappa. In the absence of any materials to hold that nucleus was available in the joint family to purchase land in the name of Basappa, plaintiff's contention that the suit property is acquired for and on behalf of the joint family in the name of Basappa cannot be accepted. This being the position, this Court does not find any error in the

¶70

¶71

NC: 2025:KHC:40372 RSA No. 1079 of 2018

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and subsequently, affirmed by First Appellate Court.

¶74