Sri. Govindappa Vs Sri Narayanappa — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sri. Govindappa Vs Sri Narayanappa — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below confirmed; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the suit schedule properties were purchased out of the joint family nucleus/funds in the name of defendant No.1 and are therefore joint family properties in which the plaintiff, as a member of the joint family, is entitled to a share. +1 more

Court's answer

There is a presumption regarding the joint family but no presumption regarding joint family property; in a suit for partition and separate possession, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the suit schedule properties are ancestral/joint family properties (principle drawn from Makhan Singh (D) by LRs v. Kulwant Singh, AIR 2007 SC 1808).

Ratio / Principle

The plaintiff produced no records to show the family possessed a sufficient nucleus for purchasing the suit schedule properties; both courts below concurrently recorded findings of fact against the plaintiff that he failed to prove the properties were joint family properties or that he contributed to their purchase.

Key takeaways

By producing the original registered sale deeds marked Ex.D1 and Ex.D36, defendant No.1 established that the suit schedule properties are his self-acquired properties.ratio¶76
No error was found in the impugned judgments and no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal; accordingly the regular second appeal was dismissed and the judgments and decrees of the courts below confirmed, with no order as to costs.ratio¶80

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC against the concurrent dismissal of a suit for partition and separate possession. Held: there is a presumption regarding a joint family but none regarding joint family property; the initial burden lay on the plaintiff to establish that the suit schedule properties were ancestral/joint family properties purchased out of a joint family nucleus (relying on Makhan Singh (D) by LRs v. Kulwant Singh, AIR 2007 SC 1808). The plaintiff produced no evidence of nucleus or of his contribution; the registered sale deeds Ex.D1 and Ex.D36 established the properties as the self-acquired properties of defendant No.1. Both courts below had concurrently so found; no substantial question of law arose. Appeal dismissed; judgments and decrees of the Courts below confirmed; no order as to costs. (Appeal against respondent No.1 stood abated; respondent No.2 served.)

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:18586 RSA No. 1618 of 2013

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1618 OF 2013 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SRI. GOVINDAPPA S/O. LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, R/AT JANGAMAKOTTE VILLAGE, AND HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 562 101

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. KALYAN R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SRI NARAYANAPPA S/O. LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS

SMT YELLAMMA W/O.CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT JANGAMAKOTTE VILLAGE AND HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 562 101

…RESPONDENTS

(R2 SERVED V/O DATED 13.01.2020 APPEAL AGAINST R1 IS ABATED)

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:18586 RSA No. 1618 of 2013

HC-KAR

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 31.5.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.35/2011 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIDLAGHATTA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 30.10.2010 PASSED IN OS.NO.220/2006 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, SIDLAGHATTA.

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 Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2013, passed in R.A.No.35/2011 by the learned Itenerary Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sidlaghatta and the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2010 passed in O.S.No.220/2006 by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Sidlaghatta.

For convenience, the parties are referred to

based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondents were the defendants.

NC: 2025:KHC:18586 RSA No. 1618 of 2013

3 -

HC-KAR

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession. It is the case of the plaintiff that Munishamappa had three sons, namely, Narayanappa, who is defendant No.1, Govindappa, the plaintiff and Channappa, who is no more, and defendant No.2 is the wife of Channappa. The plaintiff’s father had not acquired any properties during his lifetime. The plaintiff, defendant No.1 and the deceased Channappa were living jointly, forming a joint family nucleus, and were earning money through their hard work. The plaintiff and his brothers contributed to purchase the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant No.1 with the consent of other members, who was the kartha and the manager of the joint family. It is contended that since the date of purchasing the suit schedule properties, the plaintiff and defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. It is contended that, defendant

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18586 RSA No. 1618 of 2013

HC-KAR

No.1 in collusion with defendant No.2 tried to alienate suit properties. The plaintiff demanded partition and separate possession, 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 and accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

3.1. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, and it is denied that suit schedule properties were purchased out of the joint family nucleus. It is contended that defendant No.1, by doing coolie work with hard labour, has purchased item No.2 of the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 07.01.1956 from Nanjappa Setty. It is contended that khata was changed in his name. It is also contended that, defendant No.1 purchased item No.1 of the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 10.10.1957 from M.P.Appishamappa. Neither the plaintiff nor defendant No.2 has any right or title over the

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18586 RSA No. 1618 of 2013

HC-KAR

suit schedule properties. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit against defendant No.1.

3.2. Defendant No.2 sought a counterclaim and

contended that defendant No.2 got a right of 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties and, accordingly prays to decree the suit of the plaintiff.

3.3. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the

parties, framed the relevant issues.

3.4. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined

himself as PW.1, examined two witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11. Conversely, the son of defendant No.1 i.e., the Power of Attorney holder of defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1, examined two witnesses as DWs.2 and 3, and marked 54 documents as Exs.D1 to D54. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides, and on assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment dated 30.10.2010.

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:18586 RSA No. 1618 of 2013

HC-KAR

3.5. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and

decree passed in O.S.No.220/2006, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.35/2011 on the file of Itenerary Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sidlaghatta. The First Appellate Court, on reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 31.05.2013.

3.6. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this regular second appeal.

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

plaintiff.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that

the suit schedule properties were purchased in the name of defendant No.1 out of a joint family nucleus, and the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff and defendants are members of a Hindu undivided joint family, and the plaintiff, as a member of the family, is entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties. He submits that

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:18586 RSA No. 1618 of 2013

HC-KAR

the plaintiff has contributed to purchase the suit schedule properties in the name of defendant No.1. The said aspect has not been adequately appreciated by the courts below, and committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the appeal.

Perused the records, and considered the

submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

It is the case of the plaintiff that suit schedule

properties were purchased in the name of defendant No.1 out of joint family funds, the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties, and the plaintiff, being a member of the joint family, is entitled to a share in the suit properties. The plaintiff, to substantiate that the suit schedule properties were purchased out of the joint family nucleus in the name of defendant No.1, has not produced a single scrap of paper and also produced documents to

8 -

NC: 2025:KHC:18586 RSA No. 1618 of 2013

HC-KAR

establish that the plaintiff has contributed for purchasing the suit schedule properties.

Conversely, defendant No.1 contended that said properties were purchased by doing coolie work with hardearned money, and the sale deeds are in the name of defendant No.1. Further, the defendants produced the registered sale deed marked as Ex.D1. From the perusal of the recital of Ex.D1, it discloses that defendant No.1 had paid the entire sale consideration amount regarding the suit schedule property at item No.1. Furthermore, it is a well-established principle of law that there is a presumption regarding the joint family, and there is no presumption regarding the joint family property. In a suit for partition and separate possession, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral/joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of MAKHAN SINGH (D) BY LRS VS KULWANT SINGH

reported in AIR 2007 SC 1808 , held that there is a

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:18586 RSA No. 1618 of 2013

HC-KAR

presumption regarding joint family and not regarding joint family property and that the onus regarding joint family property is on the person who pleads that it is brought out of the joint family nucleus.

Admittedly, in the instant case, the plaintiff has

not produced any records to establish that the family possessed a sufficient nucleus for purchasing the suit schedule properties. Both the courts below have concurrently recorded finding of facts against the plaintiff that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties, and that the plaintiff had contributed for purchasing the suit schedule properties. Defendant No.1, by producing the original registered sale deeds marked as Ex.D1 and Ex.D36, has established that the suit schedule properties are the selfacquired properties of defendant No.1. Both the Courts below have rightly considered the evidence on record, and passed the impugned judgments. I do not find any error in the

10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:18586 RSA No. 1618 of 2013

HC-KAR

impugned judgments or any substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.

ii. The judgments and decrees passed by the

Courts below are hereby confirmed.

No order as to the costs.

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

SKS