The High Court of Karnataka dismissed appeals challenging a trial court order dismissing a partition suit. The High Court held that the family jointly ceased to exist decades ago due to independent alienations of property, thus holding the trial court correct in rejecting the heirs' partition claim.
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.
NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.572 OF 2011 (PAR)
C/W
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.439 OF 2011 (PAR)
IN RFA No. 572/2011
BETWEEN:
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS
Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BOTH ARE R/AT PARAPPANA AGRAHARA BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.P.N.NANJA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011
HC-KAR
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.868, 5TH MAIN ROAD CHOWDESHWARY LAYOUT MARATHAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 037
NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011
HC-KAR
KALYANANAGARA BENGALURU - 560 043
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
4(E) SMT.VINUTHA W/O GANESH REDDY D/O LATE P.O.MOHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT NO.2520 14TH CROSS, 24TH MAIN 1ST SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 102
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PRADEEP KUMAR R.H., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SHANMUKHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R.1(A TO D) AND R.2; SRI.K.M.ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R.1 AND R.2; SRI.V.VINOD REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR
NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011
HC-KAR
SRI.G.PAPI REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR R.3; SRI.N.S.VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R.4(A & B) R.4(C) TO R.4(E) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.12.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1845/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION AND ETC.
IN RFA NO.439/2011
BETWEEN:
SMT.PREMAKUMARI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS W/O RAJA REDDY D/O LATE OBA REDDY R/O HRBR LAYOUT BEHIND K.E.B OFFICE KALYANA NAGARA BENGALURU
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.G.PAPI REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.V.VINOD REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011
HC-KAR
W/O GANESH REDDY D/O LATE SRI.P.O.MOHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.2520, 14TH CROSS 24TH MAIN, 1ST SECTOR HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 102
NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011
HC-KAR
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.868, 5TH MAIN ROAD CHOWDESHWARI LAYOUT MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 037
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.T.S.MAHANTESH, ADVOCATE FOR R.2; SRI.N.S.VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R.2(A & B) R.1 - IS DEAD AS PER CAUSE TITLE SRI.S.G.MUNISWAMY GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R.2(C)
HC-KAR
SRI.K.VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R.3 AND R.4; SRI.PRADEEP KUMAR R.H., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SHANMUKHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R.5 AND R.6; R.2(D), R.2(E), R.5(A), R.5(B), R.5(C), R.5(D) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.12.2010 IN O.S.No.1845/2004 PASSED BY XXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL JUDGMENT
These two appeals are filed by the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 assailing the judgment and decree dated 06.12.2010 passed in O.S.No.1845/2004 on the file of the 22nd Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-7), wherein the plaintiffs' suit seeking relief of partition is dismissed and at the same time, the Trial Court has relegated defendant No.3/daughter of plaintiff No.1 to file a separate suit for partition challenging the partition between plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2.
NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011
HC-KAR
as per their rankings before the Trial Court.
Obareddy (died) Lingamma (wife) (P1)
P.O.Narayana Reddy P.O.Mohan Reddy P.O.Vijayareddy P.O.Pattabhiramareddy P.O.Premakumai P.O.Aswathkumar
4. Facts leading to the case are as under;
The relationship between the parties is not in
dispute. Late Sri.Oba Reddy is the father of the plaintiff
No.2 namely P.O.Mohan Reddy, plaintiff No.3 namely
P.O.Vijaya Reddy, plaintiff No.4 namely P.O.Ashwathkumar and defendants. The plaintiffs instituted the suit seeking relief of partition and separate possession contending that the suit schedule properties
are joint family coparcenary properties. It is specifically pleaded that plaintiff No.1, Oba Reddy acquired the said
HC-KAR
properties in a family partition effected in the year 1961 under a registered Partition Deed dated 01.05.1961. The plaintiffs have categorically asserted that they, along with defendant Nos.1 and 2, constitute an undivided Joint Hindu Family that plaintiff No.1 was the Kartha of the family and that the suit schedule ‘A’ properties are ancestral properties allotted to plaintiff No.1 under the said partition.
HC-KAR
entered appearance and filed their written statement stoutly denying the plaint averments. While partially admitting the registered Partition Deed dated 01.05.1961 and the allotment of certain properties to plaintiff No.1, the defendants pleaded that there was a partition during the lifetime of plaintiff No.1, dated 19.06.1995 among plaintiff No.1, plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 and defendant Nos.1 and 2, resulting in complete severance of joint family status. They further pleaded that, pursuant to the said partition, the parties have been exercising exclusive rights and have independently dealt with their respective shares. Though they admitted acquisition of land in Sy.No.50/3 for formation of Jail and 27 guntas in Sy.No.67/2 for road formation by the Government, they sought dismissal of the suit on the ground that the present claim is barred by the fact that there was a partition that took place during the lifetime of plaintiff No.1.
NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011
HC-KAR
Succession Act (Karnataka Amendment), held that since defendant No.3 had not questioned the alleged alienations, she was not entitled to claim partition in the present proceedings and would have to institute a separate suit to challenge the alienations and seek partition.
NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011
HC-KAR
appearing for defendant No.3 and advancing arguments in RFA No.439/2011 assailed the finding on Additional issue No.10. He submitted that the refusal to grant relief to defendant No.3 on the ground that she had not questioned the alienations is legally untenable and suffers from manifest perversity. Drawing attention to the plaint averments, particularly paragraphs 3 and 4, he submitted that the pleadings themselves disclose the nature of alienations and retained properties and that a nonalienating coparcener is not required to specifically challenge alienations while seeking partition.
NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011
HC-KAR
admissions elicited in the cross-examination of the defendants. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the following judgments:
1. Jaspal Kaur Cheema and Another v. Industrial Trade Links and Others – (2017) 8 SCC 592;
2. R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple and Another – (2003) 8 SCC 752;
3. Ganapati Santaram Bhosale v. Ramachandra Subbarao Kulkarni – ILR 1985 Kar 1115.
Ganapati Santaram Bhosale (cited supra), learned Senior Counsel submitted that a non-alienating joint family member seeking partition is not required to challenge the alienations effected by other coparceners and that defendant No.3 is entitled to seek partition even as a defendant.
NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011
HC-KAR
and the oral and documentary evidence on record, this
Court, being the final fact-finding authority, proceeds to examine the rival contentions.
(iii) What order?
Findings on Point No.(i): -
complexities and inherent difficulties that Courts are frequently confronted with while adjudicating intra-family
NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011
HC-KAR
property disputes. More often than not, particularly in rural settings, partitions are effected under informal, incomplete or legally defective instruments. While such documents may not strictly conform to statutory requirements, on the ground there may nevertheless be a disruption or severance of joint family status based on such arrangements. With the passage of time, parties tend to selectively rely upon or disown these documents to suit their convenience, thereby placing the Court in the onerous position of having to undertake a deeper scrutiny not merely of the documents themselves, but also of the surrounding conduct of the parties to ascertain whether the family continued to remain joint or whether there was, in fact, a severance of status as contended by the party setting up such documents.
this Court has meticulously examined the rebuttal evidence adduced by defendant Nos.1 and 2. The defendants have placed heavy reliance on Exs.D.7 and D.8
NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011
HC-KAR
to substantiate their plea of prior partition. The learned Trial Judge has construed these documents as mere memorandum of partition. However, on a careful and close reading of Exs.D.7 and D.8, it is manifest that these documents do not record or acknowledge an earlier oral partition, but instead purport to effect a partition by themselves. The recitals disclose allocation of specific properties and conferment of exclusive rights, thereby evidencing an operative partition. Consequently, such documents, being instruments effecting partition, compulsorily require registration. In that view of the matter, the objection raised by the plaintiffs with regard to their admissibility is well-founded and the Trial Court has clearly erred in treating Exs.D.7 and D.8 as mere memorandum not requiring registration.
NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011
HC-KAR
Nos.1, 2 and 3 as well as material admissions acknowledging that certain suit schedule properties were subjected to Joint Development Arrangements. These documents and admissions, when examined cumulatively, necessitate a closer scrutiny of the conduct of the parties post the alleged partition. It is in this context that this Court is compelled to advert to certain sale deeds executed by plaintiff Nos.1 and 3, as also by plaintiff No.2.
NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011
HC-KAR
or severance of joint family status. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the schedule to Ex.D.9 for
a proper appreciation of its legal effect.
" SCHEDULE
All that piece and parcel of the Property bearing House List Katha No.17, situated at Parappanna Agrahara Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring East to West 36 ft. and North to South 145 ft. and bounded on:
| East by | : | House belongs to Pattabhi Reddy |
|---|---|---|
| West by | : | Property belongs to PM Srinivasreddy |
| North by | : | Road |
| South by | : | Property belongs to P.O. Narayanreddi" |
NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011
HC-KAR
constitute strong pieces of contemporaneous evidence reflecting the state of affairs prevailing at the time of their execution and are relevant in determining whether there was a severance of joint family status.
NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011
HC-KAR
from the plaintiffs as to how plaintiff No.3 acquired the authority or title to alienate Site No.31 under Ex.D.1. This unexplained transaction strikes at the very root of the plaintiffs’ plea regarding disposal of Sy.No.43 and lends considerable support to the defence plea of severance and individual enjoyment.
NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011
HC-KAR
transaction. Plaintiff No.3 has executed yet another sale deed conveying an additional site, which is marked at Ex.D.2. The execution of multiple sale deeds by plaintiff No.3, asserting independent title over specific sites, is a circumstance of considerable evidentiary value and cannot be reconciled with the theory of an undivided joint family with plaintiff No.1 continuing as Kartha exercising exclusive dominion.
NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011
HC-KAR
plaintiff No.3. The relevant recitals therein read as under:
". . . . . . ��ೕ ಓಬ�ೆ��ಯವರ ಸು�ಾರು 42 ವಷ� ವಯ��ನ ಓ . � . �ಜಯ�ೆ�� ಆದ �ಾನು ಬ�ೆ��ೊಟ� � ರ ಸ!"#ನ ಶುದ% ಕ�ಯಪತ�ದ ಕ�ಮ ೇ�ೆಂದ�ೆ : ಇದರ� -ೆಡೂ/0ನ12 ನಮೂ3�ರುವ ಸ!ಲ5 ಅಂದ�ೆ 7ೆಂಗಳ:ರು ದ;ಣ =ಾಲೂ2ಕು 7ೇಗೂರು >ೋಬ? �ೋನಪ5ನ ಅಗ�>ಾರ @ಾ�ಮ ಪಂAಾಯ"@ೆ BೇCದ �ಾಗ�ಾಥಪEರ @ಾ�ಮದ @ಾ�ಮFಾGಾ >ೌI °I� 34 ಮತು# 33 �ೇ ನಂಬರು Jಾ=ಾ 4329 �ೇ ನಂಬರು ನನK L=ಾ�M�ತಾದ ಸ!ತು# ಆNದುO DPಾ@ಾಯು# ಸ!"#@ೆ �ಾ�ೇ ಸಂಪQಣ� ಹಕುSTಾರನೂ , �ಾ1ೕಕನೂ ಆN ಅಂ3Uಂದ ಸ!"#ನ Jಾ=ೆಯು ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ� ಕWೇCಯ12 ನನK >ೆಸC@ೆ ವ@ಾ�X��ೊಂಡು ಸದC ಸ!"#ನ ಕಂTಾಯ ಸ>ಾ �ಾ�ೇ ವಷ� ವಷ� ಕY��ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು ನನK ಇ-ಾ�ನುBಾರ ಸುಖ3ಂದಅನುಭ���ೊಂಡು ಬಂ3ರುವEದು ಸCಯ-ೆ� . . . . . . . "
NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011
HC-KAR
has proceeded to alienate the property asserting himself to be the absolute owner thereof. This simultaneous assertion of the property being ancestral on the one hand and of exclusive and absolute ownership on the other is wholly irreconcilable with the plaintiffs’ consistent plea that the family continued to remain joint and that no severance had taken place.
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011
HC-KAR
"The terms VENDOR and PURCHASERS herein used shall mean and include their respective heirs, legal representatives, administrators, executors, successors, attorneys and assignees, etc.
WHEREAS the Vendor is the sole and absolute owner of the Property bearing House List No.27, Katha No.43, situated at Naganathapura village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, hereinafter called the "Schedule Property" and more fully described in the Schedule hereunder and the same is Vendor's ancestral property.
WHEREAS the katha of the Schedule property stands in the name of the Vendor in the records of concerned office and the Vendor has been paying the taxes thereof regularly to the concerned office and till this date, the Vendor is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and it is free from all kinds of encumbrances.
WHEREAS the Vendor for want of money for his domestic needs and other legal necessities has offered and agreed to sell the Schedule Property to the Purchasers for a valuable consideration of the sum of Rs.62,000/- (Rupees Sixty Two thousand only) free from all kinds of encumbrances and the Purchasers have
NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011
HC-KAR
accepted the offer of the Vendor and agreed to purchase the schedule property for the said sale consideration."
(Emphasis supplied)
NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011
HC-KAR
family have dealt with specific portions of Sy.No.43 as their separate properties.
NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011
HC-KAR
admission is of great evidentiary value, as entering into a Joint Development Agreement presupposes exclusive control and assertion of ownership over the property dealt with.
NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011
HC-KAR
"21. It is true to suggest that land in Sy.No.67/2 was given for development under joint development agreement by me and other plaintiffs. I do not know the defendant No.1 and 2 are not parties to the said agreement.
22. In the old house at our native place my father was in possession till he died and subsequent to his death my younger brother Aswath Kumar is residing there. My father had leased the houses to the tenants. Now Aswathkumar is collecting the rents. It is true to suggest that we had filed this suit for partition only after the children of defendant No.1 and 2 demanded partition by issuing legal notice. The said children are not made as parties in the present suit.
23. I do not know that my sister was given her share of properties at the time of her wedding. Land in Sy.No.43 was converted into sites by my father and even alienated and therefore the purchasers are in possession many having constructed houses. It is true to suggest that in the partition deed schedule at Ex.D.7 and D.8 there is a reference to land in Sy.No.43. There is also mentioned in the same pertaining to the land in Sy.No.67/2 and 49/2. It is not true to suggest that during the lifetime of my father only there was division of properties. It is not true to suggest that though there was already a partition during the lifetime of my father. I have filed false suit. It is not true to suggest that as defendant no.1 is living away from the property, we have filed false case to knock off his property. It is not true to suggest
NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011
HC-KAR
that we have filed the false case to cheat defendant No.1. All the suit properties are uncultivated."
(Emphasis supplied)
HC-KAR
at Exs.D.7 and D.8. Significantly, the witness has also admitted that there is a specific reference to land bearing Sy.No.43 in the said documents. This admission directly undermines the plaintiffs’ contention that Sy.No.43 was entirely disposed of by plaintiff No.1 in his capacity as Kartha prior to the alleged partition. The acknowledgment of Sy.No.43 in Exs.D.7 and D.8 lends further corroboration to the defence plea that the said survey number continued to be the subject-matter of partition and separate enjoyment.
NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011
HC-KAR
own suggestions, conceded material aspects which lend
support to the defence version.
"12. Palupatti was written only after we went to the house of Oba Reddy. It was not scribed on stamp paper but it was on some other paper. Witness volunteers it was about 15-20 years ago and I am unable to recollect the
NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011
HC-KAR
details. I do not know who had scribed the Palupatti. I do not know which were the properties that were involved in the said Palupatti. I do not know the details of allotment of properties. Witness volunteers I do not know all that but I was called and informed that there was partition and I should be an attesting witness and therefore, I had signed the document. It is not true to suggest that I have signed at the behest of defendant No.1 Narayana Reddy and defendant No.2 Pattabhiramareddy. Witness volunteers I was requested by Vijaya Reddy to sign the Palupatti.
13. Subsequent to subscribing my signature to the Palupatti I had not seen the said document thereafter. All the sons of Oba Reddy had subscribed the signatures to the Palupatti even before we went to their house. Premakumari, the defendant No.3 had not signed the said Palupatti. I do not know whether Premakumari was allotted or not any share in the properties."
(Emphasis supplied)
by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs during the cross-examination of D.W.2, it becomes evident that the plaintiffs have virtually abandoned their initial and consistent plea that they constitute an undivided Joint Hindu Family which continued without any severance. The
NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011
HC-KAR
tenor and content of the suggestions unmistakably disclose that the plaintiffs themselves have acknowledged circumstances which are wholly inconsistent with their case of continued jointness. The extracted portions clearly demonstrate that, by advancing such crucial suggestions, the plaintiffs have, in effect, brought on record the true factual matrix governing the inter se relationship of the family members.
HC-KAR
independent witness, assumes considerable evidentiary value.
NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011
HC-KAR
gathered from Exs.D.7 and D.8 alone, the surrounding circumstances and, more importantly, the consistent conduct of the male members of the family assume decisive significance. The repeated and independent alienations of ancestral properties by plaintiff Nos.1, 2 and 3, asserting absolute ownership under Exs.D.1, D.2, D.3, D.4 and Ex.D.9, coupled with admissions elicited in crossexamination and the execution of a Joint Development Agreement in respect of Sy.No.67/2, clearly establish that the family had ceased to function as a joint unit much prior to the institution of the suit.
NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011
HC-KAR
the filing of the present suit. In that view of the matter, Point No.(i) is answered in the " Affirmative" .
Findings on Point No.(ii):-
HC-KAR
in the coparcenary property under the un-amended law.
This Court has already arrived at a clear conclusion that there was severance of joint family status during the lifetime of plaintiff No.1, the father of defendant No.3.
Though this Court has declined to place reliance on Exs.D.7 and D.8 as conclusive proof of a legally valid partition, the severance is otherwise established beyond doubt through the conduct of the parties, supported by registered sale deeds executed by the male members asserting exclusive title.
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma [(2020) 9 SCC 1]. The Hon’ble Apex
NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011
HC-KAR
Court, while taking note of ground realities prevalent in rural India, has categorically held that partitions are often effected orally or under unregistered documents, which may only be in the nature of memorandum. It was held that severance of status need not necessarily be proved only through a registered partition deed and that such severance can be established by other cogent evidence, including conduct of parties and contemporaneous documents.
NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:6782 RFA No. 572 of 2011 C/W RFA No. 439 of 2011
HC-KAR
No.3 necessarily fails and is liable to be rejected. Point
No.(ii) is answered in the ‘ Affirmative’
Counsel in RFA No.439/2011 have no application to the present case on hand.
Court proceeds to pass the following;
ORDER
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE
NBM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court was justified in holding that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have succeeded in establishing the factum of partition dated 19.06.1995?
Whether the finding of the Trial Court on additional issue No.10, relegating defendant No.3 to a separate suit for partition, is perverse and warrants interference?
What order?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
JASPAL KAUR CHEEMA AND ANOTHER V. INDUSTRIAL TRADE LINKS AND OTHERSReferred¶134
_Jaspal Kaur Cheema and Another v. Industrial Trade Links and Others – (2017) 8 SCC 592_ · Who else cites this
R.V.E. VENKATACHALA GOUNDER V. ARULMIGU VISWESWARASWAMI & V.P. TEMPLE AND ANOTHERReferred¶135
_R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple and Another – (2003) 8 SCC 752_ · Who else cites this
GANAPATI SANTARAM BHOSALE V. RAMANCHANDRA SUBBARAO KULKARNIExplained¶137
_Ganapati Santaram Bhosale v. Ramachandra Subbarao Kulkarni – ILR 1985 Kar 1115_ · Who else cites this
VINEETA SHARMA V. RAKESH SHARMAExplained¶296
_Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma [(2020) 9 SCC 1]_ · Who else cites this
P.O.VIJAYA REDDY S/O LATE OBA REDDY
P.O.ASHWATH KUMAR S/O LATE OBA REDDY
SMT.PREMAKUMARI W/O RAJA REDDY
SRI.P.O.NARAYANA REDDY S/O LATE OBA REDDY
SMT.SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE P.O.NARAYANA REDDY
SMT.SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE P.O.NARAYANA REDDY
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
