As per case facts, the legal representatives of the original plaintiffs sought partition of ancestral and tenanted properties. Lower courts dismissed their claim for a share in two specific properties, ...
- 1 -
RSA No. 100036 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 7
th
DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100036/2023 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
NEELAWWA
W/O. MALLAPPA MENASAGERI,
DECEASED BY HER LRS.,
1. SMT. RENAVVA
W/O. MUDAKAPPA BADAWADAGI,
AGE: 66 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE HOLD & AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GOPASANI VILLAGE,
TQ: HUNDUNG, DIST: BAGALKOT.
2. SMT. YALLAWWA
W/O. SANGAPPA KHAIRAWADAGI,
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK,
R/O: PALATHI VILLAGE,
TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MUTTAPPA S/O. BHEEMAPPA GODI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BEVINAHAL VILLAGE,
TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT.
2. BHANGARAWWA W/O. BASAPPA GONAL,
AGE: 54 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK & AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HULLALLI VILLAGE,
TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT.
3. SMT. RAMAVVA W/O. HULLAPPA KOLKAR,
AGE: 48 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK & AGRICULTURE,
- 2 -
RSA No. 100036 of 2023
R/O: AIHOLE VILLAGE,
TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT.
HANAMAPPA S/O. YALAGURADAPPA GODI,
DIED HIS LRS.,
4. SMT. MALLAMMA
W/O. MAHADEVAPPA MENASAGERI,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BUDIHAL (SK), TQ: HUNGUND,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
5. RAMALINGAPPA S/O. HANAMANTAPPA GODI,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BUDIHAL (SK), TQ: HUNGUND,
DIST. BAGALKOT.
6. SMT. SUMITRA W/O. MUDDAPPA GADED,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK,
R/O: BENAL, TQ: HUNGUND,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
7. SMT. FAKEERAVVA @ PAKEERAWWA
W/O. HANAMANTAPPA GODI,
AGE: 72 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE HOLD & AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BUDIHAL VILLAGE,
TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVA M. SHIRUR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R7;
NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT;
R3 - SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC.,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
19.10.2022 PASSED IN R.A.NO.171/2018 BY THE COURT O F
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT AND
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.04.2018 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.79/2014 BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT
HUNGUND, AND DECREE THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFFS, BY
ALLOWING THE PRESENT APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON
- 3 -
RSA No. 100036 of 2023
07.07.2026, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
CAV JUDGMENT
The legal representatives of Plaintiff No.1 and
Plaintiff No.2 in O.S.No.79/2014 on the file of lea rned
Senior Civil Judge, Hungund have maintained this regular
second appeal.
2.
Originally Smt. Neelawwa and Smt. Yallawwa
had maintained the suit in O.S.No.79/2014 for the relief of
partition and separate possession claiming their 3/ 16
th
share in four items of landed properties i.e., Sy.No.27/3
measuring 03 acre 08 guntas situated in Khairawadag i,
Sy.No.34 measuring 07 acre 16 guntas situated at Bevinal,
Sy.No.53/5 measuring 06 acres 09 gutas situated in
Boodihal Inam and Sy.No.136/2B measuring 01 acre 12
guntas situated in Ramathal.
3.
The case of the plaintiffs is that suit properties
are the ancestral properties of the parties to the suit and
there was no partition in the family. They maintained the
suit for partition on the ground that the defendant s
- 4 -
RSA No. 100036 of 2023
refused to affect partition and give their legitimate share
in the suit properties.
4.
After service of summons, all the defendants
appeared before the trial court through their couns el.
Defendant No.1 filed his written statement and same was
adopted by Defendant Nos.2 and 3. Defendant Nos.4 a nd
5 filed their separate common written statement.
5.
Defendant No.1 contends that Plaintiff No.1 and
mother of Plaintiff No.2 relinquished their share in suit
Items Nos.1 and 3 in favour of Defendant No.4 and S ri
Bheemappa, the father of Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and t hat
Item No.2 is the land granted to Defendant No.4 and Sri
Bheemappa by the Government. Under the said
circumstances, he contends that the plaintiffs have no
manner of right title or interest over the suit properties.
6.
Defendant Nos.4 and 5 admitted the case of the
plaintiffs and sought for allotment of their legitimate in the
suit properties.
7.
Based on the pleadings, the trial court framed
the following issues:
- 5 -
RSA No. 100036 of 2023
“1. Whether plaintiffs prove that suit properties are
joint family properties of parties to the suit?
2. Whether the defendant No.1 to 3 prove that
plaintiff No.1 and Yamanavva, who is mother of
plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.5, given up their
right and interest in respect of suit item No.1
and 3 in their favour and defendant No.4?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief
sought for?
4. Whether the defendant No.1 to 3 are entitled to
the relief sought in the written statement?
5. What order or decree?”
8.
During the pendency of the suit, Plaintiff No.1
died and her legal representative was brought on record.
Afterwards, the trial court recorded the evidence of the
parties. During the trial, Plaintiff No.2 deposed before the
court as PW-1 and got marked documents at Exs.P1 to 11.
On the side of defendants, Defendant No.4 gave evid ence
as DW-1, Defendant No.1 got examined as DW-2 and go t
marked documents at Exs.D1 to D8. Further, Defendan t
Nos.1 to 3 examined two more witnesses and closed t heir
evidence.
9.
The trial court, after hearing both sides and
considering the oral and documentary evidence avail able
on record, answered Issue Nos.1, 3 and 4 partly in
- 6 -
RSA No. 100036 of 2023
affirmative, Issue No.2 in the negative and decreed the
suit in part holding that Plaintiff No.1 is entitled for 1/4
th
share, Plaintiff No.2 and Defendant No.5 are jointl y
entitled to 1/4
th
share, Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are together
entitled to 1/4
th
share and Defendant No.4 is entitled to
1/4
th
share in Items Nos.1 and 3 properties and dismissed
the suit in respect of Item Nos.2 and 4 properties. Further,
the trial court declared that Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the
absolute owners of Item Nos.2 property.
10.
Being aggrieved by dismissal of the suit in
respect of Item Nos.2 and 4, the legal representative of
Plaintiff No.1 and Plaintiff No.2 maintained the appeal in
R.A.No.171/2018 challenging the judgment and decree of
the trial court to the said extent. Defendant No.4 died
during pendency of this appeal and immediately thereafter
his legal representatives were brought on record in the
said proceeding.
11.
Learned first appellate court relying on
decisions in Nimbavva and Others Vs Channaveerayya and
Others, reported in ILR 2013 KAR 6202 and Manjunath S/o
- 7 -
RSA No. 100036 of 2023
Fakkirappa Hajeri and another Vs Smt. Rajawwa and
others [RFA 381/2005 DD 5.11.2016] held that the
plaintiffs, being the married daughters of Yalagurdappa,
are not entitled to claim share in the tenanted land, i.e,
Item No.2 property. It further held that the plaintiffs have
failed to prove that Item No.4 property is either
coparcenary or joint family property and therefore, they
are not entitled for share in this land. Accordingly, learned
first appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree of
the trial court and dismissed the appeal.
12.
Feeling aggrieved, the legal representative of
Plaintiff No.1 and Plaintiff No.2 have maintained t his
regular second appeal praying to set-aside the judgment
and decree of the first appellate court and decree the suit
in entirety.
13.
This Court admitted the appeal on 08.02.2023
to consider the following substantial question of law:
“Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in
holding that the appellants being married daughters
of Yalagurdappa are not entitled for share in the
tenanted land in view of the judgment of this Court in
the case of RAMESH SANGAPPA RAGHA @
RAGHANNAVAR Vs SMT. KUSHANAVVA @
- 8 -
RSA No. 100036 of 2023
HEMALATA W/O SOMASHEKHAR BATTAL , decided
on 05.10.2020 in RFA No.100274/2017 .”
14.
During the course of argument on main appeal,
based on the contentions put forth before the court, this
Court framed an additional substantial question of law for
consideration as under:
“Whether the Courts below are justified in
overlooking the document marked at Ex.D4 coupled
with admission of Defendant No.4 while holding that
Item No.4 of suit property was neither a joint family
property nor an ancestral property?”
15.
Indisputably, one Yalagurdappa was the
propositus of the family. He died in the year 1962 leaving
behind two daughters viz., Yamanavva and Neelawwa
(Plaintiff No.2) and three sons viz., Bheemappa,
Hanamappa (Defendant No.4) and Neelappa. Yamanavva
died leaving behind Plaintiff No.2 and Defendant No.5 as
her legal heirs. Bheemappa died leaving behind Defendant
Nos.1 to 3 as his legal heirs. Neelappa died issueless.
16.
Admittedly, the propositus Yalagurdappa was
cultivating Item No.2 property i.e. land bearing Sy.No.34
measuring 7 acres 16 guntas situated in Bevinal Village as
- 9 -
RSA No. 100036 of 2023
a tenant. After his death, his son namely Bheemappa filed
Form No.7 for grant of occupancy right in respect o f the
said land. Thereafter, Item No.2 property was granted in
the names of Bheemappa and his brother Hanamappa i. e.
Defendant No.4. Accordingly, their names were entered in
the revenue records as per ME No.421.
17.
The plaintiffs claim their share in Item No.2
property on the ground that the occupancy right conferred
on Bheemappa and Hanamappa is for the benefit of en tire
family and not in their individual capacity. Wherea s,
Defendant Nos.1 to 3 contend that the Land Tribunal
granted the land to Bheemappa and Hanamappa and
thereby, the said land exclusively belong to them.
18.
Undisputedly, Sri Yalagurdappa died in the year
1962 and he was not alive as on the date of filing Form
No.7 for grant of occupancy right of Item No.2 prop erty.
The courts below proceeded to hold that the plaintiffs are
not entitled to claim share in Item No.2 property on the
ground that it is a land granted by the Land Tribun al to
- 10 -
RSA No. 100036 of 2023
Bheemappa and Hanamappa and it is neither an ancest ral
nor a joint family property of the parties to the suit.
19.
In Ramesh Sangappa Ragha @
Raghannavar Vs Smt. Kushanavva @ Hemalata W/o.
Somashekhar Battal (RFA No.100274/2017 DD
05.10.2020) the Division Bench of this Court relying on
the decision in Vineeta Sharma Vs Rakesh Sharma and
Others reported in AIR 2020 SC 3717 held that even a
married daughter is a member of joint family irrespective
of death of her father and that she is entitled to claim
share in the joint family property. In the above referred
case, some lands came to be granted to the father o f the
parties to the suit. There was also a division in the family,
wherein the properties in question fell to the share of the
family of the plaintiff and the defendant led by their father.
In such circumstances, it was held that irrespective of the
grant in the name of a particular person of the family, it
enures to the benefit of the family and that the ma rried
daughter is entitled to a share in such property as a
member of the joint family.
- 11 -
RSA No. 100036 of 2023
20. In Sangappa Kalyanappa Bangi Vs Land
Tribunal, Jamakhandi reported in (1998) 7 SCC 294
Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:
“Section 24 of the Act declares that when a tenant
dies, the landlord is deemed to continue the tenancy to
the heirs of such tenant on the same terms and
conditions on which the tenant was holding at the time
of his death. We have to read Section 21 with Section
24 to understand the full purport of the provisions .
Section 24 is enacted only for the purpose of making it
clear that the tenancy continues notwithstanding the
death of the tenant and such tenancy is held by the
heirs of such tenant on the same terms and conditions
on which he had held prior to his death. The heirs who
can take the property are those who are referable to in
Section 21. If he is a member of the joint family, then
the surviving members of the joint family and if he is
not such a member of a joint family, his heirs would be
entitled to partition. Again, as to who his heirs are will
have to be determined not with reference to the Act,
but with reference to the personal law on the matter.
…”
Accordingly, Hon’ble Apex Court held that the marri ed
daughters are also considered as coparceners, entitled for
share in the suit properties.
21.
In Chikkarangaiah S/o Late Rangaiah Since
rep by His LR and Successor in Interest Dr.Mohan
Chandra Prasad and Another Vs Gurusiddaiah S/o
Late Rangaiah and Others, reported in 2010 SCC
Online KAR 3692, this Court while considering claim of
- 12 -
RSA No. 100036 of 2023
exclusive and separate tenancy, this Court has held as
follows:
“Considering these decisions and also considering
the evidence on record in this case, when the
Defendant No. 1 has claimed occupancy rights as
having inherited the same from his father, Plaintiff
being one of the heirs, the tenancy being heritable, it
devolves not only on one of the heirs, but it devolved
on all the heirs. May be, the other heirs might not
have filed an application for grant of occupancy
rights, but it being the estate of the deceased, he
having died intestate, by succession, by survivorship,
it devolves on the heirs of the deceased, Plaintiff
being one of the Class I heirs, he is also entitled to
the share. No doubt, if the Defendant had claimed
exclusive cultivation independent of his father and
had claimed his tenancy not by inheritance, but by
acquisition by himself, if the other heirs had claimed
right out of the said grant, the Civil Court could not
have decided the said issue, but it is not a case here
that the Defendant No. 1 had claimed his exclusive
separate tenancy, but he having claimed as successor
to his father, it cannot be said that one of the
successors alone is entitled for grant particularly in
the light of the definition "to cultivate personally”
In this decision it is categorically held that the cultivation
on 01.03.1974 does not mean only as on 01.03.1974 b ut
cultivation prior to 01.03.1974 and that if the tenancy is
inherited, it is inherited by all the heirs and not only by
one or few heirs.
22.
In Vishnu Since Deceased by LRs. and
Others Vs Smt Buddavva and Others (NC: 2024:KHC-
- 13 -
RSA No. 100036 of 2023
D:14076) this Court relying on decisions in Sangappa
Kalyanappa Bangi Vs Land Tribunal, Jamakhandi (referred
supra), Nagappa S/o Jatta Naik Vs Smt. Mahadevi W/o
Manjunath Naik [RSA No.100164/2018 DD 21.06.2024],
Ramesh Sangappa Ragha @ Raghannavar’s Case (referred
supra), Chikkarangaiah’s Case (referred supra) and
Nimbavva’s case held that the married daughters are
entitled for share in tenanted land where it is proved that
the land granted enures to the benefit of joint family.
23.
In the present case, Bheemappa and
Hanamappa were the sons of the propositus. They cla imed
grant of occupancy right based on inheritance of th e
tenancy through the propositus. In view of the same, this
Court holds that the grant of occupancy right in the name
of Bheemappa and Hanamappa was not based on their
exclusive and separate tenancy and as such they are not
entitled to claim exclusive right over Item No.2 property or
to deny the right of inheritance of other children of the
propositus. In view of the same, this Court holds that the
courts below were not justified in denying the share to the
plaintiffs in Item No.2 property.
- 14 -
RSA No. 100036 of 2023
24. The courts below have even rejected the claim
of the plaintiffs for a share in Item No.4 property on the
ground that they have failed to prove that it is either a
coparcenery or joint family property. It is the definite case
of the plaintiffs that Item No.4 property i.e., land bearing
Sy.No.136/2B measuring 1 acre 12 guntas situated in
Ramathal Village is also the ancestral and joint fa mily
property of the parties to the suit. In support of this
contention they have produced a Record of Right
pertaining to the said property at Ex.P4. As per the said
document the property stands in the joint names of
Bheemappa, Hanamappa and Neelappa, the sons of
Yalagurdappa and that their names were mutated in t he
revenue record as per order in M.E.No.426.
25.
On the other hand, Defendant Nos.1 to 3 claim
that Item No.4 property is the absolute property of
Defendant Nos.1 to 4. First of all, Defendant No.4 has not
supported the above contention of Defendant Nos.1 t o 3.
Added to it, Defendant Nos.1 to 3 have not placed a ny
document before the court to prove their exclusive rights
or ownership over Item No.4 property. Further, they have
- 15 -
RSA No. 100036 of 2023
not come up with a definite statement regarding the
person who acquired the property or about the mode of its
acquisition. Thereby, it becomes clear that Defenda nt
Nos.1 to 3 have not adduced sufficient evidence on record
to support their contention.
26.
The case papers reveal that during the evidence
of Defendant No.1 as DW-2 he got marked certain
documents including a Record of Right pertaining to Item
No.4 property, which is at Ex.D4. As per the said
document Item No.4 property stands in the joint nam es of
Hanamappa and Neelappa, sons of Yalagurdappa and le gal
heirs of Bheemappa. The contents of this document a re
nothing but reiteration of the entries in Ex.P4 except to
the extent of showing the names of the legal heirs of
Bheemappa pursuant to his death.
27.
Defendant Nos.1 to 3 have examined two
witnesses namely Sri Bhimappa S/o Basappa Hunagund
and Sri Shivappa s/o Yamanappa as DW-3 and 4
respectively, in support of their case. In their examination
in chief both these witnesses have specifically stated that
- 16 -
RSA No. 100036 of 2023
they are well acquainted with the family of the parties to
the suit and they were involved in the process of division
of the properties and that Item No.4 property i.e., land
bearing R.S.No.136/2B measuring 1 acre 12 guntas wa s
one of the properties belonging to the family of the parties
to the suit. Thus, the materials on record clearly indicate
that the courts below have completely ignored the
evidence on record, i.e., Ex.P4, Ex.D4 and the admissions
of DW-3 and DW-4 while appreciating the case of the
plaintiffs in respect of Item No.4 property and erroneously
come to conclusion that they have failed to prove that the
said property is either coparcenary or joint family
property. For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that
the plaintiffs are entitle to a share even in Item Nos.2 and
4 of Schedule ‘A’ and accordingly, the substantial
questions of law framed in this appeal on 08.02.2023 and
07.07.2026 are answered in the negative.
28.
In the result, this Court proceeds to the pass
the following:
- 17 -
RSA No. 100036 of 2023
ORDER
(i)
The regular second appeal is allowed.
(ii)
The judgment and decree dated 19.10.2022
passed in R.A.No.171/2018 by the Court of
learned Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Bagalkot, confirming the judgment
and decree dated 19.04.2018 passed by
learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Hungund insofar as dismissal of the suit in
respect of Item Nos.2 and 4 of Schedule ‘A’
is set-aside.
(iii)
Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff is
decreed in entirety, holding that the Plaintiff
No.1 is entitled to 1/4
th
share in Item Nos.1
to 4 properties of Schedule ‘A’.
(iv)
Plaintiff No.2 and Defendant No.5 jointly,
Defendant Nos.1 to 3 jointly and Defendant
No.4 are entitled to 1/4
th
share each in Item
Nos.1 to 4 properties of Schedule ‘A’.
- 18 -
RSA No. 100036 of 2023
(v) Draw a modified preliminary decree
accordingly.
Sd/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE
KMS/RH/ASN
CT:ASC
In a significant ruling concerning [Partition of Ancestral Property] and [Daughter's Rights in Tenanted Land], the High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad has allowed Regular Second Appeal No. 100036 of 2023, setting aside the judgments of the lower courts. This pivotal decision, pronounced by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Muralidhara Pai on August 7, 2026 (with the judgment dated July 7, 2026), clarifies crucial aspects of Hindu succession law, particularly for married daughters. The full details of this authoritative judgment are now available on CaseOn, offering comprehensive insights for legal professionals and students alike.
The case originated from a partition suit (O.S. No. 79/2014) filed by Smt. Neelawwa and Smt. Yallawwa (and their legal representatives) seeking their 3/16th share in four items of landed properties. The plaintiffs contended that these were ancestral properties, and no partition had occurred within the family.
The first defendant argued that the plaintiffs had relinquished their share in some properties and that Item No. 2 (tenanted land) was granted exclusively to the sons by the government, thus denying the daughters any right. However, the plaintiffs maintained that the occupancy rights conferred on the sons for the tenanted land were for the benefit of the entire family, not just individuals. For Item No. 4, the plaintiffs presented records showing it in the joint names of the sons, indicating its ancestral nature.
The trial court and the first appellate court largely dismissed the plaintiffs' claim over Item Nos. 2 and 4, holding that married daughters were not entitled to a share in tenanted land and that the plaintiffs failed to prove Item No. 4 as joint family property.
The High Court framed two substantial questions of law for consideration:
The High Court relied on several landmark judgments to establish the legal principles governing partition and succession, particularly for daughters and tenanted properties:
The High Court carefully analyzed the facts in light of the established legal precedents:
The propositus, Yalagurdappa, was cultivating Item No. 2 as a tenant before his death in 1962. His sons, Bheemappa and Hanamappa (Defendant No. 4), subsequently obtained occupancy rights based on the inheritance of this tenancy. The High Court emphasized that such a grant, stemming from an inherited tenancy, benefits the entire joint family. It was not an exclusive grant based on the sons' individual efforts or separate tenancy. Therefore, Bheemappa and Hanamappa could not claim exclusive rights or deny the inheritance rights of other children of the propositus, including the married daughters. The lower courts' decision to deny the plaintiffs a share in Item No. 2 was thus found to be unjustified.
For legal professionals seeking deeper insights into such intricate rulings, CaseOn.in offers invaluable 2-minute audio briefs that concisely explain the nuances of these specific judgments, allowing for quick and efficient analysis.
The plaintiffs had submitted documentary evidence, specifically Ex.P4 (Record of Right), which clearly showed Item No. 4 property standing in the joint names of Bheemappa, Hanamappa, and Neelappa, the sons of Yalagurdappa. This entry was made via an order in M.E. No. 426. Furthermore, during the trial, Defendant No. 1 (as DW-2) also marked Ex.D4, which reiterated these joint entries. Significantly, defense witnesses (DW-3 and DW-4) themselves admitted that Item No. 4 belonged to the family and was part of the properties considered for division. The High Court concluded that the lower courts had erroneously overlooked this substantial evidence, including the admissions, and were incorrect in holding that Item No. 4 was not a joint family or ancestral property.
The High Court found that the lower courts had erred in denying the plaintiffs their legitimate share in Item Nos. 2 and 4 of the Schedule 'A' properties. Consequently, both substantial questions of law were answered in the negative. The Regular Second Appeal was allowed, and the judgments and decrees of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, and the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hungund, were set aside insofar as they dismissed the suit concerning Item Nos. 2 and 4.
The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed in its entirety, confirming that Plaintiff No. 1 is entitled to a 1/4th share in all four properties. Similarly, Plaintiff No. 2 and Defendant No. 5 jointly, Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 jointly, and Defendant No. 4 are each entitled to a 1/4th share in Item Nos. 1 to 4 properties of Schedule 'A'. A modified preliminary decree will be drawn accordingly.
This case involved a dispute over ancestral and tenanted properties, with daughters seeking their rightful share against their brothers. The original courts denied them a share in two key properties (tenanted land and another ancestral property), citing various reasons including the exclusive grant of tenanted land to sons and a lack of proof for the other property's joint family status. The Karnataka High Court, however, meticulously reviewed the legal precedents concerning Hindu succession, particularly the rights of married daughters in joint family and inherited tenancies. It concluded that grants originating from inherited tenancy benefit the entire family, and sufficient evidence proved the ancestral nature of the other disputed property. The High Court therefore overturned the lower court decisions, affirming the daughters' equal share in all properties.
This judgment serves as a critical reference for anyone studying or practicing Hindu succession law, property law, and the nuances of tenancy rights in India. For lawyers, it reinforces the robust legal position of married daughters as coparceners, particularly after the Vineeta Sharma judgment, and clarifies how inherited tenancy rights devolve upon all heirs, not just those who initially apply for occupancy. Students will find this case invaluable for understanding the application of the Hindu Succession Act, the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, and the interplay between personal law and statutory provisions concerning property rights. It highlights the importance of thorough evidence analysis and how appellate courts correct errors in legal interpretation by lower forums.
All information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, readers are advised to consult with a qualified legal professional for advice pertaining to their specific circumstances. CaseOn bears no responsibility for any actions taken based on the information contained herein.
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....