The Karnataka High Court allowed an appeal filed u/S. 96 of CPC r/w Order 41 Rule 3 of CPC, against the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2017 in an original suit on the file of the Sr. Civil Judge, dismissing the suit for partition and separate possession. The Court observed that the suit schedule property which was originally a joint family property as is evident from the registered Partition Deed dated 04.05.2002 became joint family property in the hands of M. Muniraju, who acquired the same under the aforesaid registered Partition Deed dated 04.05.2002.
Brief Facts:
the appellants and respondents Nos.2 and 3 are the children of respondent No.1 – Smt. Najamma and late M. Muniraju, who expired on 17.04.2015 leaving behind appellants and respondent Nos.1 to 3 to succeed to his estate including the suit schedule property as his heirs and legal representatives. Appellants – plaintiffs contended that the suit schedule property was the joint family property of the appellants and respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the suit schedule property being a joint family property of the appellants, respondent Nos.1 to 3 and M. Muniraju, the appellants had an undivided share in the suit schedule property and respondent Nos.1 to 3 as well as the aforesaid M. Muniraju did not have any right to deal with the suit schedule property, much less execute any documents in favour of third parties. Further, it was contended that before the expiry of the prescribed period of three years after attaining the age of majority, the appellants instituted the aforesaid suit for declaration that the Sale Deed dated 06.02.2013 was not binding upon the appellants or their undivided share in the suit schedule property and for consequential decree for partition and separate possession of their share in the suit schedule property.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the sole ground on which the Trial Court has dismissed the suit is by coming to the conclusion that the suit schedule property was acquired by late M. Muniraju vide registered Partition Deed dated 04.05.2002, as a result of which, the suit schedule property became his separate and self-acquired property.
The Court observed that it is well settled that a share allotted to the Hindu male at a partition of the joint family property partakes the nature of ancestral joint family property in his hands qua and insofar as it relates to his legal heirs including appellant No.2, the daughter of the deceased M. Muniraju. It follows there that the suit schedule property which was originally a joint family property as is evident from the registered Partition Deed dated 04.05.2002 became joint family property in the hands of M. Muniraju, who acquired the same under the aforesaid registered Partition Deed dated 04.05.2002.
The Court said that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is within a period of three years after attaining the age of majority, which is well within the prescribed period of limitation, and failure to appreciate would also vitiate the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court, allowing the appeal, held that the impugned judgment and decree dated 06.10.2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, is hereby set aside.
Case Title: Sri Vasanth Kumar & Anr. v. Smt. Nanjamma & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice S. R. Krishna Kumar
Case no.: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.684 OF 2018 (PAR)
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. N V Manjunath
Advocate for the Respondent: None
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :