GANGAMMA ETC. versus G. NAGARATHNAMMA & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2009] 9 S.C.R. 1167 · Decided: 06-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 9 S.C.R. 1167 
' 
GANGAMMA ETC. 
A 
v. 
_., 
G. NAGARATHNAMMA & ORS. ETC. 
' 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4126-4127 of 2009) 
JULY 6, "2009 
B 
(S. 8. SINHA AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
~ 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - s. 14(1) - Partition suit-
Of the property recorded in the name of Hindu female - Plea 
that the property was in fact joint family 
property - Held: c 
Plaintiff not entitled to partition in such property- By virtue of 
s. 14(1), the defendant was the full owner of the property -
-· 
Partition. 
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (mother and daughter D 
respectively) filed a partition suit against appellant No. 1 
and others. Appellant No. 1 was the mother-in-law of 
respondent No. 1. Plaintiffs claimed 1/3 share in the suit 
property. Plaintiff contended therein that although two of 
the items in the Schedule property were in the name of E 
appellant No. 1, actually they were ancestral property 
belonging to the joint family. Trial Court decreed the suit 
.., 
holding the plaintiffs entitled to 116 share in the schedule 
.. 
property. High Court in first appeal and cross objection 
held that though two of the schedule property were 
F 
recorded in the name of appellant No.1, they in fact were 
joint family properties. Hence the present appeal. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
1 
HELD: As the Schedule properties at item Nos. 1 and 
G 
>. 
2 are recorded in the name of the appellant No. 1 in the 
r 
absence of any evidence to the contrary in this case, the 
appellant by operation of Section 14(1) of Hindu 
succession Act, is the full o~ner of those properties. In 
) 
I, 
1167. 
H 
1168 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 9 S.C.R. 
A the facts of the instant case, it has to be accepted that 
those properties are not joint properties, but the appellant 
is the sole owner of those properties. Section 14(1) would 
.. apply in respect of the properties which stand in the name 
of the appellant and the appellant would be the full owner 
B of those properties. Therefore the order of the High Court 
cannot be upheld. [Paras 14, 19 and 20] (1171-G-H; 1172-
A-B; 1173-B-D] 
Eramma vs. Veerupana and Ors. AIR 1966 SC 1879; 
Punithavalli Ammal vs. Minor Rama/ingam and Anr. AIR 
C 1970 SC 1730; Badri Pershad vs. Smt. Kanso Devi AIR 1970 
SC 1963; Vaddeboyina Tulasamma and Ors. vs. 
Vaddeboyina Sesha Reddi (dead) by L.Rs. AIR 1977 SC 
1944, relied on. 
D 
E 
Case Law Reference: 
AIR 1966 SC 1879 
AIR 1970 SC 1730 
AIR 1970 SC 1963 
AIR 1977 SC 1944 
Relied on. 
Relied on~ 
Relied on. 
Relied on. 
Para 15 
Para 16 
Para 17 
Para 18 
C.IVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
,. · 4126-4127 of 2009. 
·From the Judgment & Order dated 1.12.2006 of the High 
· F 
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore jn RFA 617/2004 C/w RFA 
CROSS 47 of 2006. 
G.V. Chandrashekhar (for Anjana Chandrashekhar) for the 
Appellants. 
G 
S.N. Bhat for the Respondents. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
GANGULY, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. The subject matter of challenge before this Court is the 
-
"1· 
GANGAMMA ETC. v. G. NAGARATHNAMMA & ORS. 1169 
ETC. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.] 
judgment and order dated 1st December, 2006 passed by a A 
Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka at 
Bangalore in Regular First Appeal 617/2004 and in the cross 
objection 4 712006 filed under order 41, rule 22 against the 
judgment and decree dated 28.01.04 passed in Original Suit 
No.6169/92 by the XX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore s 
City. 
3. The dispute arose out of a partition suit filed by i) Smt. 
Nagarathnamma wife of late G. Srinivas and ii) by G. Hemlata 
who was a minor at the time of filing of the suit in 1992. Plaintiff 
was the only child of the plaintiff No.1, who was her mother and C 
natural guardian and she represented the plaintiff No.2. The 
plaintiffs are respondent Nos. 1 & 2 before this Court. 
4. This suit was filed for partition claiming 1/3rd share in 
_,, 
suit properties and also claiming separate possession by D 
metes and bounds and for mesne profits and other incidental 
reliefs. 
5. The first defendant in the suit is the mother-in-law of the 
plaintiff No.1 and the defen~fants 2, 3 & 4 are the daughters of E 
the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.5 is the son of the 
defendant No.1. Defendants 6 to 14 are tenants in the suit 
properties. 
6. The plaint case is Sri. Ganganna, the father-in-law of the 
plaintiff No.1, expired in 1973 leaving behind his wife, three 
F 
daughters and two sons. The genological table of t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.