MARABASAPPA (D) BY LRS. & ORS. versus NINGAPPA (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

MARABASAPPA (D) BY LRS. & ORS. versus NINGAPPA (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the trial court correctly found that the disputed lands (except the tenanted portion) were self-acquired by Parwatevva from the income of the stridhana (A7) and related purchases, the High Court erred in shifting the burden of proof to the appellants and in treating those properties as joint family property; accordingly the High Court judgment was set aside and the Trial Court decree restored.

Parties
Appellant Defendant: Marabasappa; Respondent Plaintiff: Ningappa
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No. 3495 of 2001 / Final Judgment of Supreme Court Allowing Appeal and Restoring Trial Court Decree
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment and order set aside; Trial Court decree restored.
Legal Topics
Stridhana, Self Acquired Property, Joint Hindu Family Property, Burden of Proof, Partition
Family Law Succession Property Law Civil Appeal Stridhana Self Acquired Property Joint Hindu Family Property Burden of Proof +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marabasappa

Appellant Defendant

Ningappa

Respondent Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No. 3495 of 2001 / Final Judgment of Supreme Court Allowing Appeal and Restoring Trial Court Decree

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the properties in dispute were self-acquired by Parwatevva or part of the joint Hindu family property
  2. 2 Whether R.S. No.271/1 (A7) as stridhana is absolute property and not available for partition
  3. 3 Allocation of burden of proof when properties are purchased in the name of the mother

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the trial court correctly found that the disputed lands (except the tenanted portion) were self-acquired by Parwatevva from the income of the stridhana (A7) and related purchases, the High Court erred in shifting the burden of proof to the appellants and in treating those properties as joint family property; accordingly the High Court judgment was set aside and the Trial Court decree restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment and order set aside; Trial Court decree restored.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Judgment and Order of the High Court of Karnataka dated 30.03.1999 in RFA No. 385 of 1993 set aside