Partition not applicable on HUF property acquired after severance of joint family

S Shyam Prasad | NT

Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has said that partition of property of a Hindu Joint Family (HUF) that was acquired after severance from the joint family cannot be allowed.

Justice KS Mudgal and Justice CM Joshi in a recent judgement said, “The joint family of the plaintiffs and defendants had severed in 1975 which is evidenced by the ‘palupatti’ (agreement) dated 02-6-1975. All the suit properties were acquired subsequent to 02-6-1975 and therefore, it cannot be said that they were joint family properties. Therefore, the appeal is bereft of merits.”

The division bench was hearing an appeal by one Ranganatham. He had approached the Civil Court seeking partition from his family members but his suit filed in 2007 was dismissed in 2013.

He then filed the appeal in the High Court. His case was that Gumpu Chowdaiah was the original propositus of the family.

Ranganatham is from the branch of Chowdaiah’s second son Ramaiah while the defendants in the case represented the first son Venkataswamy.

The third son of Cohwdaiah, Subbanna did not have any children. The joint family was from Balepalli in Andhra Pradesh.

Chowdaiah died in 1960, Ramaiah in 2000 and Venkataswamy in 1994. Some of the members of the family moved to Bengaluru and continued the profession of weaving.

They acquired properties here. He sought partition of the property in Bengaluru claiming it was purchased from the property sold in Andhra Pradesh.

The defendants however contended that there was a ‘palupatti’ between Ramaiah and Venktaswamy in 1975 itself and the joint family had come to an end.

The HC in its judgement noted that “In the case on hand, it is an admitted fact by the plaintiffs that the defendants had moved to Yelahanka, Bangalore and there is absolutely no material on record that they had used the income from the nucleus of the family.

It is also an admitted fact by the plaintiffs that defendants have started their own business at Yelahanka.”

The HC also noted that after 1975, the joint family had come to an end. “There is absolutely no material on record to show that the joint family of the plaintiffs and defendants continued in food, worship and estate,” it said.

The HC also held that though the ‘palupatti’ was not admissible as an evidence, it was proof of the severance of the joint family.

“The separation is also depicted as per the agreement at Ex.D6. Under these circumstances, even if we hold that Ex.D6 is not admissible in evidence, it can very well serve the purpose of proof of severance of the joint family status,” the HC said dismissing the appeal. (RFA 1507/2013)