Heirs’ shares extend to all floors constructed on joint-family land absent proof of exclusive ownership.

The suit property had been acquired by G. Venkatakrishnaiah Setty from the Bengaluru Development Authority.

After his death, his daughters sought partition, claiming that the property and the building on it were joint family property and that each plaintiff was entitled to a 1/5 share. The defendants disputed the claim, asserting that the plaintiffs had relinquished their shares under a family settlement and that the mother had constructed the upper floors.

The trial court declared the plaintiffs entitled to 1/5 shares in the land and first-floor building. The defendants appealed, and the plaintiffs cross-appealed, seeking shares in the entire building.

1. Whether the suit property was joint family property

2. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to 1/5 shares each in the suit property

3. Whether a family settlement had severed the joint family and established that the plaintiffs relinquished their shares

4. Whether the trial court’s judgment and decree required interference

The Court applied the principle that a party must establish its case on the pleadings and that evidence cannot ordinarily be considered on a material matter not pleaded; it relied on Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (dead) by LRs. v. V. Kumar Vamanrao @ Alok.

It also held that relinquishment or transfer of rights in immovable property must be evidenced by a registered instrument under the Registration Act.

Relying on Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, the Court treated the daughters as Class I heirs entitled to claim shares.

It further relied on Baljinder Singh v. Rattan Singh for the principle that a co-sharer cannot, by a gift, deprive other co-sharers of their shares.

The Court found the property had been acquired by the deceased and had not been partitioned among his heirs.

The defendants’ family-settlement defence was not pleaded in the written statement; the document produced was only a notarised copy, lacked signatures on its first two pages, and was not supported by a proper foundation for secondary evidence. The Court also found that the document did not establish payment in exchange for relinquishment.

The bank entries and no-objection affidavits for mutation did not prove a legally effective relinquishment.

Since the defendants failed to establish that the upper floors were constructed from funds exclusive to them, and the medical-shop business was found to be a family business, the building on the joint property was also shareable.

The mother’s gift could not defeat the plaintiffs’ shares.

It dismissed the defendants’ appeal and partly allowed the plaintiffs’ appeal, modifying the decree to declare that the plaintiffs and defendants were each entitled to a 1/5 share in the entire suit property, comprising the land and the ground, first and second floors.

No costs were awarded, and the claim for mesne profits was declined.