Son’s Partition Challenge Fails: Karnataka HC Upholds 1/5 Shares For Him And Three Sisters; One Sister Also Entitled To Late Mother’s Share, Except Sy.No.29/2

The plaintiffs, comprising the deceased Channabasappa’s wife and daughters, sued for partition of properties, claiming that they and his son, the appellant, were entitled to shares.

The trial court found the properties to be Channabasappa’s separate or self-acquired properties, except Sy.No. 29/2, and decreed shares in the remaining properties.

The First Appellate Court dismissed the son’s appeal and, having found that the mother’s registered Will in favour of plaintiff No. 4 was proved, awarded her 2/5 and plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 and the appellant 1/5 each.

The appellant challenged those decisions in this second appeal.

Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 governs intestate succession to an individual’s separate property, with the deceased’s Class I heirs succeeding to it.

The Court also relied on Section 6 as amended and Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1, concerning daughters’ equal coparcenary rights and the application of amended Section 6 in pending proceedings.

A Will must be proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act; registration alone does not dispense with proof.

In a second appeal, concurrent factual findings supported by evidence do not warrant interference absent a substantial question of law.

The High Court found that both lower courts had assessed the documentary and oral evidence and concluded that the appellant had not established that the suit properties were ancestral or joint-family property, or that marriage expenses, gifts, or other payments had satisfied the plaintiffs’ shares.

It rejected the appellant’s challenge to the shares, also relying on Vineeta Sharma in addressing the claim based on the properties’ alleged coparcenary character.

The First Appellate Court had examined the attesting witnesses and other evidence relating to the Will and found it duly proved; the High Court held that finding was neither perverse nor legally infirm.

The concurrent findings disclosed no substantial question of law.

The Court declined to interfere with the decree: plaintiff No. 4 was entitled to 2/5, and plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 and the appellant to 1/5 each, in the suit properties, excluding Sy.No. 29/2; partition and separate possession were to follow accordingly.