'Failed To Prove Karta Sold Ancestral Property Without Legal Necesssity' : Supreme Court Restores Dismissal Of Partition Suit

A bench of Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Sandeep Mehta held so while hearing an appeal filed by the purchaser of the suit properties against the Karnataka High Court's 2010 judgment, which had reversed the trial court's dismissal of a partition suit filed by the wife and two sons of one Renukaiah.

Renukaiah had received six items of land in a family partition in 1983. In 1993, he sold two of these properties to meet financial difficulties, as recorded in the sale deed also. The properties passed through subsequent sales before being purchased by the appellant during the pendency of the suit.

After Renukaiah's death, his wife and two sons filed a suit for partition confined to only two of the six properties, alleging that the sale had been made without legal necessity and without their consent. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the sale proceeds had gone towards repayment of a loan taken for constructing a house. In appeal, the Karnataka High Court reversed the finding, relying on the son's testimony that Renukaiah was addicted to gambling and drinking.

Aggrieved by the High Court's finding, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court noted that the plaintiffs had never challenged the validity of the registered sale deed itself, making its recitals significant to the controversy.

The bench also noted that the son (PW 1) examined as the sole witness for the plaintiffs, admitted in cross-examination that he had only heard from unnamed persons that the property was worth more, and no documentary or official evidence of market value was produced.

The Court also found the allegation regarding the deceased father's bad vices to be unsupported by independent evidence. It observed that the son (PW 1) himself admitted that his mother (PW 3) was aware of the alleged habits, making her non-examination critical.

“The plaintiffs, therefore, should have examined respondent/plaintiff No. 3 if they were intending to establish the said allegation and the circumstances in which the sale was effected, but consciously chose not to do so,” the bench observed.

It held that since the wife alone would have had personal knowledge of the family's financial affairs, her failure to testify warranted an adverse inference against the plaintiffs.

The Court further took note of the selective nature of the suit, pointing out that the plaintiffs had sought partition of only two of the six properties inherited by Renukaiah, while admittedly leaving out four other properties that had been sold to their paternal uncle at whose instance the suit itself had been filed. It also noted the absence of any prayer for cancellation of the sale deed, which it held was a further circumstance denting the plaintiffs' case when considered along with the other factors.

“These circumstances, taken together, materially affect the basis upon which respondent Nos. 1-3/plaintiffs sought relief of partition in respect of the suit schedule properties,” the bench observed.

In the light of above, the Supreme Court held that the Karnataka High Court had reversed a well-reasoned trial court judgment merely on the basis of an unsubstantiated allegation. It, thus, concluded as:

“Having regard to the facts and circumstances noticed hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment of the High Court does not withstand judicial scrutiny. The judgment of the trial Court, dismissing the suit for partition upon appreciation of the evidence and holding that the sale proceeds had been utilised towards discharge of the loan incurred for construction of the Bengaluru house, was based on a plausible and reasoned appreciation of the material on record. The High Court, in our view, was not justified in interfering with the same merely on the basis of the unsubstantiated allegation regarding the alleged vices of Renukaiah.”

The High Court's judgment was set aside and the trial court's judgment dismissing the suit was, thus, allowed.

Case: HG Pattabi v KR Suraj & Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 987

Appearance:

For Appellant: Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish, AOR; Mr. Girish Ananthamurthy, Adv.

For Respondents: Mr. PR Ramasesh, AOR; Mr. Abdul Azeem Kalebudde, Adv.