Mere Allotment Of Property Without Registration Does Not Confirm Allottee's Title: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that the wife of an original allottee becomes the absolute owner of the property if, before registration of property, the allottee died and thereafter on making the necessary payment the property is transferred in the woman's name.A single judge bench of Justice S Rachaiah dismissed an appeal filed by Adhilakshmi and others challenging a trial court...
The Karnataka High Court has held that the wife of an original allottee becomes the absolute owner of the property if, before registration of property, the allottee died and thereafter on making the necessary payment the property is transferred in the woman's name.
A single judge bench of Justice S Rachaiah dismissed an appeal filed by Adhilakshmi and others challenging a trial court order dismissing their suit for partition and separate possession of the property.
The court said “Even though the property has been allotted in favour of K.Thippanna, he died before its registration and subsequently after making necessary payment to the authority, the property has been transferred to the wife of the original allottee. Therefore, the said property becomes absolute property of Lakshmamma in terms of Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act. As such, it can be inferred that Lakshmamma is the absolute owner of the property. Mere allotment of the property in favour of K.Thippanna without its registration does not confirm any title over the said property.”
The appellant is the wife of deceased K. Mahadev and other appellants are her children. It was said that the father of K. Mahadev was allotted suit schedule property under the dramatist quota by the BDA in the year 1976-1977. Before registration of the said property, K.Thippanna father of K.Mahadeva, died. All the legal representatives of the deceased K.Thippanna consented to transfer the property in the name of Smt. Lakshmamma, who is the wife of Thippanna. Accordingly, the BDA registered the property on 03.07.1998 in favour of Lakshmamma.
Lakshmamma, after registration of the property, bequeathed the property in favour of the defendant, K Chidanand. By virtue of the 'Will', the defendant was enjoying the property by taking possession thereof without partition of the said property in favour of the plaintiffs though he knew that it is a joint family property.
The appellants argued that it is an admitted fact that the appellants are the wife and children of K. Mahadev who is the son of the deceased K.Thippanna and Lakshmamma. The appellants are coparceners of the property of deceased Lakshmamma and they are entitled to have a share in the said property. Merely because one of the coparceners relinquished his rights over the property, that may not be absolved the other coparceners to have share over the other schedule property.
Further, it was said “The property was allotted in the name of the kartha of the family namely K.Thippanna, by consent of K.Mahadev and the defendant, the BDA registered the property in the name of the wife of the original allottee. Therefore, K.Lakshmamma being a co-sharer cannot make 'Will' the entire property. Therefore, the property has to be divided among the legal representatives of the original allotted."
The respondent contended that the plaintiffs have not proved that the property is a joint family property, therefore, they are not entitled for partition of the property. The 'Will' executed by the deceased Lakshmamma in favour of the defendant has been duly registered before the Sub Registrar and therefore, it cannot be doubted.
Moreover, the registered relinquishment deed executed by the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of other plaintiffs dated 15.03.2000 is after knowing that the 'Will' was executed by the deceased Lakshmamma in favour of the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiffs/appellants are not entitled for any relief.
The bench on going through the records noted that when the plaintiffs failed to prove the status of the joint family property, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court in respect of the dismissal of the suit.
It said “The plaintiffs have no right over the property when the brother of the defendant was alive. If at all, if any partition is required to be sought, the brother of the defendant had to file suit for partition against the defendant. In the present suit, the brother of the defendant has not been made as a necessary party and it is also seen from the record that the said elder brother of the defendant had executed a relinquishment deed in favour of the defendant, that has not been challenged.”
Thus it held “Even though PW.1 stated in her evidence that she contributed an amount to purchase the property, it cannot confer the right for partition as the allottee namely Smt.Lakshmamma becomes absolute owner of the property. The plaintiffs are not entitled for any share even though the property to be partitioned as K.Mahadev being one of the sons of Lakshmamma is alive. Moreover, the said K.Mahadev relinquished his right to the defendant. Therefore, the findings of the Trial Court in dismissing the suit is justified and therefore, I declined to interfere with the said findings.”
Appearance: Advocate A Ram Mohan for Appellants.
Advocate Murali N for Respondent.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 230
Case Title: Adhilakshmi & Others AND K Chidanand
Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 764 OF 2010