In Brief
Plaintiffs (nephews of Hanamappa) sued to partition agricultural lands, claiming properties in Schedules B and C as self-acquired and demanding a 4/9th share in ancestral properties (Schedule D). Defendants (uncle Bhimappa and aunt Gundavva) contended all properties were ancestral and had been orally partitioned in 1993. Both Trial Court and High Court dismissed the suit, finding plaintiffs failed to prove self-acquisition by documentary evidence (sale-deeds, proof of purchase). The Supreme Court upheld both concurrent findings, applying the Hindu law presumption that family properties are ancestral absent clear proof otherwise. Since plaintiffs admitted jointness regarding Schedule D properties, the same presumption extended to Schedules B and C, and the oral partition of 1993 was valid. Appeal dismissed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.