In Brief
B.R. Patil, the first defendant in a partition suit, appealed against the High Court's decision allowing his siblings and the second defendant to partition properties formerly owned by their deceased father R.M. Patil. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The Court held that the suit did not fail due to non-inclusion of ancestral properties (which the appellant claimed but failed to establish with documents) or non-joinder of the appellant's uncle, since the suit concerned only R.M. Patil's self-acquired properties. The Court found the appellant's own evidence admitted these were self-acquired. It rejected his ouster claim because his partial ouster of only one co-heir while acknowledging others' titles was legally inconsistent, and his possession from 1977 onwards was lawful as an heir. Properties in the second defendant's name were his separate acquisitions, not joint family property.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.