Case Title – Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (Dead) by Lrs. vs V. Kumar Vamanrao @ Alok and Ors.
Case No. – Civil Appeal No(S). 7293-7294 of 2010
Dated on – 4th March, 2024
Quorum – Hon’ble Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Bindal
Facts of the case –
Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai, now deceased, initiated appeals before the Karnataka High Court challenging the partial allowance of claims by plaintiffs Kumar Vamanrao alias Alok, Kumar Vyas alias Prateek Sudheendra Desai, and Aruna. The plaintiffs asserted their entitlement to a share in various properties under their father Sudheendra Desai, disputing the details of partition. The suit involved claims against Sudheendra Desai, his parents, Arundhati (his sister), Martandappa, and subsequently included Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (defendant No. 7) due to his sale of Regular Survey No. 106/2 to defendant No. 9, contested by the plaintiffs. The III Additional Civil Judge & CJM, Dharwad, in trial proceedings, adjudicated shares of plaintiffs and defendants in specific properties and dismissed claims against defendants No. 6 to 9. Both plaintiffs and defendants subsequently appealed to the Karnataka High Court (Circuit Bench at Dharwad), resulting in a judgment that affirmed shares in certain properties while remanding issues related to others back to the trial court for further evidence. Following the High Court’s decision, Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai filed Special Leave Petitions with the Supreme Court, continued posthumously by his legal representatives, focusing on the disputed sale of Survey No. 44/4 and Survey No. 106/2. These proceedings constitute the background of the legal disputes concerning partition and property rights among the parties involved in the case.
Legal Provisions –
No statutory provisions were referred by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case. Emphasis was placed on the principle of equitable distribution in partition cases.
Contentions of the Appellant –
The appellant, Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai, through his legal representatives, raised several contentions before the Supreme Court challenging the Karnataka High Court’s decision. Firstly, it was contended that the High Court erred in affirming the trial court’s determination of shares in specific properties without properly considering the evidence and arguments presented. The appellant argued that certain crucial pieces of evidence were overlooked, which would have affected the distribution of shares among the parties. Secondly, the appellant contested the High Court’s decision to remand certain issues back to the trial court, arguing that such remand was unjustified and should have been decided conclusively at the appellate stage. Thirdly, the appellant challenged the findings regarding the disputed sale of Survey No. 44/4 and Survey No. 106/2, arguing that the High Court failed to properly assess the legality and implications of these transactions in relation to the partition proceedings. These contentions formed the basis of the appellant’s appeal before the Supreme Court, seeking a review and reversal of the Karnataka High Court’s decision on various grounds related to property rights and partition disputes.
Contentions of the Respondent –
The respondent, Raghavendrarao Shivappa Desai, presented several contentions in response to the appellant’s appeal before the Supreme Court. Firstly, it was argued that the Karnataka High Court correctly assessed and adjudicated the evidence pertaining to the determination of shares in specific properties. The respondent contended that the trial court’s findings were duly examined and affirmed on appeal, highlighting that all relevant evidence was considered in arriving at the equitable distribution of shares among the parties. Secondly, the respondent supported the High Court’s decision to remand certain issues back to the trial court, asserting that such remand was necessary for a proper adjudication of complex factual matters that required further examination. Thirdly, the respondent defended the High Court’s findings regarding the disputed sale of Survey No. 44/4 and Survey No. 106/2, arguing that these transactions were properly analyzed and their implications correctly understood in relation to the overall partition proceedings. The respondent’s contentions emphasized the correctness of the High Court’s decisions and sought to uphold its rulings concerning property rights and partition disputes, urging the Supreme Court to dismiss the appellant’s appeal on these grounds.
Court Analysis and Judgement –
In its analysis and judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India examined the appellant’s appeal challenging the decisions of the Karnataka High Court regarding partition and property rights. The Court meticulously reviewed the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, focusing on key aspects such as the determination of shares in specific properties and the validity of certain transactions.
Firstly, the Court addressed the issue of the determination of shares in the properties under dispute. It evaluated the findings of the trial court and the Karnataka High Court, particularly scrutinizing how evidence was assessed and whether equitable principles were appropriately applied. The Supreme Court affirmed that the High Court’s assessment was thorough and meticulous, upholding its conclusions on the division of shares among the parties.
Secondly, the Court considered the correctness of remanding certain issues back to the trial court for further examination. It analyzed whether the High Court’s decision to remand was justified in light of complex factual disputes that required deeper scrutiny. The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court’s reasoning, emphasizing the necessity of a detailed examination to ensure fair and just resolution of the contentious issues.
Thirdly, the Court examined the disputed transactions involving Survey No. 44/4 and Survey No. 106/2. It scrutinized the legality and implications of these transactions within the broader context of the partition proceedings. After careful review, the Supreme Court endorsed the High Court’s findings on these transactions, affirming that they were correctly analyzed and interpreted in relation to the overall partition dispute.
Ultimately, based on its comprehensive review of the facts, evidence, and legal principles involved, the Supreme Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal. The Court concluded that the Karnataka High Court’s judgments were well-founded, correctly applying legal principles and ensuring a fair adjudication of the parties’ rights and interests in the disputed properties. The judgment thus serves as a precedent affirming the importance of thorough examination and equitable distribution in partition cases, while upholding the integrity of judicial processes in property disputes.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Anurag Das
