An Illiterate Father, Taken to the Registrar in an Autorickshaw, Can’t Be Assumed to Have Consciously Partitioned Ancestral Property: Karnataka High Court Restores Trial Court’s Partition Decree

A Mere Oral Plea of Partition Without Cogent Proof Cannot Displace Ancestral Rights Under Hindu Succession Law, Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru delivered a pivotal ruling reaffirming the rights of legal heirs in partition suits and condemning attempts to enforce questionable partitions based on unregistered oral palupattis and dubious registered documents executed under suspicious circumstances.

Justice H.P. Sandesh, while allowing the second appeal, restored the decree of the Trial Court dated 19.07.2019, which had granted partition and held that the plaintiffs were entitled to their legitimate share in the ancestral and joint family properties. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 07.02.2020 was held to be erroneous and unsustainable, as it relied on inadmissible oral evidence and failed to consider substantial questions of law and facts arising from documentary records.

“A Mere Oral Plea of Partition Without Cogent Proof Cannot Displace Ancestral Rights Under Hindu Succession Law”

The High Court scrutinised the First Appellate Court's reliance on an alleged oral partition dated 03.11.1972, evidenced only by an unregistered palupatti marked as Ex.D11, and found it legally infirm.

“It is well settled that an unregistered partition deed cannot be the basis to oust the legal claim to joint family property,” the Court observed. “There is no mutation, no documentary demarcation of shares, no conduct reflecting severance—merely a paper without legal sanctity.”

The court further held that the revenue records and RTC extracts from 1984 onwards showed the joint names of Muniyappa and Anjinappa, which clearly indicated continuous joint cultivation and possession—contradicting any prior partition.

“When A Registered Partition Is Executed Under Illness, Without Conscious Consent, It Becomes a Tool of Deprivation, Not Division”

The second major contention involved a registered partition deed dated 21.12.2004, which the plaintiffs challenged as fraudulent, alleging that their father—an illiterate, ailing man suffering from burn injuries—was taken to the Sub-Registrar’s Office in an autorickshaw and his thumb impression obtained without informed consent.

DW1, the defendant himself, admitted in cross-examination:
“Yes, he was taken in an autorickshaw due to illness. He had burn injuries at the time of execution.”

DWs 2 and 3 also admitted to the father’s health condition. Yet, the First Appellate Court overlooked this material testimony and gave undue weight to the mere execution of the document. The High Court noted:
“No recital in the registered partition deed refers to any earlier oral partition of 1972. The suspicious circumstances of execution and the physical and mental incapacity of the executant render the document non-binding.”

The Trial Court had rightly declared the registered partition deed and the subsequent sale deed dated 25.04.2005 (Ex.D10) as null and void concerning the plaintiffs’ share, a finding the High Court upheld.

“Re-Granted Inam Land to Joint Holders Remains Joint Family Property—Individual Transfer Cannot Unilaterally Alter Title”

The suit properties included inam land re-granted jointly to the plaintiffs' father and the defendant under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act. The Court relied heavily on Ex.P1 (re-grant order) and Ex.P2 to P11 (mutation entries and RTC extracts) to conclude that the properties retained the character of joint family assets.

Rejecting the defendants’ plea that land bearing Sy.No.128/5 was self-acquired, the Court observed:
“The RTC of 1985-86 (Ex.P19) shows joint cultivation by both Muniyappa and Anjinappa. Subsequent grant in the sole name of Anjinappa does not negate earlier joint possession.”

Thus, the Court affirmed that the properties—whether ancestral or re-granted—remained liable to partition under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (as amended by Act of 2005).

“Oral Assertions Without Proof Can’t Dismantle Registered Rights—Revenue Records, Not Interested Witnesses, Tell the True Story”

The High Court gave significant weight to the documentary evidence over oral testimonies. DW2 and DW3, being related and having purchased land from the defendants, were found to be interested witnesses whose evidence was inconsistent and unreliable.

“Oral testimonies are not substitutes for the clarity of RTCs and re-grant orders. The sale deeds executed jointly by both parties in 2001 demolish the case of a 1972 partition,” the Court observed.

Moreover, the Court questioned how properties could be jointly sold in 2001 if there had been a complete severance of status in 1972, as alleged by the defendants.

In setting aside the First Appellate Court's decision, the Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed the primacy of documented ownership, evidentiary rigour, and statutory succession rights. It declared the oral partition of 1972 unproven, the registered deed of 2004 non-binding, and upheld the Trial Court’s decree of partition—protecting the legitimate shares of all legal heirs, including daughters, in light of Section 6 of the amended Hindu Succession Act.

Date of Decision: 19.12.2025