Supreme Court Upholds Oral Partition in Landmark Karnataka Property Dispute

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Nanjegowda @ Gowda (D) by LRs & Anr. vs. Ramegowda, ruled in favor of the respondent by upholding an oral partition of ancestral property that took place in 1935. The Court dismissed the appeal filed by the legal representatives of the original defendant, affirming that the High Court of Karnataka was correct in its findings regarding ownership and possession.

Background of the Case

The dispute involved an agricultural land bearing:

• Survey No. 44/14-B measuring 0.09 Guntas
• Survey No. 44/14-D measuring 0.06 Guntas

The land was located in Thondahalli, Bellur Hubali, Karnataka. The parties in this case were first cousins, belonging to the same family. The core issue revolved around the oral partition of the ancestral property among their respective fathers.

Legal Journey of the Case

The respondent, Ramegowda, filed a suit (O.S. No. 204 of 1991) in the Munsif Court of Nagamangala, seeking:

• A declaration that he was the owner of the disputed land.
• A permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession.

The trial court ruled in favor of the respondent, but the defendants (appellants) appealed the decision. The case went through multiple levels of judicial review:

• The First Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s decision, ruling in favor of the defendants.
• The respondent then filed a Regular Second Appeal (R.S.A. No. 498 of 2001) before the Karnataka High Court.
• The High Court overturned the First Appellate Court’s ruling and restored the trial court’s decision.
• The appellants challenged the decision in the Supreme Court.

Petitioner’s (Appellants’) Arguments

The appellants (defendants) contended that:

• The alleged oral partition of 1935 was never documented, making it legally unenforceable.
• The plaintiff’s claim was based on incorrect revenue records.
• They had adverse possession of the land for decades, which gave them ownership.
• A release deed from 1940 nullified the respondent’s claim.

Respondent’s (Ramegowda’s) Arguments

The respondent (plaintiff) countered by asserting:

• The oral partition of 1935 was acknowledged and followed by all family members for decades.
• Revenue records consistently reflected his name as the owner.
• The appellants’ claim of adverse possession was untenable because no member of the family had challenged his possession before the suit was filed.
• The release deed relied upon by the defendants did not pertain to the disputed land.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered by Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Navin Sinha, made the following observations:

“It is a settled principle of law that an oral partition, if established through evidence and conduct of parties, is legally valid.”

Other key findings included:

• The appellants admitted that the families had carried out an oral partition in 1935.
• Since the appellants had acknowledged the partition in their statements, they could not later claim ownership of the disputed land.
• There was no evidence to support the appellants’ claim of adverse possession.
• The High Court correctly restored the trial court’s findings by giving weight to decades of uninterrupted possession.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled as follows:

• Dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants.
• Upheld the Karnataka High Court’s decision granting the declaration of ownership to the respondent.
• Declared that the oral partition of 1935 was valid and binding.
• Confirmed that the appellants had no right to interfere in the respondent’s possession.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling has major implications for property law in India:

• Recognizes oral partition: Reinforces that oral partition is legally valid if supported by evidence and long-term conduct of parties.
• Strengthens possession rights: Confirms that long-standing possession carries significant weight in property disputes.
• Clarifies adverse possession claims: Prevents misuse of adverse possession as a defense without clear proof of hostile possession.
• Protects ancestral property settlements: Ensures that past oral partitions among family members are upheld by courts.

The Supreme Court’s ruling provides crucial guidance for property disputes, ensuring that oral family partitions are honored when there is supporting evidence.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Nanjegowda @ Gowda ( vs Ramegowda Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 04-12-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Succession and Wills
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in Judgment by Navin Sinha
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category