2023 (2) Kar. L.R 447
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Smt. Subhadra
Versus
Smt. Jayanti and Another
R. F. A. No.828 of 2011 (PAR); Decided on 21-11-2022
📌Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order 6. Rule 4 Misrepresentation and Fraud Plaintiffs claimed that defendant got the registered gift deed executed in her favour by playing fraud. misrepresentation and undue influence on her father Held, When the plaintiffs have taken a specific contention regarding undue influence, the burden to prove the same, lies on the plaintiffs Except pleading that deceased ‘P’ was addicted to alcohol, the plaint did not contain full particulars of alleged fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence The plaint cannot be said to be the averments of fraud, etc., in the eye of law within the meaning of Order 6, Rule 4 Appeal allowed. (Paras 13 and 14)
📌Evidence Act, 1882 Section 101 Suit for partition Whenever a suit for partition and determination of share and possession thereof is filed, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to show that the suit property was a joint family/ancestral property and after initial discharge of the burden, it shifts on the defendant to show that the property claimed by him/her was not joint family/ancestral property. (Para 9)
📌Hindu Law – Suit for partition Joint family or Self acquired property – Plaintiffs have produced registered gift deed discloses that the father of defendant purchased the suit schedule property out of his income derived from the service Plaintiffs, except pleading that the suit schedule property is a joint family property, have not produced any other documents to establish that it was purchased out of joint family fund Further failed to establish that prior to purchase of the suit property, there was a nucleus The plaintiffs have failed to prove that the suit schedule property is the joint family property of the plaintiffs and defendant – After a careful perusal of the records, this Court is of the opinion of that suit property.