In a significant judgment that quietly reshaped the property rights of several family branches, the Supreme Court has set aside earlier orders of the Karnataka High Court in a long-running partition dispute involving the family of late Pillappa. The case-stretching back to a 1987 suit-comes from rural Bengaluru and revolves around whether certain family members had already given up their rights long before the legal battle began.
Background
The dispute concerns agricultural and residential lands divided among four brothers and several sisters. The plaintiffs had argued that the lands, known as Schedule A properties, were still joint family property. They also sought a share in properties listed in Schedules B and C, including rent collected from leased portions.
However, Defendant No. 5 (late P. Anjanappa), whose legal heirs pursued this appeal, maintained that two brothers-plaintiff no. 2 and defendant no. 3-had signed registered release deeds decades earlier, giving up all claims. Further, he asserted that a written family arrangement (palupatti) in 1972 confirmed separation between him and his brother plaintiff no. 1, leading to each holding and enjoying properties separately since then.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court took a closer look at the evidence, including the release deeds and the palupatti. Unlike the lower courts, the bench found these documents carried legal consequences supported by long-term conduct of the parties.
The Court noted that plaintiff no. 2 had executed a registered release deed in 1956, and defendant no. 3 had done the same in 1967. Both documents were admitted without challenge when originally presented.
The bench observed, "Once a registered release deed is proved and the conduct aligns with its effect, the burden to dislodge it lies on the challenger."
On the palupatti, the bench acknowledged it was not registered but clarified it could still be used to demonstrate that the joint status had severed and that the parties thereafter lived and cultivated land separately. The Court remarked that decades of separate possession, separate cooking, and independent land dealings could not be ignored simply on technical grounds.
“The document, though unregistered, can be relied upon for the collateral purpose of proving severance and explaining subsequent enjoyment,” the Court explained.
The Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and issued a fresh preliminary decree. Plaintiff no. 2 and defendant no. 3 were held to have no share due to their earlier release deeds. The Court also confirmed that the 1972 separation between plaintiff no. 1 and defendant no. 5 resulted in distinct holdings thereafter.
The Court ruled that only the Schedule A properties and items 1–16 of Schedule C would be divided among surviving branches. Plaintiff no. 1 and defendant no. 5 each receive 8/21 shares, while the five daughters’ branches each receive 1/21. Schedule B properties and item 17 of Schedule C-jointly purchased by defendant no. 5 and defendant no. 6-remain outside the family partition and must be shared equally between the two.
The matter now returns to the trial court to prepare the final decree and physically divide the lands accordingly.
Case Title: P. Anjanappa (Deceased) by Legal Representatives vs A.P. Nanjundappa & Others
Civil Appeal No.: 3934 of 2006
Case Type: Civil Appeal
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice N.V. Anjaria
Judgment Date: 06 November 2025
