Dyamappa v. Smt. Bhimavva Basavantappa Kadannavar & Others, 2026

The dispute arose out of a partition suit filed by three sisters seeking division of ancestral joint family properties.

The plaintiffs were married sisters, and the defendant was their brother.

The sisters claimed that:

• They had a legitimate share in the ancestral properties.

• The brother was exclusively deriving income from the suit properties.

• They were not receiving any share of such income and were unable to maintain themselves.

During pendency of the suit, the sisters filed an application seeking subsistence allowance / maintenance.

The Trial Court allowed the application and directed the brother to pay ₹4,000 per month to each sister as interim maintenance.

Aggrieved, the brother approached the High Court contending that:

• A brother has no legal obligation to maintain his married sisters.

• Once mesne profits are claimed in the suit, interim maintenance is impermissible.

• The sisters were otherwise maintained by their respective families.

The High Court held that:

• A maintenance claim by married sisters against their brother is not maintainable in a partition suit.

• However, the suit was not one for maintenance, but a suit for partition of joint family property.

• Prima facie, the properties were ancestral and remained undivided.

• Though the term “mesne profits” is frequently used in partition suits, it is technically a misnomer, as mesne profits under CPC apply to wrongful possession.

• A co-owner in joint family property cannot ordinarily be termed a wrongful possessor.

• Nevertheless, if a co-owner is exclusively deriving income to the deprivation of another co-owner, courts may intervene.

The Court exercised its inherent powers to sustain interim relief, not as maintenance but as tentative sharing of profits.

The Trial Court’s order was modified:

• Only 50% of the amount to be released to the sisters.

• Remaining 50% to be deposited until final disposal.

• Sisters directed to furnish an undertaking to refund the amount with 6% interest if the suit fails.

The Court adopted a pragmatic and equitable approach, distinguishing between a maintenance claim and a claim for share in joint property income.

It reaffirmed the settled principle that possession of one co-owner is possession of all, but clarified that this cannot justify exclusive enjoyment of income.

The judgment acknowledges the practical delay in partition suits and prevents undue hardship during pendency.

By invoking Section 151 CPC, the Court ensured substantive justice without violating statutory limitations.

The safeguard of partial deposit and refund undertaking balanced the equities between parties.

The ruling harmonizes technical legal doctrine with ground realities of joint family disputes.