Karnataka High Court
K C Ramaiah Since Deceased By His Lrs vs Kudure Thammanna S/O Late Chokkegowda ... on 3 November, 2009
Bench: N.Kumar, C.R.Kumaraswamy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAL€iRE "_
Dated this the 3"? day 01' November.
PRESENT I "I
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTi:CE N_nKUM£;1.§* . ~. "
AN
TI-IE HON'BLE MR. .Jf0s'1"I_CE R°HUMAi2AsurAnaY
REGULAR FIRST 'A§=PE.AL 01' 2002
I{r§A;'Q_rzpB:N-O. 22 O€<"V~2Q0_2
""" 'A -- if; R155; CROI3-NO: "2301: 2002
'REc.UL'AR1?.1:2$'i=._A13;5EAL N0. 735 of 2002
' L.REGU'LA_R FIRST APPEAL NO. 805 of 2002
APPEAL N0. 735 012002
_K C R}:n.I1a:.iah'v
S_jn(?e derceéised by his L.R.,
'V " ._ 'J enk2it*arama11ap pa
' 0.8/-0 i=a*.--;0 K. C. Ramaiah
Aged aboui 62 years
Residing at No.7-44. 5"' Cmss. 4"' Block
Rajajinagar
Bangalore W 560 010 ...A[);3e11a§1_t-- ,
[By Sri M S Purushothama Rao and Sri B N A
Advocates} 4.
AND:
1 Shri Kuclure Than1.n1a.n.na.'
S/0 late Ch0k1<cg.g(')\»\-'d3
Aged about. 81 years
Agricrultunst. .
U1"LzkLmten'ai'{,1L:.r Viileyfgv V V -«
Avini Hobli. Mu.1.b3.gaI "I1:1E:-_I}:__
Kolar District V'
Since deceas_t§dv_by ljids L.'R;;.._
1(a) Sri*'FdC'i10k3§ap}5%1'"
S / in late KL':d11.r_e" 'Jf'hé;1.1_1i'n1_a:31'1%,1
Aged about 62~.y"<:ia1~s' "
l[b] Sri 'E1 Channelzl-ar1jsippfi13.8., (Ag)
S/'0 late Kva.1d'u'1'€ T1éan1n1an11a
v~A.,geVdA bout . y_¢_-qdras
' "'.»V0i~*k*i1'1g} 4.11. Indian Overseas Bank
* Qélzfag. éI31,'_.€taI1(__'.h
A .¢A.Ma£'d}'1ruL:haya: Building Main Road
A ._Dhamr21"d Taiuk & District
- {0} Sri .Néiu'ay21m1p}3a
" «HS/dlate Kudure Thammanna
. _ Aged about 51 years
1[d)
ZN"
Sri Shankarappa
8/ 0 late Kudure Tharnrnanna
Aged about 46 years
Ma). 1[_(:) Md) are residing in
Mittoor Village
Urukunte Mittoor Pests
Avani Hobli
Muibagal Taluk
1{e]
Srnt. Venkatariima
D/0 late Kudure Thanirnariiigx
W/0 Muriiyappa
Aged about 65 years i' _
Residing at M3I'E}.kE).]aglidd&1='vIi"é1g€VV"-»__
Urukume Mit1.00rP0.si"«. 5 ~ V
Av-(mi Hobii '- '
Muibagal Taiuk
Kolar DiSEl'iC'§.:V'
Sxmf MunjR;?'en1{ei;'iIarri'in«ér
Dead 'by. "
Shri V "
S/ 0 1a1e"--Muvn ivenk.=1iam.1ne1
Kgoiadevi ' ' '
3'F..1.gga:3;1ndra"'?'0_sI.. v
'i»aL1:'1ja_gai:A. Taiuk
' if~KVo1a,;~*Dismc_:
. Smt Ch:ari'dVre11ee1a
/0 TE. _N'arayaI1appa
}\?3"ij£tb.Qr Village
C01's.;__k1:I1te Mittoor Post
Ad ' Nlu lbagai Taluk
V' r District
3 Shri '1"'hi.ppa1ma
S/0 late Na11'ay2m'c1ppa
Aged aboui. 45 years
Koiadevi Viilage
Duggasandra Post
Mulbagal Taiuk
K()1arDis1rict.
[By M / s. Souihem Law'Ass0c1siLa§s§ Adv9(éa§e.g_ ;
for 122(2).) an_d*~R3): ' I
Sri Venkaiesh C. Sharma. AdVecat,e for R--i&_(aT]' to R1(e);
RZUCJ} s€'~1"v'c--d;= V'
This RFA filed LE1]d€*.1"Li'}'€i€'E;X§V;I 'R 1"-1_' /1'W'.'I3_f::(T'a'_iO{} 96 of CPC
against the judgment and §_i¢vér.¢e passed in OS
No.29/1994 on th.e':.11e of'1h€'~_{&d_di«u"a.na1V- cu'-':1 Judge [Sr.Dn.},
Kolar. partly daécréfai-hg.§ ihei suit"ffoVr'7 'pa.1f£.it.ion and separate
Possession. " 51 'V '
RFA CROE3 -- '
Bm*wEE:N--; ~ ' "
Kud ure aII1IuTi21_Iv1I"13,
_ V Son Q,{T_§.i'E1{E'."~C1'1O1ik€gQ\,VdE1v
'S-i.nce.L.d"eaidAby-- """ '"
' =1
_ Smvld_Veii1§_ai;a,n11n21
" _ -.V'V:!/E) «C*hik!{£Li11uniyappa
' _ D/0 _3;1ié._KudL11'e Tharxlrxmtma
"Aged abdut 65 years
R/' at 'Avalamarakaiagatta Village
u , _Uru'kun1:e Mittoor Post.
V Avani 1*-iobli. Muibagai Taiuk
}{<)E21r I)is€.riCE.
T. Chokkappa
S/0 Eate Kudure Thamr1'1an1121
Aged about 62 years
T. Channanarujappel
S/0 late Kudure Thammarma
Aged abom. 56 years
T. Narayanappa
S/0 late Kudure '1'11an1n1ann_g1
Aged about 53 years
T. Shankarappa ' _ _ V
S / 0 late Kudure Than'L'n1'an;1_2f';'. }
Aged abeut 50 years " .' :
Cross Obje'CtO";s No.2 to
Are resId.1vr1'g_ ai; ' j _ V
U1~L1ku1i£.e M4i't.1,O0'r---\?11Taug'e " V'
and .AV:LI::;1_I--1obI1 V "
Mu1"iDa1§§§~%1l 'r;1.1{:}:%:" VV
Kcflaf D1'sLric:1i=. ...Cr0ss Obj ectors
' ' _.[ByuS:7i._Vehkaivictsh C. Sharma, Advocate]
V V C. ~~
" A 3011 O1"-1e..tef=Chokkeg0wda
Since ~d_e§:eased by his L.Rs.,
Sri Vellkataramanappa
" 'Aged. About 60 years
V x _ S;/0 late K.C. R;-lmaiah
'Residing 21% U1.'Lik1II11,t?
6
l\/liitur Village.
Avani Hobli
Mulbagal Taluk
Kolar District
2 Sri Raiiiappa
Rfifior
Son of late Munivenkatamma
Koladevi
Duggasandra Post.
l\/lulbagal Taluk
Kolar Disirici
3 Sri Chanclraleela
W/0 T Narayanappa
Major in age
Miitoor Village ._ VA ;
Urukunte M1ti0rl30si. ;
MulbagaiTalu1< '
4 S"illT.hli}3_lJla.*i_.1'}la«"l . 'w
Son of leiie N'za.ra'3fi:1;'1:_' ' V
Aged ab~Qu1': 45 'years' i V
I§0'l;1de\ri V-ililalge
. V' "'l\/lulba gal '_ P051.
' . "»Kc)la1"D'ist.ri.cl. ...Resp011dems
A '~..__'l"hiVs' CROB filed under Order XL} R 22 of CPC
fagainsi ills judgment and decree dated 34-2002 passed in OS
" No.29/1992} cm the file of the Additional Civil Judge [Sr.Dn.).
A ..l£dlz{1*';._.;3ari.ly decreeing the suii.
ll/Y
RFA CROB NO. 23 OF 2002
BETWEZEN:
Smt. Ch.and1"a1eela
W/0 T Narayanappa
Aged about 45 years
Residing at.
Mittoor Village -
Oorukume Mittoor Post
Mulbagal Taiuk
Kolar District
AND:
1 (21)
' _ Hpbli.
ML11bag;11*7_l_"alL1k
[By Sri K N Ran1e'VS'h.,:Aclvocéitel
K C Ramaiah .
S/0 late Ch0_kkeg0wd'9["' . ..
Since deceaSej§1LbV.':)y his LRC, =
Sri 'veniixatara f11.an:--_1p';':a .. '
Aged Abou t. 6VO3fie~afs .. __ _
S / 0 la":-eé K.C. 'IZafD.ai21h""
Residi mg' -at UrVu'Vku me' "
I\{'li1f1.L:.r Village.
V 3 i'Z'Q1'a.1';'i(;'.t
" '--».W/C) Chikkamuniyappa
.' A 'f{i1dLire'e:'E"h:é1n1anna
"'Son;()f1atie Chokkegowda
Sineedead by L.Rs.,
'E':=mt'. Ve11i{a1'.:.«:in111}a
D/0 late Kudure Thammaxlna
" ._ "Q 1 C e:(:f,()':i;'
2 {b}
2 [e]
Aged about 65 years
R/ at AVa1ama1'aka1agat1,a Viiiage
Oorukunte Mittur Posi
Avani Hobli
Mulbzlgzll T211 uk
Kolar District
T. Chokkappa »-
S/0 late K1.1du1"e Thamr1}.ar1r1a
Aged ab01.1t. 62 years
T. Charlrlanajappa
S/0 {ate Kudure Than1n1ann"a_
Aged about 56 years '
T. Narayallappa A .L _
S / 0 late Kudure 'Fhamri3.e1r1r.ia 1
Aged aboui 53 years,-"* =
T. ShVéi.I"1'}~:;3}i'fap§5éi:-I &
S / 0 late. Kudlq-r_e' "17l1£'a«1_mrI1a;a ma
Aged & E1b_OLi1 5U«y'e21f-.3._.
Lega} R€i'})1'("3S%fIZ§,€1E:iVCS._NAC;..2{b} to 2{e]
Are ;"eS;id'ir1g £11 U'r:,L}{L1'nte '?.\/.1i1.t,o0:'
3
V. "'.\(i11a1g(.g.:.,!Sz P_L(')s;,:!_. Avaf1'i~ Hobii
" - _ M'u1ba.'ga1 "TV&,1.]LE'k."
'-EA{0l;_{1r'" Dis-'.._1fici ..
A Ski Ra:%:e1p§)a
/ 0 .!--atc Es/Eu1"1iver1ka'I:21mn1a
Kolécipvl Village
{)L1g§,_§21sa1ncEra Post.
, AA VT}-.ML.1Ib21ga1Taluk
r I_{01a1' District
4 Sri Thipparma
S/0 late Narayanappa
Aged about 45 years
Koladevi Village
Duggasaridra Post
Mulbagal Taluk -. _
Kolar District ...R€SpOI'ld¢l'll.uS~~.,. '
This RFA CROB filed under G}a;~f"xL.1"4.RLi1e~.22_oi"'t:PC'~
against. the judgment and Cleeree daiecl 3:~§4e~2OG2_ p~21é§sed.:liiJ'
No.29/1994 on the file of the Additi0r)se1l"Ci.vi_1 J»u:__dge ("S1'.':D.I"i.l,"..h
Kolar. partly decreemg the st1it'<-for partition' _a1i.d...5eparate-'V'
D0ssessi0n. M
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL 805 L' '
BE'1'WEEN: " ' '
1 Sri _Ram_a"ppa '<_::;.:_
Aged abOAL1';f57 years
S / cl)-.lai--e' M [IIIi§l'i3l1ll{E1l,'5i"I}]lf'I1 2-1' '
R/a E{0l2ade\ri.\/iilljagge'*~.__
DL1ggals:1rilé3fa Hob! i Miglbagal Taluk
Kr:-lai' [)is'1,.=:_ijm .. "
"""
* .. Aged 'éibffiii. 47 years
_ h '/ N~3._r§;yaI1a;)pa
_ ' R/a 'l{0'l:idexfi Village
' .__Dugg:asa--{idra Hobli
lwulbagal Taluk
K0'l§11~'1.Disi.1*i(:t ...Ap;3el1ar1ts
M/ Somhem Law Associates. Advocates}
K C Ramaiah
Since deceased by his L..Rs..
Sri R. Venkataramanappa
Aged About 60 years
S/0 late KC. Ramaiah
Residing at Urukume
Miitur Village, Avani Hobli
Mulbagal Taluk
Kolar District.
Sri Kudure Thammanna _
Since deceased by hészL-.Rs.-e;"" -
Smt. Venkatarnma _
Aged about 65 years__
D / 0 late Kud.u'1'e "I'h;1n11'fiann_a"ff,_ ' "
W/0 ChiK1§éInisg,niy3._pp;{'- " __
Reseidifig Tait!',Ava1T21'tna1'~1§étlagatféi"Village
Urtzkunée M%E:1::)_(51'=APOSL"-.____ -- '
Axfafii I-iebli . .»
Mulbagala.Taiuléy' ,. '
K0131' D1'";.£1'i'(:L A V' "
¢_':S'1?i "iii he kkajjpa .... ~ *
_ Aged :'c'LbOL1f1.', 62 years
V. "3./yo'la2.ye_'I{udure Thammanna
" . T C'}v9i:2fi1.f1a11anjappa
"Aged5.v'aheut 58 years
S/no ia,t.e Kudure Thanmlanna.
I Sri 'F. Namyanappa
~._A.ged about 53 years
S/0 late Kudure Thammanna
2(e) Sri T Shankarappa
Aged about 50 years
S/0 late Kudure 'i'ham1'1'1anna
2[b} to {e} are residing at
Uruliunte Mittoor Village
and Post, Avemi I.-lobli
Mulbagal Taluk
Kolar Dis':.ric1.
3 Smt. Chandraleela
Aged about 40 years
W/o T. Narayanappa
R/a Mitiur Village
Urul«:ur1':.e Post
Mu1bagalTaluk _
Kolar District V A_ _ A .¢,.RespondeI1ts
[By Sri 1\/LS. lp'Li.I'1lSl10l:l'1€ll'}1a Rao and B N Muralidhar.
""" - _ AV ";%Ts'(ivot'Ii¢3§"i'c-is for"Rl [alz
S1-i:;\/er1kaie's--E; 'Sharrixza. Advocate for R2{a] to 2(6);
l _ Sr: K ~l.\,l"Rames.h; 'Advocate for R3}
This RlFAli7i1¢d:_Liiavdertlseciion 96 of CPC against. the
judgrr1e;'1'i" and a1wai1*d'd21t'r;:d 3«4-2002 passed in OS No.29/94
vs-'*o_i1 I'.h_£Vi7i.le the Add«iI.i_o_nal Civil Judge {Sr.Dn.}, & CJM. Kolar.
" p6l'i'l;lyxdf3(§l'F§€iIig'_l.l'1€ suit for partition and separate possession.
._e-'3l'li'es.l:e«.._Ri?Pisl.:~a1id RFA CROBS are coming on for hearing
V this" déiy. J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
RFA No. 735/2002 is an appeal filed by the the suit Chailengiiig that portiicm of the }L£dgI"{1€1'11. V' the trial Court where 1:1 decree for p:;trtitioAr1 *'_Na.s"r'io.i;.' _gfarit.edv./ Cross Objection No. 22/ 2002 is i'i1ed:"i<n L.Rs of the first defendarit. ag21iVi1.$:t"'~t;E":e iflihdviilg I'ti'{j0i'ifiV€§'d~b$f the" V triai Court in respect of a__ property iheEo'nging't'otheusion of the 13lairitii'f which was he1d""--E.oT.b'eo 'jciiiflklisitiofl. Cross Objection No. 2.3/2002-""'i's ijj2'iied_j-,__1fi.;§}V'. i:i':%.f§ncIai1i No.2[b]-- C11al1Cfl'E1};B€E§i, finding of the trial Court which held she not entit:;Fed_itoiziny share in the co--pz1reeI1a1"y p1."ope1'tjy." RFAuN'o_.V_V8(j5/i?"OO2 is filed by dei'e1'1da1'1t.s 2(a) and 3 T1'::l'(3;jL.1Cig1'I1f3FlE and decree of the triai Court which has denied fatty" .éfha"re to them in the piaint schedule properties. V V' all"-«t,he:§e 'i'\._of3ea}s and Cross Oi3_}'ections3 arise out of the same " :3.'4"jt.i'dAgIfI1€fI1i"...ti11C'E decree they are t,ake1'a up for consideration ot'og(33't':}4ei' and disposed Ofby this common judgiiieiii. K
2. For ihe purpose of convenience. ihe parii_e-s___ are I"€f€I'1"€Cl to as they are rel'eri'e<:l to in the original suit. ll
3. There are two schedules to {he IJlE1ii1'l:.T schedule Contains 39 items of iI}.}II1OVTr1"{3l'f3'pIf(iplei'l?' i?l.ll1lCll}.' item No.20 is the family house, itlétrii situated in l\/Iulbagal. Town \KFll>1:7.«:,,l{--3"}71.Ol)SA.éil1\Cl'lllélfljlvVNV6§'3'g'V;lS ah Vacant site and the reijjaiiiing.----::il'§?--_ a1g1'iCu.lLL1rel lands. Schedule 'B' is a list of } l
4. The oi' suit schedule prcJpei"iie;s alfc--Joiln; --i::li':1du«vll?lar.i_iiiyf£'roperi.ies oi" the plaintiff and the first devfe11cia:1i.v. the properties are ancestral pi-opeiiies lo Chokke Gowda. the father of the pll'aini.i'iT llc1.el'en(lani No.1. Some of the properties are zit:-qfiiifeci *¥l;\:}"r.ivl1(',T*'Jl--i3,il1iillEllld ihe ciefe.n(l.:mi,s by the income of Z the Joint. Family. During ihe lifetime of Sri Chokke " ..}3l_alii'1tiil", defe11(la:1t and Chokke Gowda constituted a 7J"O_l1'il-._ l'j'li:1dL.1 Fzai.1i'iily. Choklie Gowcla was the manager and .:i><_§1_:_'dlhz1 till his deai:h €kb()ill. 5060 years 2-ige. /\.l'i'er his death, 'ml the first defendant. even though he is younger than became the manager and kartha of the Joint l'"_"l'l:.'-.'1d1.'l"
since the plaii1t.ifi' was not well versed...Wi_th t.l_-ie"Wc.=_5l:dly'vaffairs and business. Plaintiff is having c)nl.y c;*-_"i'ie.'iVson, r9¢'1'c=i1'di:un-;'*:1:;s having four sons. Apart from t'hi'::.._Vthe lp-}.ai1;1.ii't' d~E3Vf§I1;dElI'1l;-,Vl were jointly doing the money bLis'i:«ie_s.s other business transaction like in tamarind, food grains, etc.. Out of the by selling the agrieultural have wearned huge amount out oi were pm-eliased and &1(Tqtllf€d:Vl)y fendant. was the manager and kartha of the Joint. Hiiiid,.t.1""Fainily. all the transactions were car1"ied;'o'1i,i1i his .nai1'1e é:_n<:i the properties acquired by them were..also t'h(':~._naIne of the first defendant and his sons. Lo 6 years ago when the first deleridant started ao_tir1gA.:afi:cording to the whims and fancies of his sons K st.art,eHct ill treating the plaintiil' and his son and started TiniAsmanag;i1ig and riii-Susing all the joint' fai11il.y funds. the \ gut' plaintiff questioned the first clefendaiit and his sons about their unusual behavior. They started to show hostile attitud_e'*a1id plaintiff was neglected by them. A panehayath Plaintiff demanded his legitimate share in the.[ani~i.3y'iii.i'operty'; ll It was refused. The1'efo1'e. he filed separate possession of his legitimate halfhshareyiii.all the:
schedule properties and for niesiieiprefits.
6. Originally the st1:ilt.,Was against the first cleferidant--Sri Kudure 'Fhai'iiii1-aiii1a..y"Defe'iid.aiit, after service of St11I1II1OflvSV.,Hmé1'iL(3l3feCl lla}p}3eara'ii.ee laiid" filed a detailed written statement'_eon_testingthelelyai-hi oi' the plaintiff. He admitted the relationship l:5e,t\vee1i'.the.v He also admitted during the o2f__yAhis_ father,~--.h.e«.' the plaintiff and the defenclant were .V'inenibeijs"._ol'tagwloi-.r}t. lmiindu Family. His father died about 50 years *fl'fhey'i1'allegation that after his death the defendant though younger in age became the manager of the joint family .WE1s 'fcieniecl as false. The ai.le5.;'at,ion that the plaintiff was not «well versed with the worldly affairs was also denied. He denied It:
the a1.]egatio11 that the plaintiff' and defendant were jointiy doing money lending business and E.1'E1I1SflCT.iOI1S like dealiiig in vegetables. tamarind. food grains. etc... He also de1'1i;e'ci't5h_._ey~. earned huge amount out of which number o["..p,1j(§'pefties._we1*e purchased. He also denied the Inistin.&e1'si.and'i--n'g_,tithe' panehayath and demand for a;s_hai'e lay-"5.t;he pla}jnt1f.f'.."'e The defendant speeific2111.y p1ee1d'ed._hi';hat was the manager of the joint I"ami'_}y'.g_ He: as Ama.n.at'ge1' has several Sale deeds in his favour. '1"i1e"t'p_1ai'.nVti.i'i' __i_é-zctitided them in the suit. The p}aii'11tibf'f has g.;--o1--~*s0'me"pi--'opefiies in the name of his son Vtrifiiaiaraifnafiappéf'ufihe.'same are acqtiired out of the joint félllliljf=.ft,tI].dS."rTfEf3:y' joint faiiiily properties. The 1j1(C1.iI].ti;[5I"VE_!_l'S.-1.-9! I1CJ'i. iiV1eh,1CV1"1'.(:i the same in the suit schedule. F'1'ainf'ifF i11a11age1' has made several aIie1'1aii.0ns. The Ch'3f(;'fl'C§EtA11"t-'.':""ht1S,T'U'0'[. quest_i0ne<:i his right to a}ie1'1at.e the p1"0pe-if_ties*a3.the plaintiff was the manager and the same was i;('3:'_}.eg.211 I';.ec3essit.y and famiiy §D€I']€fi.T_S.
7. The defendant was doing" business separai.eIy'.'*.tQ.iit--Vof his income from the business the defendant hai~j--. pLi'r*C:..ha,s:edfi-
properties. Item No.1 Sy.No.65. if.(3H1WNC).7 No.8 Sy. No. 185/2. item No.15 Sy. Imfq;
S3/No.83. item No.32 Sy. No.91}; _i4ten14i\IAo'."t95 No. 34 Sy. No. 99/2. item Noihizgi,-5.1é';nVf"'rsi§f"3'e syn No.138. item No.37 sy. "I'TP- 139'f3.§fe_j'ii:é'i-:1' No.a"i'3is~f1ouses in Mulbagal Town. item Town are self acquired properti_es It:ei>n".No.25 Sy. No.32 of Bandahalh, the son of the dei'ei1dai'i_i by The plaintiff" is not entitled io elaini aIiy__ shareiiif , The of the plaintiff and defendant f't:.ons'isted--,"txof" t.Nan_ieg'oW'd2i and Venkategowda, brothers of .V::V1'a.ther of the plaintiff and defendant.
Naiij'egowda.V'"d_ie.d about 30 years ago. He has left behind him his heiij his datighier by name Munivenkaianima. The said "'v.'N2I}1j3g0\?v\f'C"1Ei had I /3"' share in the joint family properties. She has succeeded to the same after t.he death oi' Nairijteghoxyfiis, Venkatagowda died about 35 years ago. He had ,'.~_:'/':"L)J"d,_Sh'S't"I°€ the joint faimiiy properties. After the ~de.ath it his daughters Chamundamma, SOt1""1_'I161:-.i.T_'I'1'Y'iiEi tt'a1h'd.."{aiti1--31fi§.a:
succeeded to the same as heirs." Ci*:jm1u1idam.n'1zi ..die;c_.t"a.b.0';1t 12 v years ago and she has left. Thippaiina.
Somiamma also died aboti"i-'£0 she has no issues and Yeilamma is dead" The right, title and in the joint family pro;)erties_'g'oV 'tax-V. The plaintiff is not entitled to family properties. His share if any is V} /'31:" _ o~;_ half share. i\/luni.venk.atamma, ThippE1fl'I1Et_.E3.i'€ neeestsary parties to the suit. The suit as bfiu-tight xi='iti1(i1*;; impleadihg them as paities is bad for non- jOE¥.'id«f:i' .n:e.c;es.s;a:y parties.
'étefendaiit is not in possession of the movabies u"d_esr?z*ibedV"ir1 sehecitzle 'B'. There are no jewels of the value of Qiggiklis and the jewels are the se.pai'ate property of the wife ta l9 of Narayanappa. There is safe and the value of the sande- 2.000/-- and not Rs. 10.000/W. There are two steel--',a:lnivira'h-s "
they are self acqtiir(~:d properties ol" the Thlleref_a1'e utensils worth Rs.3.000/W: one Rs.2.000/+ and 8 (rows worth._v'Rs.5.000/_- 2t_§rioultural" it implements worth Rs.3._000/W _anld~.._they are -.S_Cll:.'§ acquired properties of the defendant. food grains is denied. Existence of cart denied as well as the tamarind stock.
IQ: n"_lanager of the joint family till he left the.' \}illaf.ge his son at Bangalore. As manager of tried joint.-__fartiiiylllhe had purchased one property *andesj"§;ale__ftieVed dAa1.evd.....l«.'3.1943. another property under sale
943. another property under sale deed dated property under sale deed dated
22.lOL"<l.956'.' plaintiff has purchased another property saleydeed dated 7.3.1968 and he has sold the same to _ one i\€{mi\*e:1li21t.a1ppa as manager of the joint family. Similarly, 1%/, applicaiion was filed for impieading lVILiI]I'V€1"11{E1l.El}'I:}fif'1"i"F,:(":'.Vé171d Thippanna and they were also made parties. 3 l V 3
12. After such impleadmenl. 2;.-rid' 'ser\fiee itrhey filed separate written si.21£eme1T§s lithe joint family, denied the fact. half' share and coniended l.hsit,----f,l1e [)}'E11"11;'.V:Jl-fi"~iE':3VV "e_nt.itled' lo 6*" share and they are also entitled .
13. On Court framed the following i-s"si1'_e_s " AV
1. vxh;5r}:~u:r..__VP:qini;jji...pmes that plamf. 'A' schedule * Vpi'9per'I'ies ..jgirej'0lifi'f,j'an1ily properties? V W}l,€l:h€F'VpEal.?1l§IT proves that 15' defendant was riidnager Qf:j()1'l1.£_/.C1I11il~Lj?
'WF_ie.é'her 13' defendant proves ihai. suit, is had for V n'.0l:i--incEt.zsi0r1 Qf' all ihejoinl family properties into n v .. 1' hoipoich? .\\//,.
5. Whether plairitifl' proves that a house property at Rajajinagar. Bangalore is a property of his son R. Venlcaiaramappa?
1/Vhether I"! defendant' proves {VIl'O'&::V,:'..'!L)'l'('VIV:;I?li'£. -3,-3 _ seheciule items 7, 8. 15. I9, 31. 37". --, 38, 39 are his self acquired properties? . V "
Wllether 1"' deferidarii. proi,-*es'v.i:hai:,[oi-iehi l;\lO.25x'Qf."' Bandahalli is self acqi.i'i:ed prcapeifyj "efllhilslllsolri Sri V' _ N arayanappa?
Whether properi.i.e.s. :1-1er4i;ilit>riedfin paras 17. I8. and I9KA{3f7VLi,3Fii'l€I'I. .sta1_t.emer-it are sey' acquired. properties i;,rf_ I" d;g;*2ér:;zant?-.
" Wl1ei'her' Vplai.~it"ifl' proves, existence of plain: 'B' 3 : schediile Vr'fiot3eal)le properties?
plaintyff proved refusal of 1*"-' de/"eridarit to r' 'eff a parI.ii.ior1?
Whether plaintifj" is entitled to partition. if so, what share?
1]. Whether p1C1['I'lI'_i[]" is entitle to mes-we prQ]1't'?
12. What decree or order?
Addl. Issues:--
1} Whether 2"" de/"ena'.ant. J proves that: v'bVein,g'" » 1 daughter of Nanjegowdalb she . en! t tied'--._t.(5 -- .5 ztceeecf 1/ 3"" share in thejointjarrtily:propertfe_.SA? = *
2) Whether 2"" dejendaniv proves 't',ha-t, her' uncle deceased VenlcaIegowda"Lhas~-.I /3"' sfiarefi 3} Whe1;her"2i't5 .de~,fe11dar1t proves that suit is had for non' :'r_1eZ1is«Eof1-_.oj's7-. t)a(:ar'1t site, situate in RT. Nagar, V"Bartgalare.VLasjgleaded in para 6 Qf her written ' ' _ stat'c»rnent.'?
R4) Vt/heI:her 2"" defendant proves that pIat.ntLfft1as got oniy_ If 6"' share and not half'?
Whether Addi. IJefer1c1arn No.2{aj proves that he is W n Vet_'en.fit.'led. ('50 I /6" share out Q!" the share qf' his mother's V' " S;'1(1T&"?
I4. On behalf of the plaint.ii'I'. his son R.Venkatara1iianappa was examined as PW} who was Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiff. He witnesses Srinivasa and i\/ltiniyappayflas produced 78 doetinients which are On behaif oi' the defendants,-.___theiV"{TiV_rst Vdei:e'iiydaiiils'_T§ §'<:i~..::j. Narayaiiappa was examined as was examined as DW7. They e2'::a.11j.-.i.n'e:dV_iiiye.otherliyitnesses as DWS 2 to 6. They p'rodt1ee_d_Vl'(Soydio_et:<:niei1i:g'--7{yvhiV(:h were marked as Exs. Di to i5.V"r_Tl*ie trial ~Coo.r*t_o1:1_ya;.jpreeiation oi' the aforesaid oral and doeumeiitary. ex'/ideic-_e'e'«o~n record held that. item Nos. 1, 2, 4, l, ll'3"tO____1.7. 20. 24. 26 and 27 to 30 are all joint pi-*o_perii§.es; It held the plaintifl" has failed to prove that the dveien-da1=ni was the manager of the joint family. The 'dei"er1d'ant."'.ha's failed to prove that the suit is bad for r1on~ llleinelus-i_on 61411 the joint family properties into hotchpoteh. The
-..lfpla:'.:1ibtiii' has established that. the house p1'ope1'ty at Rajajinagar A1//....
is a property exclusive belonging to his son R.Venkat.aramanappa. Similarly. the first deferidanfeshas proved that item Nos. 7'. 8. 15. 19. 1.2. 13. 14.
and 39 are his self acquired properties. The ha's._ also proved that item No.25 of Bandlahallilisltlielself property of his son Sri Narayariappa. 'li"l."iehplaintiff. has l'l'ail1ed<to'*q prove the existence of plaint 'B'llSe:hedule lprope.flty"C?;cept. the Iron Sale. The second cieienda_«n'tlllhas.fai'lepci to pllrioil/e that her uncle Venkategowda has The second defendant has ifto prov__e the suit is bad for non-incli.}.sion.. ol'v";j;Veai'1.t si€je"sittialted at R.T. Nklgéll'. Bangalore. as pleaded .1fri para. oi"_her't5v1'it.ten si.atement.. The second d.etendarit _alsol{"aiAled'lt'o establish that the Sl'l..':'11"€ of the plaintiff ll/26*" not The del'endantA2(a] has failed to prove t.hati-he lis.ie'rtt.itle'd,i"() I/5*" share out of her mother's share. by the said judgment and decree refusing. to "grant a decree of partition and separate possession l ii1:_re,spleet of all the properties. the plaintiff has preferred this ii Z6 appeal. The l'ii'si' cleferidain has preferred 21 cross objection complaining that he has not been given a share in the of the son of the plaint.ii"f. which is not made the _ of the suii. at all. Another defendam f'iEed--'~. and the other defendaiit. has filed gin the trial Court: was not justified -in them in the joint family p1*ope1'l'y.R' ll E7. Sri. M.S. learned Counsel appearing for the a_ppellaAn-2...:.as.sai.li1ig ii1eVi1iip'L1g11ed judgment and decife'eH"oi" cdiiienéis that the finding of the trial C()i.ii'*3;_ that 'i:c-zfi-i5Ti~ilr§se;79_§'e;""i_5.. 19, 12. 13. 14, 35. 36.37, 38 and 39 are "'3':l1Ci* self a{:r.iu.-i§5fli'iioI1s oi' the firsi delewidant. having aeqL1irr;Ll» the .§a1i:1e"o'{ii of his own earnings and not. from the V.jQ1'I1t'ui'El;I}'i,l'ly 'IulALlCl€L1."3v."""i'S'v1101. subsianiiaied by either oral or 'V.gioe1,i'11.1erivi:'ai'~yl*.eiri::ier1c:e on record. On the (ro11L1"ai'y, the e{ijdeli.1§.e3c:1ea1rly esiablishes 1.1131 ihe joint: family had V V' SL1lVfl(E'l.§?1'1l.v_ vpI'o;f§e1'i'.y, which was yielding good income. It was a iv'-ery ai'lli.z_(:nl. fariiily and ii. is f'1'oi'11 that nucleus 'Elh('3S€ properties are acquired in the year 1940. 1956. 1957. £960 Unfortunately. the trial Court has not properly the' ~ evidence on record and came to an et?.roneoL1_seonol;:sion.tl1at«V' those items are not'._1o1nt Family p1'ope--pties' no share in the same. V' l M V a V
18. Per contra; fthe '~C5oL1nse«l.:v._ljotf_l? the first defendant. contended terms has admitted in his ev;'dence:.tl'1atftlle"first &:1e,:';=;'n{:i.%;1n: was carrying on money lexlding otherh-bL1s_i..n€:-SS and was having income of morethan"axliialiixiif rnpees and""t[herel'ore the finding of the trial coui-~:-A that the'«}5"1*opet'tyyyhich. stood in his name were all self acquisition out of l'11~s o'vf11 funds, is fully supported and the .said.."f'i'l1diIlg do not 'ea.}E«'t'o1' i11terfe1"en(:e. The other defendants ll'~,oont.encle:lthat' property belongs tojoint family. Adrnittedly the;fe'"was partition in the joint. family and therefore they '.rep1'esen't'7t;_l1e other branches, they are entitled to 1/6" share [in Athe-.t_joint family property, which case has not been properly 38 appreciated by the trial Court. Therefore. they contend that the judgment and decree requires to be interfered with:
19. In the light of the aforesaid facts aflC7t'"""I'_IVEl} coritentioiis. the point. that arise for our e0r1sideraVt.ic)i2» .i"I'1r-t*.}'1Vi':",'-H appeal are as under:
(1 ) Whether the 'f"ir1dirig;f'et; tithe fig: "
that the' Draper-ties whrjcii are.$tt:r;etIr1g».»ir_2ithe '~ name Qf thefirSt' tvere'---:.t.lVl acquL'sL'tionS. GCi;'1,ztU"€d'.A"O'l',Li' "fits sepa1'ar';e v~':nz'~on1¢'_;;' 1'.S']tt:£'a"af.;'f"1E'(i=f.1'V'.'""
{2} otiier defendants have _ ar1y"s=Vf1a':'eVir:. the pidini. schedule properties? " _ .A"§_<fifQ1';=1;.'t'he material on record it is clear that there is V no di§pL1i',eV:ab5;ut: the ge11ec)1(),c___;V and the reiationship between it 'thenp,a_rtieS;' One Cope Gowda was the prepositus, who died in "i'h€"._y'€'ti'.lA" E900. He. had three sons and three daughters. The 29 sons are Chokke Gowda. Venkate Gowda and Nanje Gowda. Particulars of three daughtei-s"is not fonhcroming. '~.C"h_€>)'1'I,_k@ G-owda, the eidest son. died in the year 1925. _ lifetime of Gopegowda nor Chokke peirtitioii in the family. "I'i1e1'et'dfe. t-A22ft:e1"'-->the"'- Go efowda, the e0«)a;'crena s'c:Qnsist.e:i bl' 1e'1tjki:e G0§wda,_ Venkate Gowda. and Nanje Gox-vei2x«.'y:'Ch0k1ie* had two sons, ie., the ;)1aii1ti£:*i'"';i_f§yd £'iVif's1:_'v.§ie~£fei'1d211it, and three daughters. After the C1€a'{h"_Qf. two sons and his brothers Vei_ikéfl;jei- 'G0\:i--rdafa"I1d 4'?~Ier1je'v--G0\vd21 Continued the c?()«pa11'eeif1a1y..\/"e'1:'1--;:1.1e'VGOwd'a_and Nanje Gowda had no sons. Venkate Gewda. had ':1eV'd.2i"L1g,hte1' by name Mu.nivenkatamma and Naiiije Gewda had three daughters by name CF12!1'IiiiY'1Cfai'iI1i'1'EI. Sa1'11'1a1'm'na and Ye11a.mma. Venkate Gowda aiizd died in they year 1930. 'I'herefo1"e, the plaintfii' the first de;{'endant were the surviving '4"--._eOApa11'Ce1ier"s of the C0--pa1'cenau"y and they succeeded to the _e.n.ii're. .(§0~]3a1reeI1211"y p1'ope1'tieS. As Venkate Gowcia and Nanje ~Q(.)_\.i'dz;1. died in the year 2930. The da11gli€'e1'S.. 21$ they were 3.1}. L1,» married and living with their husband. got no right. in this (',0-[)'c'11'('?€1]£1I'y ;')r()1:)ei't.ies. The Co~pai*eenary of K.C. Ramaiah. the piaintiif and Kudure Thammanna Continued.
KC. Ramaiah has 3. son by name Venkai,ara1nanappa.yby i*{1id.1;re 'i'ha1m.11a1i"111a has four sons by nanie __;C'he1§'E{ap;;3.a;'« Ch8.1'1i1a1'1aI'ijappE1_ 1\Ea1'aya11appa and . whe --« . constituted the e0--pz1i'cer11a:"y. A:tZ1iT1iE:L€'Cfi.y.'-,,>i}}_C1'€"WES partiiiori at. all in the family. ,'A4e1rI1ii.i'edViy'., {i76:>i'b:;1:Vr11i:iIy cowparcenary/joint family p1'Oi5'€'~iT_{i(2S. when K.C. Ramaiah flied Ih*L::l"Si1i1.:VA foif" --«p;ir:AEii.i0.n separate possession of. i1iVs='1=;ha"r'e ii1.yy'Lhe_co%pa11'eer1a1y properties. he and his son wefe emjiied 10"'/,2""s..'r_1'e'1i:e and the other '/2 share beiong £0 his ;b1'ct5.}1e1- Kuc_iLii'e T1'i.':.11'1'1ii1£1I1I1a and his eiiiidren. Now the C{Lie§si'im1 véheiiier all the piaim sctheduie pmpenies are the eio-1):~1i'eei1;1'i%y'Vpi'eypei'ties/joint family properties 01' any one of 'Ehem~~..i_s seii" a.(§qLiisiii0r1 ()fi}i1e first defendzirii. contended by '4"-__i'i§1'i'17E1I1d.. a15:L1}3heid by the trial C0L1i'i:?
21. Now it is not in dispute that items} to 7, 11. 13 to 17, 20. 24. 26 to 30 are all cdparctenary/joint. family properties, in which the share of the plaintiff is admittvedthlt is only in respect of other items it was contended the seli' aeqtiisitions of the iirst defendant as in his name. in fact the ease of the plaintitil' is l:hO:Ll'1gh.: he eldest, after his death, it is the first defendant \>\§l].d.l:l).€§C;$tI11l€i manager/kartha of the family. as xveltversedlin worldly affairs. On that questionf trilal._Judgel'héis referred to variotls judgments of theAijeéttC;3tli*t.l.:'~211i'd applying the doctrine hi" pmnog-;:»;n«i_ti[l're,l'hes... that under the Hindu Law, under no l'ClffltliTiS.tEli1.lC€SV.' the eldest male member, others eaIin.0t'%)eC.oin'e th:el'}(a:'t,l'ia of the iamilv There is no ._st.ieh .. 2ths0"l~t1te p'l"'G.pA(v)Sill'C)H. The Apex Court in the said _]'LlE'Cl(£~._'{Vi'11ll"t'1'it:"'lJ:£/iris"dCE"lll1'1g with impartiable estate and not with it "~.j_a'i~id Etlsri vd__('$'lI:g ni(.)ne,y lending business arid also 'otisiiiess of partizabie lVCSl'_2}.ll€*._lV.fh€I'€£iS, we are eoiieeriied with partiable €ESl.€ti:C§"vTh£t'i'-.€tpé'£,i'tl. the evidence on record shows that both the _br0the"i--'s \'_Verc;"ac:t.ively involved in the agr'ie1.1ittire operations W, d':W?-1.I.1€}§ 13-13 and which are dated 24.09.1940. 09.09.1956 and '..
1--3 selling ag1*icu1tiura1 produce. 11' the first defendant is the Kartha of the family and if the p1'0pert.ies are acquired in his _i1.ai"fi.p5;~.sa11 that happens is. the burden of proof that acquisition. shifts on him. Except to that. ext.e'i1t...°wh'0_ is Kartha of the famiiy, do not make irnuch.i3;ili{'i"erenc'e._<"~in___that3 context. the evidence on record; in partictilai", t11'e'VVev4idenj:ecf the first dei'enda.nt who was aged abotit 91 yea3i_sA3O'x1 the date he gave evidence. shows that apat'--t fronH1*e-ari'yi11g on agricultural operations. he was VCZ'3.1"I'v\/iI1,»L_f_V(.).13._T.h:¢ cf selling jaggery. tamarind iruitSa3_.Vt'i;A§1§~},§V. in 1-'gm; "-invtirfoss--examinati0r1 he has Categoricttaldljf'-".ad_niiti'evd3V"vtha.t..' in their lands there were number oi'3t:aLrnarind i'i'ecS ha-nddby selling oi' taniarind. roughly they \.t.:c1"e ...Cf£1I'iV}i1"i{{_Z_: ahottt Rs.20,000wOO to Rs.25,000--OO and the3,r«\.t}e1'e"';-tissc 'growing sugar cane. As set out in the schedule, the i:ain«i1y'-.4d'wxhed-more than about 60 acres of land. The entire extent ()f."'iEtt}<~_.'3t was cultivateci. They were growtrlg crops, ' "~..xregete'ii31esVi--et:c., The so called self acquisitions of properties at I2. 32. 33. 36 and 37 which are under EX.Dw8._ D~9 i it-.,~ 3- E4.02.}964. the minimum Consideration paid was Rs.50-00 and the I11i;1XiIT1u1Ti Consideration was Rs.1990wOO. in the light of the aioresatid evidence on record, it _ inferred that the joint i'2.1miiy had sttffieient. these properties in the riame of the ifirst:.de1_'endanAt'a.nd*Q;1& (2OI1i1"c'l1'y. the first deiendztnt has _t'a1iied"t_o'est.abiis.ti.sisto':}whtat.*i was the independent income whiehxdiie ha1d*a.nd*tvhéLt. was the independent business he'__\'t7as e_ét1'ryii'1g_ -on-:a,i1d from what year he was carrying on the bt.1si'nVess'.V 1A .e.oii'i-;.jive_t..e reading of his evidence shows;*'t.i"i:t:I_:"t,iie"bt.1siI~1'ess=tt?'h--it,h___he has referred to is none <f)t',i:'iv_(-'.I'._t1"1£1V1't"utiif;V4f3tn'iiiy"'--bt1Sin€SS of selling the produce belonging to the jotnt«..AiL:i_ni«iy"." "This aspect of the matter has been eo_n_'1pIeteiyhiissed'=E3y""ti1e tirial Court. it proceeds on the "'.§1SSt,1j1i'})[i()1i that \"\V}"i'x€:'.I.1..HC>'i1(Y.€ the property is purchased in the 'r_r1e1n"i«e oi' the youngei' inenibei' oi" the joint. family and when the evidence oi'1~..reeo'rd~'shows that the younger member was having i1idCp_er1deVI1..tiziitrtideattion of his own. it is sui'i'iCient' to hold that it 'is his s;:§1i":. E1(TC]lEi1'€Ct property. in the first place, the first " "t"1ei'.<>,1j1déi«nt. had no independent: av()(:at.ioi1. He. has not shown it/~ any such inclependent avoeation or independent ineon1e."apart from the joint. famiiy income. Merely because the stood in his name, it Cannot. be treated as his self The law on the point is well St'lll&'(l.VH:l_'l'1OL1gl.'i" initietl resum tion of 'oint farnii in so far 2115 the ,l:El:'I1'1'I'l 'csan=c'erne.;:¥... there is no presumption in 1'espeet otlthe pro;:;ettfi'es_. if the properties stand in the nanie of21ny.yot;11ger'tneinbeifi and the funds have flown from the-.jo'i--nt t'an"1--i1 foifi t:.rChase of the same and if evidence is aclduoedAjtfojhhshovf thatftor 't.he-"purchase of the said p1'ope1"ty, I't.3'ie1d§ijj.e}ia_\:o7.tldw'h from 't.he--joiiit. fen'1'ii1y nucleus. then ii're'speot-ivle'l'of--~.the l'a_(_:l't'v..t:_l:1at.l the property stands in the name of the » yot-11'igei' _ ."I":itC4I11b€'1', it would acquire the e.}1a11'et(jtje1'i;s.tic oi' joint iotieiily property. In the light of the evitience (in :'_e(:o.rd. it is Clear that all the E1('(]tliSitiOI'1S made in nmne.lo'tf_t.i1e'-ttrst. defendant" are out of the income of the joint faniily':1Vt}:C.1et1s. the joint family Continued, Covpztrcenary '4"--._eO:it.ijnued».._.they Continued to live t1I1Cl€1' the same roof. they Tu-*e,1'e--..e;ir1'ying on the btisiiiess together. which was 21 joint ""v.I'z';,n_7.eily business and therefore. all these properties are joint xx?
..__"'i'he:i*eiore, the said fi.I"idi1'}§__§ do not Call for tiny ir1terfei*ence. ¢.2 LII family properties. Therefore the piaini.it'i' is eiititled to his legitimate share in 311 these properties.
22. in i'a1ct., item No.19 is purchased which is dated 14.09.1961. A p:Ei1f>§,lbSa1 oi'""thi§_« b.étfo1*esai.d document shows that the said item pi.1'i"~:t.1-:iase.d -in"th'e:";3_aii:f;C of KOCiaI1daI'E1H]E1SVV.':1H1y De\ras't.h'z-111a. i'iia'y' firsid defendant, by paying the consider"a.t'.io:.i. Th'erei'o1*e vwhen the property is noi the jC\)intf faintly.up:to»pe1=t.y. it. belongs to Kodandai'aniaswam.y Tenip.i.e,._ii1which ?.i"ei"1ef'v--.oi' 'the parties have any i'1'g11:T.",V't'h€"i3iE1ir1t'i::§:i'VViSxiirfi enti_t.ied'V to any share in the said property. ' Iri"soVi"ar..:is i't.€ffi No.25 is concerned. the sale deed 'in. i*espeCi,./gf the propei*'ty stands in the name of Narayanappa, itiieisoii4Vfirs*i:..defeI1daiit. I\iai'ayariappa is not made party to i',i"J.fi"V'SLli_1.,"o'.:.:IYfiEtI"€lNOI'€ the trial Court was justified in not g1fani.ii1g any decree in respect. of the said properifly and may be "iii iioidiiig' t.hat' it is the self aeqtiisition of said Narayanappa. 36
24. Though the first deferidant has filed Cross Objections complaining that he has not been given 1/2_4.sh'-.1r'e.V_in the property which is standing in the name of son, that property is not the subject matter of at The plairitiffs son is not a pa1'ty:=__t0 i-the 4s1.1it...' eireu.n1stan.ees. the first dei'endzin1,__is i'1Ot.vei:tit1ed"'t{i any s;hare_ in the said property. Therefore. not find mer'it in the cross objections filed by th.e""i?i.rst.'_VAdefend.ant'."«_
25. The t1'i3.}. Cotirt i'i-ghtiyfiheiddheit the piaintiff has Failed'"t.6'est.dbI.isti 'Vthe'~e5tisten'e'e"df movables mentioned in the 'B' Seh.edt.1ie' the Iron Sale. We do not find any jL1S1.ii'.iC£1ti'()IT'it) ".ii1t.~eri'e--3"e with the said iindirig oi' fact 'V'~i:et70i'.;ie'd the b21sise£.i.he exridencte on record. it the finding of the trial Court that when the p';~r,n13e1,jty in the name of the first defendant is that it 7.4A"~..of' his se1i'vaequisiti0i1 is erroneous and requires to be set aside. _Atr.e<)i=dii1g1y. it is set aside.
37 Point No. 2:
27. From the aforesaid geneoiogieai ireey'v_\vyhi'c:h'~. Seth out, it is clear that after the death of no partition during his ii1'etirne»,, his th-ree.sons,CO¥;1tiriueid"'asiE.
Cowpareeners. Even during their 1iVfet.i'i1'ie. t.here_ Wale no partition as admitted by the pa.rti~es. the Veofiareenary continued. As Nanje Gowda had 'i1Ai.sVd§:.ughters cannot be construed as;t'he "_me1r1_bers.,..oi' the '.jC--(J:_13aVfrceii.ary. They are not the eo~p£ii'ee:iieris"_"'--i._ on the death of Venkate Gowda an'dm"i'\i3.nj,e oi.5wda,"ihe eioiisi of Chokke Gowda, the plaintiff zit-nd' the 'i"i'r:i$'t._Vde1;en_d'a1i'i'eontimied as eo--pa1'Ceners. The ;')r0pertfy is the 'C-oFpaV1flf'=::e4i'1a1'y property and subsequent attquisitiories are v.n;;adr': out of funds of the ewparcenary and therefore except" the 't:'o¥'p'arcen.ers and their children. no other f;eré%,oonV'h'e;veie.n3§ right in these properties. Veiikate Gowda's is' i\ré:L}f1.i:\'€fl}{8."{E1rI}II}a, who died in the year 1998. Her «son iséfiainapgia and daughter is Chandraieelainnia. They got ""--.no_riiht, 'i.n the cow areenarv. Similar} . Thi_)3anna. son of 5/ Y II {L//..
Chamttndanmia, who is the daughter 0!" Nange Gowda, also has no right in the property. Chandraleetamrna. the _4d.e_iugdhter of1\/Iunivenkatamma is married to Narayanappa a.nd"the-re_f0'.reV" _ she has become the dElL1ght€I"*iI]*1&.\V of the first'de--fei1.détnt..« Alt in this Context we have to appreciate tt1e..w'iv'ttt*en .stiatemeni:e.{3f the first defendant as well the-Qthert"detendant"sjVA .Therel"()t'e. the first defendant. has been verytzgetieijotlstt in that the defendants are also entitteid {qt a§..sdhaV._1=eVd"'and plaintiff is not entitled to 3/2 sh21re_but: entii;1:eci_teV__Von1y'"tX655 share. in \fi€W of the admitted the suit property being the __Cf0~[)VVEU;'.C~'3._1_'tEtI"y"~_]5'I'D_}')€1't'y and daughters are not the e0--paree_iiers. t:he'tfa'1:,1g"i*it.e'rVs' children have no right in the pi-ope:f§'.y;' The t1"h-'1_1VVCO'L11't'\7VE1S justtfied in declining to grant the 1'eIi«e&i'V"0f' }3"é2i*tiit'.i011 in their favotir. Therefore we do not see any n'1'ertt_"i1'i filed by these Children of daughters as wet} V V' in the%«._C1'QSS QEJJBCTKEOIIS. Hence. we pass the following order:
.. ,_(a) it R.F.A.735/O2 is partly allowed.
{C}
(d) 3 9 The judgment and decree of" Ehe trial Courfiin so far as hoiding that. the property :st.a11fV1.(:l_i_i';g':'ih__"'V:.the name of "the first defendant are properties is set aside. :E3S§E:e1:1 'in re«s__t)ee_L of-é'ten1 No.19 and 25. the plaiizatifijsb"ez§t.i'L1e{i .Ie*%./2 all the plaini 'A' SVeh_ed~~1_1le p.roperf:.;ie's5. Vhinhuéii shotherh' a9E)eCts. the trial C0,1:r':' Cross Otyectiéfi "czfidtb 'Cross Objection No. _ in 7_35A'j_':Q.fl2 'am R.F.A.N0.8O5 /02 respectively, cirerhdisrnafssed.
-. N9 C0513} 1