N C Raghunath vs B Adinarayana Reddy on 4 August, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

N C Raghunath vs B Adinarayana Reddy on 4 August, 2009

   43}? Sri: K 'i1ENKﬁ{FA S{§I1}HEER,A}.}"sfO€lA'FE}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT  

DATES THIS THE 4% may 09 AUGUST----§§A5Gi§ '   -

BEFORE W_ ._, .V_V,
THE HOIWBLE MR JUSTICE K zg Kg$ §;A%rArsg;}2_;+;'m:§'A..:_ 1'

R.8.A. No. 3341 6!' 259% ' h "

BET'%EH:

1 §mRA<;HUNA*m, 8/0. E. C§~1ANNAR.A.*{A1>PA.g; "

AGED ABOUT4}YE5_XRS--.~' R/AT NAKKALAHAI,.-L_I'*V. NAGARAG:EL}R'E GOWRIBIDé;NTjR; 'FALUK_, KOLAR 1231s'?-V-+1551-.V:2%Q8% "_ A 2 :~:i%<::'LRAAzvi-EsH::%; " .

5;./0,_ B {;HAI}Ii£AR&YAPPA A<3EE:%ABo'm'%39VyE5:§Ls Now: R/A'i"=N(}.f2Q, *3.§1:; mass GGDI}-ﬁT'IiAHAL~§JI§&LA£N RQAD ; mi', NA<3AR"msi?

._f °<B§:N<i}ALC3i~2Ev~.=----.5€é0 925 A 3 " $'PE<AKAsH ;8;*vf'3;,g sjﬁgmyaaayawa . 'AGE13. sa"B<)UT 35 YEARS NQW-RIAT N020, 3% CRGSS QSEBATHAHALLI Manx: RCIAD _ .. mi. NAGAR ms}:

V VBANGALCPRE - 550 925 " APPELLANFS 'E »@, 1 B ADENARAYANA REDDY S/0, LA'I'E BAYAMIA AGED 530:}? 53 YEARS R/AT NAKKALAEALLI NAGARAGERF; HOBLI : % GOWRIBIDANUR TLAUK v M % .

KQLAR 3131- -- ~56 1% 203, ....R3::sP<)s~m;E:aT'~--,V {BY SR1 1113. MA§~1E$H,F<)R sR1%;%REU8'i;:N3A;=::01;B,ADV.) Tms RSA F1LE,D""tI;$.'-_1<;§o;V GFQCFC AGAINST THE'; JUDGEMENT 55 DEGREES DAT'E'D::2¢..8';f3QQ€_3: mssarj ZN R.A.N€).1{)'?'/2803- ONIT'H»E.j1?ILg'»,oFiyxéﬁa CIVIL JU§(}E (sR.1:>N.) 8:; .1M;;*:'::.,V';'eH1{:KBe;LmP12Ia,, j}T)iSMISSING mg APPEAL AI~ED'--.. CfjN~FIR'M£E>§G 'T'§~i'1E "JU:;GEMEN*r- AND DEGREE Z)ATE{:£V:_ ?2?G;M3}. 2"Gff}.3"' VIESASED EN 0S.NO.2 1/ 290 1 on THE";j:LE:_£;:a;:_,f;';1£;%'- V§IlEV"£L__vJ{§%)GEi (JR.11>N.} 8:. JMFC, <;um8 A,N£>A. TH:$'.._ R,sé; %{':c}zs:i§%sG SN FOR ADMESSEOEE '1'HiS myﬁag c@sJi€:VDEL1vERE§ mg FOLLGWING:

kUDGMENT appea} by the Defendants --- 1 to 3 in

3.3% 2:; 25:6: an the fﬂe cf the cm Judge (Jr. 3:1,), V "{}ud;iba:*:da, is directed against the cancurrent judgnients cf Caurts beiaw éesreemg the suit ﬂied by tha VT " "':'"ésp0ndez1£/ giaintiﬁ' fa? déclaxatian that he is entitieé to succeed {<3 the piaint scheduie pmperty ané that $16 allegad win datacl 25.09.1930 is not binding on it is 111111 and void. The subject matter of the of agriculturai land and 2 ite_m.$__ 'of ﬁituated at Nakkalahalli ::V'f~i.oT'iE;1i, Goxvribidarmr Taluk.

2) The undis};;{;ted.'_VA:« Byarma mid G3I183*31'1aT.aPI3a w€3{"?_i{~., two bI'G{h€1'S effected {fie ' famiiy propértias as per Eh? 24.04. 19'? 1% ané underiﬁzei the suit scheéuié prapaytias fail ti) The said Byazma has {W0 30:r;.*s_§ by narﬁ€:._V_VV:B . .§mmaray=ana Raddy gplainuﬁ) am:

.ACi1a;:ng%a}?3a;p;3a. Defe11dants --- 1 ta 3 are the 90:23 3%' B. emma;~;a§?ap;5a; Byaxma died on a3.12.199:?. 313' Tha plaintiff ﬁled; tha éuit against his nephews VA : ?m_.: §:1efeI3da:3}:s~ 1 ta 3 far €116 raﬁaf of ﬁéaiaratium inim' VA ...;3iia cantending that hig aiéer bmther Chaimarayapga, V' father 0? the defendants went ant cf the jeint famiiy an

14.Q8.1964 by taking SOIT}.'1€': propartiaa ta his sham releasing an his interests in the Omar pr<}per=':é§:.?.$' i:Vf.j'f£l"i::;'. _ gsaim fzamiiy and started living sepa1f_a*::.e1§;. '§f1i;1":s,:: " "

family czirmpriseci of Byanna, his bfatI1::éf' A~Ga§';gadiiaf:c{§;-§é;1.T_: and plaintiff continued. tide --V{.':..§>.i<:dA 2434. 19'? 3 batsmen 8}f.aff3118. VA the joint faxnﬂy czomprised = fiihé piairztiﬁ' continued. Thzgsﬁiizé @6536-.ssi0z1 af 3}} the suit with his father Byazma. A the mterests af Byanna iii: éﬂe :;1:§3g§1§erties devolved upon the p1ai11'?£ifif_ E3' the plaintiﬁ' became the x£§bSoi"L1fé €;'<5,.?Ii€§' of é.1i"'§;i':é suit schedule propériies and 'aha 501615 of Qhannarayappa the éividad 50:": {uf ﬁyaxzfiai 'ham :10 mazmer of right, 'éiitie or interest .;0F;:ﬁ: the suit gcheduie groperties. it was aha A case of plaiﬂtiﬁ' {hat Bjszanng. a1§€g<e<i :6 113226 '-$7.*XéiT.(:%u{€d the Wiii bequeathing 321 thﬁ suit 3211::-{Eula A properties in faveur af {ha defandants and an {ha basis sf 455% .

the said alleged Will, defendants; are trying ':9 get. 1:132:16 mutated in the revenue records and are _ etake claim over the preperties. Aceegdmg tar '4 the W113 said to have been exeeuteei, 3 concocted and fabricated __as he'£3a'ci execute the Wili eféhedule properties in favour of he haci oniy an undivided inte1*e$t properties.

Therefore, ﬂ1;»::*' alieged W131 is 11111} and "{Ieid1.:..: eifeﬁfesmnces, the piaintiﬂ' sought fc:V:xf~a.10ne is entitleﬁ to succeed ta 3}} the si1i§'$;i:§'t1edi;1Ie"',me<ir:pe1*ti;es and further deciaraiion tE1:at W11} *exeC1i£ed'""i5:§! Byaxma is null arid Vaid, " 4,11,":"§f§1e.A'.'-ﬁiefendanis centestea the Suit. The}? _admit%ed feiatioriship between. the parties. Eiewever, U the wiéﬁzen statement they denied. the piaintifﬁe case eider brother Charxilarayampa wenf. Gut ef the T --:'..:j0iI£: famiéy cm 3438,1964 by reieasing his interests in «M tha suit schedula preperiiies. They contendeé suit scheduie properties were neither joiﬁt 4' ~ properties nor ancestral pr<)pert;i@:3~ " _}f;)i'i_V V Byamla. A(:<:(>rdi;1g to them, properties were seif-acquiredVa:};&._sepé1:*ate.:V1jrQﬁ§E:i'tie§ of "

Byanna, therafore, he absoiufg i'ight ti} 'axe-cilia the Wil} bequcatliing "them --.__It was 'chair further content: 17:: . §.I:r_1at disposing state of /datiad '26.G9.1'98§ beqtieathing .$fEi' v."£1:r_.é~:'«.su§%é'~$(:?16du1e propcriieg in their favcmgr a3:1é ajéporé.' E3}; Byaxma in {£12 year §9§"}', _ by Vi:f:}_j1€'::;f the '$1.1' became absciuts owners sf {Ina . ';1; %1id«--._vi113me<iia.te§3;* thereaftﬁr, Ehey got their n$i1"3_1<EiS;s_ %mVu£l&t¢é.T..;'i:i the I'€V_€I1i1€ racards and c:m1ti:{1ued in V ssizay ﬁeuse pmperiy Whﬁlfﬁ may ware residmg 'ét;3;;¢:';g 1;v§"itIi" B§:a3:1I1a iii} his zieath. Thus, acmrding tar the

--.{i€fe;iﬁénts: {hey aye 11'; iawfu} pogséssien and anjeymazat "-4'%}1e pmpertieg and the piairztiff is 219% in };3{}5'E§€Sf:'§i01'}. <3?' any 0f the pmperiias and that ?,he gjiaintiif' has me :;z";a:"'§1€;:

mi' right, title or imerest over any ed' the Suit scfiéaﬁiig pmpertias. Thersfore, the defendarzts dismissal Gf "£116: suit.

:3) {Z321 {ha basis cf tI1§:_pieé.~i';1igs§ of the tria} Ccrurt. framcad the f01lm%?i;<3EgissueS...V_

i) Whéthﬁf thev Qiﬁve. thafhév £3 succeeded ta ti1*cT $1131; V:::;f.hz:éti3{;1g pxfaperties having aequireﬁtlxg -by irﬁfxaiétance?

ii} VVh€ﬂ'i'€'ﬁ:if . :7§13j11'iif'f" «proves the a.}}1_<=:'jgec1_§;ri1i"2%;-O9,_'1Q8O is null and void a'n{;{1"10"£' 'bi1'1<.ii_*3g'011 ighe glaiﬁtiﬁ?

iii) °.W}i;eti'1Lei:'t§i*:.¢T'a:%gé3'a:*1jig1.a:{1ts to pmve that the s'uit- is x§'lit'.A'b}? "I1OI1-j0iI1CiCf of necessary pa:"£i<:'s?_' _ ' "

V. ., .:V.rV"3£1§i'£h€V'i"ti1<:: is entitled for C1€i{:I'€8 _ as--.praycd far'?

" ~. v); '£V%ia?7;;.€1V€CI'€€ 0;' Grder? A 6:} " ﬁisfter the parties Eec}; evidence, the Trial Court "--<.jﬂ 'ap§§reciai:ion of era} ané riocumanfarfg €V'id€I},{:€, arisﬁssred Issues «« 1, 2 & :3 in the afwmaﬁve and issues» 'I " & 4 in thﬁ negative by hoidiﬂg that the Will propmmdsd :'\ '1?) The Lowar Agapellate C'f»<)ur*€ cm z'eaSsesS:):ze:Ij*E_.>_5£:fVV era} and documentary evidence C0:1curred_."'aVit}fi'-- ~ judgxnent {if the trial Caurt and cligznisss-rjgi. zégfgd K 2 theréby upheld the judgement of against these (:0nc1.1:trreI1t judgiléms of"'J3.e' Defe11da;.1ts-- 1 to 8 have ;:.{jese1f:.te{i--..';23i$'-»zsg;ec91§d'appéal.

8) I have._heard.~-- éiuééei', learned Csunsel perused 'aha racords s€_(;},";1*'ec1 fr{i¥«;n_;§ @} the appeliants vehememiy caritezmed tiiéii Vih.-3 . j'-uai géii1'ém$ Qf both the Caurtg beicw e':P1*a0':"::§*;\3:1:*;..&ina3::iiib¥1 as bath the Ceurts beiow haw {es "mi; proper is$ue$ eiriergirig sat Gf {ha pi6a€iiﬁgs__x;xf parties have been franfiecit z%C€m'<ii:1g is " _E€$:*;z1:Te€1 mange}, piea Qf tbs piamtiff that T€33.g?1Lr:é§ya§Iappa, father ef {£16 defenéaﬁis hag: 2336:}: out {if 'theﬁoixat feimﬁy $3? relaaging his interests in 31} 'L223 suit 'éckzeéule prapeftieg an %4.{§8.1964 having 2366;:

k.

19 Speciﬁcaiiy denieai by the {iefendants in t}r1ei§' u"r2"j: ':?:€n statenlent, thﬁ tﬁa} Court ought :0 have framed "

issue in that sragard casting the burden on t;h6:,_ :5 ' pmve the same, but, the ma} 091311 has ﬁat' sucitx issue and in the absﬁnqe of parties have not been able '~%3_1z.::<;Ve év;d;§;1Vce §;':VVVthat regard and this has caI3;§cf§§'_ to case 0f the defendants. ,1: is the learned cotmsel that pm-pounded by the (i€1ff:Z'IfL'CiV3Vi'"}ﬁ£x'.::'>vfV'.ﬁ :7: then the materiai questi01*1 '"'2x;};1i'(:h 'to be c0n$idt::re(i by the C<)u3:1:sV be§ow4""s¥z;is, ,*§;.h1éthé:*'LVChannara}?appa, faihaz" of the Viiafenaiéizliia had rereased his ixlterests in all} 'aha Suit in the year 1964. it is his further 2 submissiaii mat release of interests in the: immovable " «j:i1*<q;;-Lert;iTe3_. ban be effected unify by 3. registered document A és--..Vi*eq§:;é§red under Section 1"? 0f the Inéian Registxation VT 'ﬁzz; therefore, in the absence sf 3:23; such éausument, the "ﬁnding of the Gaurtg baicsw in this behalf is ermrzeous 11 and contraxy to law. He further contended tI1a§i_1*$ V:*g?ié%%.a?%:"{:f the above, the appeal invoives substantia} lave'. Thﬁ 1€a:£'11ed Advocate for I'éS130_T}{i{3I}§L' support the judgment. cf the (',:_)urt§'~§3§'iQ;.§.7.

16) 1 have bestowed Ii"i§;;:;<:etéri0V1hﬂ1S' to the $ubmissiG11s mad€; "E}y After hearing 'aha learjjed coggééi' and on mrusal of I am of the opinion thaii arty question of law n1u:%¥1I§s S 0f iaw, 11} " ..i_T'fne apfj<:;l}afi:si]:E'éf€ndants have 1191: seriausiy V dispﬁfgﬁéi ":h$_tj- 1' and Gangadharsappa effected V. pg:s:;:.m§% anztsstral jeint famiky §E'0§L}€E'€i€S uzader Seed dated 24.64.1973, 3. copy if V' . xzsshiéiz is! as EELPI and under £313 saié. partitieﬁ v:§e::é?4_.aEi"'ﬁhe Suit Seheduia gmptartias felé ':0 the ghare sf Tiaough the d(':f61'id3ﬂ'{S cmztenciad thaii far that?

" ééiée sf eenvenierzce, 83;-'a1"3§"13. 311$ Gangaéhamppa effecteé partition, and in maiity, 8}} theses suit scheéule W 12 prsperties were the separate properties of A4 defendants have not placed any acceptable * recard to Show that all the suit schetiule; p}f'o;Q§éI"ti,e§w§:re 2 the separate pmperties of Byarma.

£2) As the schedule 03"

Byarma lifldﬁf the rightly ﬁeld that the sui:V_schec};u1¢_ joim famﬁy ancastrai g;~.v;:£hé "Bf%aIma. Both the Courts belong: {Sta} evidence plaseé by the déiferx-::i':a¥J;i££§,. ..th.é pI"{}p{)1l11d€I"S {if the Wiﬂ, have hﬁid ffrsat" thé' have faiieé £10 prmre due ~ .executii;-3: bf £116' '*'.¥ {(3 have been exzsctiteci by .. C{}'7:1I"'iCS below hava held that the eviciaficé (if whcs is stated '£0 be one 91' that attestars E} the is met werthy af acceptance as his isfzﬁtimeny '*fi;§}."¢.:>_f érgcangisiemcias and imgrababiiitiesi '¥'h:5 Caurts _.__"§eEi:ﬁ;W hazsa aise noticaé 313.: {ha defsndazxis havﬁ H0:

jexamineé {ha saber attesting witnesseg GI" tbs scﬁm Qf M"

the W111. Thug, there is 3 <:0r1cm're1"1t; ﬁnding.. 0f_ Tthe Courts beiow that the Will propounded by th§:- . is not proved in accerdance with law.» Th€f'éfGf€:',, " "

ﬁnding of fact cannot be recozisidiséreéi i3§,f sitting in second appeal ._S€c:2'€10IV':1 Inf' fact, iearned counsei fqr the Aapuixillaﬂts dici --I1Qt_,§;eri(3us}y argue anytlfxing regardiﬁg:¥;he"--ﬁ:i<f1iri§§=:'f;§f 1:».'r1_e Courts belew on proof of H§»§&?év'-ﬁij, "£0 the learned wunsei, 1:h:_e~ appellants is only with regard 0'f.,:Vti":g3: flouxts below regarding their féﬂhﬁl' g0i.i~1_g family in the year 1964. V ACCO¥'€;:ifig. tau £h<_~V; kaiftzeci counsel, the fmding of the ? «%'_}D this aspect of the matter is erroneous is set»-a3ide, than {ha piaiintiff xvii} not V VV . be eﬁiitleﬁ féf the ralief cf declzaratien that he 3:E{}I}€ has H K $f;z{:c;c=:§d:.?§€1 ta the suit schedule }}I'€}p(ii't.if'2S and as the . j'<.iéf;eii"d;:a:zts are the sons of Channarayappa, the: sides':

" «sf Byazima, {hazy are entitled to succeed ta half (ea) ' share in all the suit schedule: pmgerties. 14

13) There is no substance in the subI}3:3§ssi§'f'i»$" --~§>i"v » the learned counsel for the appeﬂantsf <:¥€:5I'éi1tiéi;£?.~j§"VT,if;at'L-_ " "

mere sazit for declaration is not mlesintéiziable in... 'viéx=;§~~.. Section 34 of the Speciﬁc R6315:-:: f AS a mere suit for declaratiog wi§§191{t':--ai:§g*. .:%hef is maintainable. However, 34, it is cmly in case wﬁeﬁé seek further relief mar: is required to seek such to do so, the Caurt shaft} net ' '*.:%1'*ere declaration tzf titie. In this casa, 3cc§5:L"d,i:1gv'to *£-ihé" plaintiff, he Wag me': raquimd 36%;}; A~.&furthé£*"'é rekisi Evan accsrding is ﬁlm ait€:j':§3.afnti%:s§ f§*;ié:éfe:'ef' ciefeniiants, Byarma anﬁ his; tvw sans V V' c911tinued,___'2;s._j.:::§1}t family members, From $113, it can be t§}at,"'=i:}91€ piaintjff was in joint passessiem of 331 the _'_:~s.uit._ Vsciieduie propertieg. Therefara, meta was :13 new VT Bi) $66k any further reiief. Tha camiéﬁﬁan 0f thﬁ n5.&fer;da:1i:s that they are in gcssessiorz of the suit 5% 15 schaiule properties camczot be acceptsd fer the _ reason that, accarding to their case, the prop¢x*:.i€$:' "--éié2efé'v ~ separate properties esf Byanna af1d~»»h;e4 ' properties to them under a Will. Tﬁ$ref<)IT'é, of Byanna, they could not haV¢--_§iaimed" {he gmperties. It is net' " .féCc~:d..v §'0§,¢ the defendants as to when ﬁbﬁsgssion of the prcperties. Mega V'ré;:§ﬁv€$:::'ds cazmot be a basis to are in possession when possession of the prape:*tiesf _'{EI31Iess_ ' ¥3*3tab}ish&;d by CGg€}I1t mad a{:C€pt.§b}a_ €Vii':1(3i}'C€V'th€§.'i fhc: plaintiff was excluded frsm ;5 0?'ss€§S3i9Eii' s:§f*~.f{11e propariiiés, he is. dammed to be in p€§3s{é$siGri:"'Qf the,-"'saIz1e. Under 'these ciitumstancﬁs, it Cagzmét the defendants are in pessessicm. sf

-1 ¥§F;pg1{i@s and that the piaintiff' was required 11:) seek : reiiaf in tamas {if przirszisa to Section 34 sf the T Reiief A<:'£:. in this View cf tht: mater, thé 31,33: filrsd '4 for daciaratiea Withaut any? further relief is maintainabie. géy/..

16 Therefore, {ha submission in this behaif hag no substance and it is rejected.

14} There is a recital in the Will dated "

marked as EXBZ. said to have been execut_e:{1,VV ' that his eldest son Charmmayappiﬁ jj.oLz,t ' family in the 1964 by releasigg remainirxg properties 0f the joiﬁt~«.Vfa.*1;i}y." " 't}ie'§€; of the fact that the Courts bei<3§\}':A"h;3.iV:e ﬁhe defendants have failed to prove t13(f2-"Iv:u'v¥L.i].i:; "found therein C€i{1I1{)"t. 2. "to hold that Chaxmarayapga went mu: of':t_1e in IQ64. The plaintiﬁ' has ..--'v::;1faM<1e_ ' 311$ regard in the piaini. Of have deznied tbs: ssaid piea. {ﬁnder Z(10I'"i1Ti8B}f" an issue wcruid aims:

_ h.gvi.I1# 1?z::Fgs.3rhc:i4'te: the éi$S€§"§C§$}f1 an thﬁ part 0f the piaimiﬁ' jﬁeﬁiél on the part. 0f tbs defenéants, as such, the Couri was unéer an abiigatian '£0 frame an isaua in :.*;Eh.iS regrtl. Hawever, tbs: trial C0111": did not frame am? &/..

1?

E33116 011 that aspect 0f the matter. Nev€r'ihei€$s,-'"§he parties having urzderstood the case pleaéed ~ V. went into trial and 1&1 evidencs as $1163: kI}€3§='§3_'ﬁI':';~S%S. tG_?.'\x,§};§1t avidemce they are rmuired to lead _1§e'f{>2*:.:: Therefore, it is not open for th<i.4appéH,af:ts/dsférﬁdaﬁtsj éfc; V contend before this Court '$p;c;:ciﬁc issue in this regard 5130 has caumd prejudice tr.) the pertinent to note that 1:115. grotmd in this behalf They had ample <3pp€)rturViif,ie::=;'_ C 0urt ':0 seek recasting of issue and i§'*4réq11éV§;t?Jfie'..--ii'ia} Court :0 frame a Specific 'V'i3sL;é-311 bsliali -------- -«Having not raised an}; objection Cicnurt in this behaﬁ' and proceeding to § VV leaéi' ,_CL%7i€1e?1éx{.%*.V.{1a:}€i having 119*; raised any gonad befam * L0xvé;1f__?x13pei}ate Court, it is not {}p€I1 to the appeﬂazlta this Court in second appeai to egntend that: Wii__?E1011€ framing a Specific issue; in this behalf, the: ﬂzdgement of the Courts belaw am vitiated. In this .&,/ 18 bahalf, it i$ useful to note the observations of the Haiiﬁgle Supreme Court in the case of "

xgnmswammua vs. saman .1953 sc 3341 at Para~6, which :u:;;:e:§; %

6. " ............. , tint.

parties went to trial fullgai thg ;.fi,w}aI @2136 and led f1::>t_ 0131}: in support of '(heir cQ;j;i;5€':13:£:5:§is§» big.' ; réefutation. of those of '_'f31':I.'1cf-*,AI' aifié, ii C'fé.1_'i..fV};i(.)?1TL)é mid that the abséigés bf «isgixsr w"a:§V_;?fe3_$a1 to tilt: case, OI' 'Ei}:'a£ T. %h€§éT~§ " *své;s - which vitiatas pr:§e:;€<E£ii:1g;;S:;'§%~'.fEéA q:t*E:.__:?';£':e;1*Tef0r€, of apizzion tfszxt the cavuiii fi:§t .§i$missed am this rsarrew g;iT'§11:1d, a;£}§i "ei1s§' {ﬁat ihera is :10 Head far 3 V-':}ic:émAiLt, as thé' evicience which has bsen ied in ' is sufﬁciem to reach the 1'*ig1':1i:

= Neither party cﬁaimed befme us "'t.'{1a1;;"i'i-,.EaA.ci any further €'§%'id€§1C€ to oﬁizr. We, tfisxfgéfom, proceed to ccnsicier the cemtrai pom:

:';"; the case, ta which we hava amply fﬁféffﬁd V already." &/ 1?

Again in KUAUU KESAVAN VS. MCM. Pmuv OTHERS, [AIR 1964 so 164 1 , the Hon'b1g~ 1Véu§:%¢;mfef+* _ Court has stated this in Pa1'agraph»_F?»; A We éo not think that case wag taken by surpfiss; 'f'i1:':* :';Qti:iféle:.§,i0::;m must have been ﬁled Txa}:I'ii:§;;¢}": Statement, becauséé ' '=?,_h€iIf& L.:;;}41zC,g§igHg H; ' "3}§'{m; that it was t.enﬁér;(éd after obtaining ()I'<f'i{'_{§4g' .€3e§T'1%*:S. Tim piaintiff xsalis the side 9f the defggﬁarg the notiiication am} 9;#.}%a.s{;:%:.;;:"e;ic§g,;;xag§ii:éd' on this paint. N01'?-._Adi€i ﬁe' _ﬁ'i€ l""€f3(3€p'EiG}f} 0f this €:vicieri'L:§." E.'a?£zf1."' 'ﬁfgefrﬁga {he Distziet Judge, the "::~;:%:*;t:é:3'1tié>r1' ., fioi that the ezvidence was "@s:;fc%3?£gjj§E' ..«rec€i{i€d 'Without 3.. pmper plea and VA the notiﬁcation was not Clear " . h V 3t§f<f:g*éf[i=£§§as ﬁoubt Whether this Bhagavathi V ".'i'alii:,.s2ké"és exempted (1-I' not The parties Went _ ?.{}. "trial, fully understanding the ceﬁiiral faci H '~'{z;é}r1ether {ha succesaion as laid ciawrz in Ezhava Act appliaé to Bhagassathi Vaﬂi or net. The absence 0f an £33116, 1Zh(3i'€fOI'€, did mot lead EC} 3.


;§/



20

mis~ ma} mliﬁcient to v"it,ia.t:e "    ~ .4

3}

deczision ............... ..

15) in the light of the law »dow1:"7::~3: " = Supreme Court, i see no substancé i:';'1i2 1e '::or1*€E:r1ii:%f§11s,"1A:3jf the learsned counsel for théV__'a;§pe1t1arﬁ:s . wiﬁ':AvV,i.1[:egar-d to absence of an issue in ?;his _v M H

16) Beth the belcéw <51--"z t}ﬁ1€ basis of the aural avidenca on 135:.-cgrd held that Chmmﬁrayapﬁév'.':'2a%§ént_"'%~_i:§§'u.t' "off the joint family 0:1 14.08. 196:=1'i»._j.f:.*s<%;}f same properties ':3 his sham &andv.»ﬁ§:1evasing .§:j_§e:'est an the rsst 01?' the jaint famiiy pr"§j';:$r1.iV:;'$3;M giaiatiff in his Ora} evidence has assértéd this' "fa(:¥:§ of the cr0ss~exami.nati0r1 of PW.1 indi{:'é.teé§}_ {fiat the defendants have not seriousiy %v.[%¢:§a*1:e;;geaE the evidence 0f 1%.: in '(his behalf. 'There is H53; even 9. suggéstien put is P'é\?.}. that his eldar bmther *{ii€i {let go out 9f the faznﬂy in the year 1964. It is necessary ta note that Cha.n11arayappa is 31:53} alive even QM 21 :0 this date. It is not the contention of the defendants that they are not in good terms with their father.

However, for the reasons best knewn to the defealdams, they did not choose te examine their father ~ V' trial Ceurt. The best evidence available wesfzetv M before the Court. Defendants, were -1 brining their father before the: fiave vie" 'V L' him before the C0111': to depose'V"VJiﬁ3 _regéi:~'d i:oV'his';Ea1ieged release from {he joint this eireusrzstanee is sufﬁeieﬁi' 'te':ii,drei%f'ai1.;i1dvei*se"Vinferenee against the defe£1cia1': ts." . N}::s- ,--reies.se by Chemiaxsyepgsa from tee' jeizéf fe;:ei_1§r is_1i0i evitieneed by any cieeumeﬁt. V' "xtingﬁishmeet 0f"IVig'f1iiI2 respeei ef immevebie preperzy, '€i1e'V'g§a}uf.i:. "e;{' "'a§?is§eE"; is mete than one hundree rupees is mqurgﬁed a registered éeemneni as prevideé by " " 'T'f-Seetien~:},7é:'0f the Endiaﬁ Registretioza Act. Hewever, it is ﬁeeﬁweeﬁled law that Ce~pareenars ef 3. joint. famiiy mar} Vbrizig 01.11: partition among themselves ereﬂy and such a " "pe1*t:i'€ie:3 is met eempuiseriiy registerable. The Bee: has 22 aisits recognized partial partition, in the 381136, 011% Of'"'.'Lhﬁ co-pa:rc<mars taking his share from out sf t§x€:~ 2 preperties and going out 9f the joint settled principies cf law that, sevérarﬁft GT: '--sta§tii§_ could 13¢ bmught out by Lmﬂazcrai €i€::§h:e.ratioz'i.'. 63%;: {if V the <:G«~parcer3.ers. What has b~§é=;::1:'V'state{i Tif1e. ;)1aiI1tii'f in his pieadmg was faifiéf 0f 'aha defendants get, raieased _ir:. '£,1'1e the joint family of Iaiﬁ aéci after .receiVi:1sg his sE1a1f'é§}'xcj%::a::r('i§*:ig '"1£>é '-thﬁ "j;'>i;a;,intiff, Chamlarayapgja tack some -- g3r§3perﬁ§::$"'»«ffi:21i..~ {rut 0f the joint family' pmpexfties, 3S"his»shai*:3 want Gui <31' {he famiiy and I-'j'V'VV?e}.$aé3é<d i.}}"ES"-- j z1'ce1"Vé:£§*i;""':V:<"3. ether jam': famiiy prepemes.

"fhér::fé:*:€i;'»i,§ was arrangemexit made bf; 0:16 Qf the C3- parceﬁer declaring that he is gaing Gut of "(ha " thereby bringing gut disruption in the gfaint Tfé;:1éi1§z_.status. Under these Circumstances, there was :10 _=:1e@::i for such azrangement béitlg evicienaed by a " "fagstered decument. The defendants having met placed %/ 23 any acceptabie evidence to rebut 1:116 evééance p1a»<;§{i 'i::_y the plaintiff in this behalf, bath the Courts _ rightly accepted that Charmarayappgg _sepa_f;a'te€:i: '4 " = joint. family in the year 1954 itself éz:1d::'tIae£:r<é22i 'teif;" By and his brother C}angadhara;:r:pé::~._ei'fe'£:te<%i p_azT't;':'{ic§_11-V fthé ' year 3.973 whereunder the ~::<_ci1:¢fiu.1.<?:"pI§{.;:fp<;:VV2;tiz3s feli to the $113.31: cf Byazulé {$i'f_). (2.? this, the suit scheéule prope§*tig§:'3.__ of tha joim family c0mp;~i$§§ " " second son Vi' Upon the death of B5,-'3_tma tﬁe énly smvivimg <:o~»par£:e11ar of the j_0_i1'1t .3i7aS'v_thiéV plaintiff. It is 110$ on recsrd 3 Vthat "had V§§i1:1§;"'fé131ale heirs faﬁing under C31ass-E 0f 3S<;ii:;:jé1Ié§ '«ffiieréfare, title piaintiﬁ' bacama the sole sunfi$§4i11gV..c§:ss,parcenar, as 3, resuit, the ancestrai

-. j;-V'~ p;<rQpe:*ti€:s__A«i:f Byamzaa devoivasd 011 piaintiﬁ' by survivorship Sezjtiari-<6 sf Hinéu Suecessiaﬁ AC1; Thug the pia_i.i1tiff becama entiﬁed ta suczsezté ta "aha entira VA ﬁisraperties. Liridsr '£31836 circumstancas, tha Cauris beimz? M °%G?*gA .-"

24

are justified in declaring that the plaintiff has Succeaﬁtiad in the entire proparty and the defendants "

mazmar of right, titie 91' imerest OVEI' the. '1_"E;r-5,"

judgments of the Courts below iﬂegaiity or irmguiattiiy warranting «Vi:1ferfere:1é::.. Cmmz. In that View of the maitaf; the iipyéal dézges riot involve any q1:es1:.i0:1' _ 12%' m1;C§€SS subsiantiai question of 1.-aw. 'V Accgraaggyggmzappeagzseﬁggﬁssea.

Sd/* JUDGE

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

N C Raghunath vs B Adinarayana Reddy on 4 August, 2009