Karnataka High Court
P Mohammad Ali vs Surendra Shenoy M @ M Surendranath ... on 17 October, 2008
Author: Manjula Chellur
Bench: Manjula Chellur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAL ORR 7
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF OCT OBER 20K
BEFORE | :
THE HON'BLE MRS JU STICE M. AN. IOLA CHEL L UR
REGULAR FIRST APY. AL S No. #023) 2001
Ch 75/2002.
R.ELANO1023 2001
1 PMOEHA MIM, AD ALL, sO. LEDU L TA. ii
MAJOR, PERMANREN i i RA *PARANGANA HOUSE"
PALLIRER VILLAGE AND POST,
KASARGOD TO. KASARGOD DT.
REP BY HIS GPA HOT DER MR.PLHASAN
THE 2ND APPL EL ANT. .
ia
POTLAS. AN, SO. ARI a L iL ATT
7 MAJOR, PERMANENT R/O "PARANGANA HOUSE"
- OPATLECERE VILLAGE AND POST,
- A ASARGOD FQ, NASARGOD DT.
_ ARR: as, 60 ARDY © WAIT
MAJOR, PERMANENT R/O "PARANGANA HOUSE"
PALLIKERE VILLAGE AND POST
KASARGOD TO, KASARGOD DT.
Sok :
~. AMM, S/O ABDUL HAI
MAJOR, PERMANENT R/O "PARANGANA HOUSE"
PALLIRERE VILLAGE AND POST
KASARGOD TQ, KASARGOD
KP BY HIS GPA HOLDER MR PLHASAN
THE 2ND APPELLANT
de
Be
P SULEMAN
"0 ABDUL HAJI
MAJOR,
PERMANENT R/O "PARANGANA HOU sk
PALLIKERE VILLAGE AND POST |
KASARGOD TQ, ; sO -
KASARGOD sy, NS " APPELLANTS |
(By Sri: PADUBIDRI RAGHAVE NDP. A RAO. SE STOR
COUNSEL) : we, at
i RENDRA SHE™ OY Ml on
PMSURESD RAN, ATH SH: .NBHOG
70 Vis, WO be: A y E ML RAGHAY ENDRA STLA™ DOK
R/O BUHAY: A: NTI ST REE tr, M. ANG. AT ORE 875 001
De A. DE. .
2 DECAIRON ARM, Al D. A SHENOY
WIDOW OF DECEASED DR.M.RAMESH
SHENOY, MATOR. RAG NO.11-6-42,
BHAVANTHI STREET, MANGALORE 575 001
OP DIST. -
MS M NAMRATHA SHENOY
. DIODE CEASED DR.M.RAMESH SHENOY,
_ MAJOR, RIG NO11-6-42,
- BHAVANTHI STREET,
MANGALORE S75 WH
_ DB DIST. » RESPONDENTS
fet.
By Sri. S.P. SHANICAR -- SR. COUNSEL
BOR SRL M. SUDHARKAR PAI FOR R-2 & R-3)
(iy Sri: ¥Y V PARTHASARATHY, ADV FOR RS
RFA No 73 OF 2002
BETWEEN
1 DB MBS NARMADA SHENOY
W/O LATE DR M RAMESH SHES
MAJOR, R/O NO.11-643,,
BHAVANTHI STREET.
MANGALORE, (D.K,)
M NAMRATHA SHENOY
WO PRASHAN TREAMAPH oo.
MAJOR, R/O NO.223,R.M.V St TAGE m.
DOLLARS COLONY -- noo,
I MAIN GE NEW BEL ROAD _
BANGALOREA4. 0°.
BY GY. nAL HOL DER = "AFP Y Lh ANT NOW
thsd
APPELLANTS
Dy Si; mi STANK. AR = SR. cor "SEL
FOR SRi. M SUD. AKAR. PAR }
AND:
"4 SURENDRA SHENOY
~. @M-SURENDRANATH SHANBHOGUE
. S#OM.RAGHAVENDRA SHENBHOGUE
~ M/S M.ALSHANBHOGUE AND SONS
.. MERCHANTS, MARKET ROAD
MANGALAORE R/O BHAVANTHI STREET
MANGALORE 575 001
.. P MOHAMAD ALI
MAJOR, S/O ABDULLA HAIL
W/O PARANGANA HOUSE
PALLIKERE VILLAGE AND POST
KASARGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT
(KERALA)
3 PHASAN
MAJOR
S/O ABDULLA HAJI
R/O PARANGANA HOUSE
PALLIKERE VILLAGE AND POST.
KASARGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT
4 ABBAS
MAJOR
S/O ABDULLA HAJI _
R/O PARANGANA, HOUSE .
PALLIKERE VILLAGE AND post. :
KAS ARGOD TALU K AND DISTRIC To
5 AMMT
MAJOR: _
8/O ABDUL LAHAT.
R/O PARANGANA HOUSE...
PALLIKERE VILLAGE AND POST
KASARGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT
é P P SULEMAN .
{4 IOR
"S/04 .EDULLA HAW
"RAY PARANGANA HOUSE
-. PALLIEKERE VILLAGE AND POST
_ KASARGOD TALTK
AND DIST RICT .. RESPONDENTS
"ipy! Sr: PADU BIDRI RAGHAVENDRA RAO. SENIOR
OO INSEL, ,FOR R-2,B-47TORSG 5
"THESE RFAs ARE FILED L/S. 96 OF CPC AGAINST
aie JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT. 28.38.2001 PASSED IN
NA : eo
-O.S.NO. 60/1 BY THE TL ADDL. CIVIL IC DGE, SR.DN. AND
CUM, MANGALORE, DEACREEING THE SOM PARTLY FOR
' PARTITION AND POSSESSION,
elivered the ipilowme:
Raat
get
Rat
Saud
eu)
oe
partie
parte
hone
s running 4
gant in respect of
me We
Be
'3.
ay
&
there
=
y Was a a ons. Sak nT sin the name of Shanbhog & S a havendra Shenoy,
-
tay ns, by name Dr Ramesh S a Shenoy . 'therefere, whatever purchase made by Surendra gut of is = nN o.2 of plaint "A" Schedule property respect of Ter cs amesh Shenov alsa have * Shag "weal id agate eg i pine Sa ject sub & aiso ¢h es The ' t & possess es to the es nee Le ot by the LRs of Dr Ramesh H ie ria dings before the t procee # et se of Trem No. the purchase a
-
esl aie So oo "
shat and he also purchased the preperty to the extent he is: in. occupation.
4. Based on these controversial pleadings, several issues -- came to be framed which are mentioned hereunder:
1, Whether plaintiff prove that Raghavendra Shanbogue has right to beaueath item. Ho. OD af Plaint A' schedule property? Os, Whether 1 defendant pr vied that he - was the absolute owner of item no. 2 of plaint schedule 'properties? Whether. defendants 2 te & prove that they are the bonatide: purchasers of. item No.IT for valuable : consider sition?
Whati is the share of ihe plaintiff in which properties? Whether valnation % made hy plaintiffs in respect suit _ schedule properties is not proper? Whether Court fee paid is not proper? For what reliefs the parties are entitled? Additional issues framed on 6.6.1997; L Are the plaintiffs alternatively entitled to % share in item I] of the 'A' schedule property?
2. Are they entitled to 3/4" share in the tenancy right and | building in respect of item no.2 of the 'AY schedule _ property?
3. Ave they further entitled to share ofS income from 13. 1986 till delivery of their shave in item No. Woof? a | schedule properties? The Court is not concerned with tem Nos. i & 3 of the paint A"
Schedule properties and BO also. "Bre "co schedule as the appellants in RFA No. TSO2 are not seriously contesting $0 far as Item No.1 in the "s A" "schedute, "pe and ree schedule of the plaint. The main incomes sroms tohe with regard to tem nos.2 & 3 as item No. 1 of the plat as schedule already came te be sold hy the LRs of Dr Raniesh Shenoy and so also Mr Surendra Shenoy ; dating thie 'pendancy of the appeal. Then, the only . __ controversy eens to be with regard to Item Nos.2 & 3 of the pli "4" sched, Yem No.2 is the property purchased hy the third parties from Surendra Shenoy over which the LRs of Dr oe "Ramesh Shenoy are claiming half share. Item No.2 are the landed properties belonging to late Raghavendra Shenoy and . there is no serious dispute so far as the share ef LRs of Dr ~ Ramesh Shenoy in Item No.3 property by Mr Sarendra Shenoy. ia ei ORD Spee Frag
--
ot o nad 2 Be os vami "A"
'ota t that su 1819 Mee fo the off en coming alse: satis § 3 Shenoy alone. Over this preperty, the appellants in thes second matter ic. RFA 75/02 are claiming half share. On accornt of the leng pending Utigation, the LRs of Dr Ramesh Shenoy. have and title in equal share along with Surendra Sheney, they are ca giving up their right in or der-to put quietus ta the matter so that they would be able te enjoy flenst the "re st of the propertics during their lifetime | - 9, When, one' th cone ed te that the appellants-purchasers as the bonafl de | Fe irchi 1seTs of Ter No.2 of plaint "A" schedule, technically, it wou ate sicate 'that they are giving up their right and fi ant 80 far #8 Item No.2 of plaint "A" schedule. In Ghat view of the matter ry the objection fled by the appellant-purchasers is Se fed ag"
10. Then coming to the third Item of the property, the trial ~ court by iis udeement and decree has already directed partition # saint "A P tem of :
# i 02, the value of half share in Nem. &/ fad Es A 7 RE.
ertics wou
4 a in RPA No. 78/82 isconcerned over third. ae os ee Ramesh Shenoy ae So nee a "eae?
peut woo, posit Schedule, & ate Be ca 22:
: sale proc Shenoy so far as Ifem Nez Le te! wre.
et uestioning the judgement and decree of f q 1s spect of tenancy rights ie Hem No of | . eee 8. 3 fee we = got half share only in re the appellants, this Court need not go into farther details. Asa matter of fact, question of we ights « ould not art arts se at all having regard to the facts and cireumstaives breaght on record.
11. Mr Sureadrs Shevoy after purchas sing the property had demotis sik ed tut the. purchasers have reeonstructed a compl sin toda ~ Surendra Shenoy. According io appellants in RFA 75/025 th e proceeds of net only the third item of "A" schedule, other family properties and assets were wed by My Surendra Shenoy. In the absence of Mr Surendra st nepey contesting the matter, this Court has te held that he is quiet satisties with the judgement and decree of the trial court.
12. In view of giving up whatever the nature of right the . appéllant could have had in Item No.2 of "A" schedule, equity OW drrants that entire property In Item No.2 of plaint "A"
schedule be allotted to the appellants in RFA No.75/02. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of as waders a (1) Appeal In RFA No.1023/01 is allowed. Tf pheve i is 70"
order as fo costs, (2) The appeal in RFA No.75/02 is allowed t in. pert holding that the appellants have no right, title ar Interest whatsoever in Item No.2 of plaint "A" se he dule' in view 0 of eiy ing ap their right and further, allotting entire item no 3 orp a aint."A" schedule te the appellants in liew of their shire in item nNo.2 & 3 of the plaint "A" Schedule. here is Isr ne order nite costs.
So far as "Vem Not of plain "A" schedule is corrected