C D Nanjundappa vs C Nanjundappa on 18 December, 2009

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

C D Nanjundappa vs C Nanjundappa on 18 December, 2009

Bench: C.R.Kumaraswamy

IN THE HTGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 181% DAY OF DECEMBER 2OO9~7gO:'
BEFORE T u 'O: A' T' J
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE _:"
R.F.A. No.16?/2001 j; " A

C[W A
355,; CROSS OBJECTIONVNQ25 OT

EN R.F.A. NO. 167/2001:
BETWEEN:
SR1. C.D. NANJUNDAPPA

S/O LATE CHIKKAN:SA,__ V
SINCE DECEASED;_"B'£;I;RS.7.

1 SIVIT. '
MAJOR """
W/O I;%_\TE.CfD';.VN.{XNJLT1\TDAPPA

2 SMT. N. '(3~£T1TTATHIV{I".DEV/'I
MAJOR A
D /O_;LATE C.I3,.. NANJTJNDAPPA

S" V ZSMT. Nil K

' ~
D_/'O__LA1'F;_v.C.'I)';NANJUNDAPPA

_ ALIIAREE R/'O D.NO.11
*._SOUTH END STREET
= VVBEEIIND' SHIVANANDA STORES
' R..R.E;AST, BANGALORE M 560 001.
A D' APPELLANTS

% 'V:{Bj%O':V$RiO§: K. RAOHAVENDRA RAO & V. VIDYA IYER,

A ADVOCATES )

ix'

M% 2.00 1, A R Tie'; t /'£3.00 1

AND:

1 (S1)

SR1. C. N1'-\NJUNDAP}3A

S/O LATE CHIKKANNA
MAJOR, Rf AT FIRST FLOOR
NO.43/3, ARMUGAM CIRCLE
KANAKAPURA ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE -- 560 004
(DIED ON 25.8.2000)

SMT. SIDDAMMA,
NANJUNDAPPA, AGED' 73 YEARS
NO. 2304,3RDB_MA1N_R.OAD..
Am CROSS, \(I..EA's'..AN13,GAR..: _ A
BANOALORE:_ = ' V
AMENDED ASj_4_P,ER 'SORDER: DATED' 1 1 /7 /2002
[ON 1I,,.*§'-,V1?.QA(}».?. ;:::,,.NO,2~ALLOwED AND

SMT. SIDDAMMA IS PE?Rv1Iﬂ*ED TO BE

BROUC§H'1'._ON.RE'CORD'AS..LR OF
DECEASED RESPONDENT')

SR1. ;jB;O..

A * S/O, SMT. SUSHEELAMMA
AGED 3}7_'[EARS, R/AT NO. 05

,_fiiS_t'VI»§AvIN BHCS LAYOUT

BAI'«INER?C§_HATTA ROAD
BAx3:OALORE'O

»._SMT. LATHA
'- I3/SQ LATE SMT. SUSHEELAMMA

35 YEARS, R/AT NO,249
ETHMAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK

0 L' JAYANAOAR, BANGALORE -- 560 011

if.

1 (C)

1 (d)

KUMARI .R. MEENA

AGED 25 YEARS, D / O SMT. BARATHI

R/AT NO. 218, 57" CROSS, first MAIN ROAD.
DOMLUR LAYOUT

BANGALORE -- 560 071

KUMARI .R. NEEMA
D/O SMT. EHARAT1
AOED 15 YEARS, R/AT NO.218

5TH CROSS, first MAIN ROAD
DOMLDR LAYOUT = .
BANGALORE -- 560 071

AMENDED As PER ORDER DTTTZA/0.8/04;'

(LA. m/11-0213 ALLOWED C_)N:.2g4,-'..Q~S/'O4
AND THE ABOVE APPLiCAI\TE'_S" .
PERMITTED TOVOOME_.TOJNA.REcORDVASTOR
RESPONDENffS_R4 TO R7.M'~Vv.:BUTAT}1E A

AMENDED. O;e1UsET1TI,E IS CORRECTLY
SHOWN AS A,EOVE.TAEjPERTTHE MEMO
DT: 18;fo8_/2005-Ozéf THEQOUNSEL FOR
3RD RESPONDEP«IT"AN.D"'ALSO As PER
TI-IE ORDERS"OEf'[TH--E 'T-:'ON*13LE HIGH
COL{R'I' ON 06/09/2005)

Dsm. RAJASHEKAR

_ MAJORv,,_S,/"O__C, NANJUNDAPPA

"R/'AT NO}_~v3_5:3,_"'UPSTAIRS

JU(}A,NA»HA:LLY
RAJAJTNAOAR 11 BLOCK

~ 560 010

S/O CI-IIKKANANJAMMA
- 'MAOVOR, R/AT HOSAHATTI VILLAGE

UINKANIKOTE TALUK

VT 7,: ' ""TUMLE{UR DISTRICT

2(1))

2(c)

SMT. MAHADEVAMIVIA

D/O CHIKKANANJAMMA

W/O LATE C.D. NANJUNDAPPA
MAJOR, R/AT NO. E E, KUMARA

PARK EAST, SO{}TH END ROAD
BANGALORE
(SHE IS ALREADY ON REOCRD

AS APPELLANT NO. 1)

SMT. CHANNAMMA

D /0 CHIKKANANJAMMA A»

c/0 SMT.
MAJOR, R/AT NO.11;
PARK EAST, SOUTH END;ROAfD; * "
BANGALORE " '

{CAUSE TITLE AVMENDAED'

DATED 4_

SR1. C.P. Ci:iIKKANNA ',
MAJOR," AS'/Q'
R/AT I~sIO.?59, C.R0_SS..,_ A :
GAYATHRI DEVI 'PARK. EXTENSION
VYALIKAVAL, BANGALORE W» 560 003

SMT; KEMPAMMA'

- %wDO%PU'rTAN.2.x:A

AGED 70 YEARS, NO.50

'7=7"*"1"B~ _NIA11'§;'A4"'-. BLOCK

D'JA'YANAGA_R;.A'BANGALORE -- 560 011

(DIED 01x: 25/'05/2004)

' ._sMT. SAROJAMMA, MAJOR
* D/so LATE c. PUTTANNA
W.,/_O'"_{-I. HONNAIAH, NO. 60

-A SECOND CROSS, SECOND MAIN ROAD

MANITHI N ILAYA, JAYANAGAR

A '' WMYSORE -- 14

5 SMT. SHANTHAMMA, MAJOR
D/O LATE C. PUTTANNA
N055, ITTAMADAGU EXTENSION
BANASHANKARI III STAGE
II PHASE, BANGALORE ~-- 560 085

6 SMT. SUMITHRAMMA, MAJOR
D/O LATE C. PUTITANNA
W/O T. KRISHNAPPA
NO.50, 7%! 13 MAIN ROAD
4TH BLOCK, JAYANAO-AR .
BANGALORE ~-- 560 011 A

AMENDED AS PER_.ORD.ER;DT; _24,'..O8}'j{)4.
(SMT. KEMPAMMAQDIED.ONT215/05,104;
SMT. JAYALAKSHD/§.E*;. I
APPLICANTS R4 'I3O'"R3F.3_ S FILED A MEMO ON
18/06/2004; STATLNC "l§'fi~"~IA'1"~TfSINCE§"ALL THE
3 DAUGHTERS._i;E.V,' R5 R6 ARE
ARPLICANTSAND ALSO THE LRS.
THERE IS NO NEED TO BRING THE LRS.
AND THE HQN'BLE_ 'I~II.GH COHRT HAS
PASSED THE ORDERS ON 24/08/04 TO

"IT ISSAID THAT THE
APPLICANT IS=D--EAD_. THE OTHER 3
ARPLICANTSf'ARE'STHE LRS. OF I APPLICANT --

» CAUSE TITLE HE AMENDED TO IMRLEAD
HE API>I,ICAN'TS.--AS R4 TO R6.)

* TTIEAIVIENDED CAUSE TITLE IS CORRECTLY
: 'SHOWNAS ABOVE AS PER THE MEMO DATED
_ '-I 8/OS/20.05 OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE 3RD
S VRSESPONDENT AND ALSO AS PER THE ORDERS
j OFTHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT ON 6/9/2005.

TO?'

THIS CORRECTED AMENDED CAUSE TITLE
IS FILED AS PER THE ORDERS OF THE
HON'BLE HIGH COURT DATED 6/ 09/ 2005
IN THE ABOVE R.F.A. NO. 167/2001.

(BY SRIYOTHS: S. RAJASHEKAR &:SS.M;I--TLOKESH,ITAII _ ' '
ADVOCATES FOR R~1[a) to 1[d) ; I ,
SR1. K.V.NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATEITOR
SR} : M.N. UMASHANKAR FOR M/_S--.-- .8:
ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES FOR R2(a)I-8; R2-{(2);

R~2[b) SERVED; ' " ' , ' jj _

SRI TIRUMALAIAI-I & M.I\I. ADVOCATES
FOR R3; V _ ~ '

BY SR1 V.N. SATHY' f,ARAYAN:A"& Ex/1'1"; 'JITTALAKSHMI,
ADVOCATES FOR RA;-TO R~.S}II_A I

THIS :§FIRST'- A ARPEARL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION QGACPC JUDGEMENT AND DEOREE
DATED 16/9'/QQOOAPASSESSNA OS NO.3782/88 ON THE
FILE OF THE XDXJI:VAAAI5'DI.TI(5NAL CITY CIV"£L & SESSIONS
A-':I.j.:"B£:"ﬂ$TGALORE;' IIII "DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
PARTITION, ?_§)SS.ESSION AND FOR COSTS.

.V "-~IIIJ RFALCROB. .I\;Q,.:i5/2001 IN RFA IS7/200I:

'' " 1

I "_V-AG-ED 53 YEARS
I 'S'/fQ _LA:'TE C. NANJUNDAPPA

NO.2304. III 'B' MAIN ROAD
4TH CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR II STAGE "

BANGALORE -- 560 040 CROSS OBJE'CTO}2]'V1~--.j: 'ff _

(By SR1 : K.V. NARASIMHAN --
AND : I

1 C.D. NANJUNDAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S

(a) SMT.
MAJOR, W/O LATE C1). INDAPPA

(b) SMT. N. U1!/IAD]§3VIv...::'~ 1 a
MAJOR. 151A;§wUNDA1é1§A

(a}.'T0 (c; .ARE.R/Q'--NC. 1 1

SOUTH END

_BEHIND"SHIVA,\TANDA STORES
, _: K.P. EAST, BANGALORE-- 1

23 TC.VP_, CHIKKANNA

_ MAJOR--,TCS,rO.ST_LATE C. PUTTANNA
'NO;.59,"'~133~TH CROSS

GAYATHR1 - DEVI PARK EXTENSION
. VYALIEAVAL, BANGALORE «» 560 003
" I RESPONDENTS

'C(CA"USE TITLE TYPED AS IN THE MEMORANDUM OF'

V; FIRST APPEAL AND CROSS-OBJEC'I'IONS)

ﬁx"

THIS RFACROB FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE.g'2--2g[1)
OF CPC AGMNST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREETDATED

16/09/2000 PASSED IN OS NO.3'782/83 ON TIIR....pf1iIR--
THE XXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIORS
BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR "»ARTfITION,e

POSSESSION AND FOR COSTS.

THIS REGULAR FIRST APREAL 5 Ti"
OBJECTION COMING ON FOR FLTRTHEIR ARGUMENTS THIS

DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED Ti~.IE~~If'OLLOW'£l\iG-,:- ~
J U D G "T

This Regular First under
Section 96 of the Civil the judgment
and decree dated II'e.:}9'.i2000 CNO.3782/83 on
the file of tfie and Sessions Judge,
Bangalore, deer-ageing Dartition, possession and for
costs, prayCinge.to O..S. NO.3782 / 83 as prayed in the
justice and equity.

defendant has filed CrOss--ObjeCtiOns

llfundger Order""lé}AV1"'ll':{ule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code against

, ~.tl91e:}uCig2*:I'entl and decree dated 16.09.2000 passed in O.S.

and prays for declaring the share of plaintiff and

§X

defendant No.1 as one half each in the suit 'A' Schiedsule

properties and as one half each in the share of

Nanjappa in the suit 'B' Schedule property

each out of 50% of Nanjappa's

Judgment and Decree dated passed':

No.3782 of 1983.

3. For the sake of co}7iV§enieri'ce, tfxefgarties herein are
referred to as they are"'azfrayi'ed _in'Jt}1eAtfia1V Co:ai*t.

4. The in the trial Court

are as undei?_:-- ._ - V' V

Thegoleintiff Nanjundappa, C. Nanjappa, C.

-.'4:Defendant No.1 -- C. Nanjundappa' are

brothershtLétefCg;Pguttanna executed a release deed on

VV7_30.O3.19é'7zin!fé1i}our of the then Kartha of the Hindu Joint

.:1ate Nangappa and took his share from the joint

'A"'4"_':fa.nii13}"ptoperties. Defendant No.1 also executed a release

t dVoc%s~.ccqéed"'ih favour of late Sn'. c. Nanjappa on 30.03.1967 and he

also left the joint family. After relinquishment of their rights

in the joint family properties, defendant No.1

Puttanna left and conducted as a members

family and made acquisitions of theirﬂowrig'

late C. Nanjappa continued as rnernbersof joint--"--i.farni1y

business and they improved the family-.prope.rt.ies and
business with great strugg1'e:_a'nd "Nanjappa died on
23.07.1988 . He wasthe consisted
of plaintiff and latéf: wife nor issues.
During his lifetirzinei the marriage of N.
Gayathri Detfi, "plaintiff on 19.05.1983.

The Plairltiff as the Kartha of the
farnily hariigilant unit styled 'Tecco Works' at Tumkur

rnorefully described in Schedule--B and also a

concern"l.stylle(i'j3S'eflﬁiigie Engineering Company' Situated at

V7__'SubVedar Road, Bangalore in a rented premises

.1 lone' HI). Hanumantharayappa. Defendant No.2 is

A Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.3 is the son of

<2/'

late C.Puttanna. Late C. Nanjappa and the plaintiff thought

of providing some employment to defendants 2 and 3 intheir

concern on compassionate grounds since they are the'.sonjs..of.

their own brothers and provided employment

understanding to give a particular p«,=Jrtio'n of,

business only in the event of defendants',_?,

properly to the satisfaction of p1ain't..iff'= C.
Nanjappa. This working V notlcrelate any
right, title or interest in 'll--p:!;operties of the
plaintiff and late C3." after the demise
of late C. Nanjappa':li--'s all properties and assets
of late C. Narljappya belong to the joint family
conpsistedpflnnnseli' late 'C. Nanjappa. Sri. C. Nanjappa

hasno: and the plaintiff is the only person who

is entitleldrtol 'ally-._tl'lie'V..asscts of Nanjappa. Late C. Nanjappa

vlbabruptly uudiedt intestate on 23.07.1983. After the death of Sri.

llSé'can}appa.V"the plaintiff is entitled to half share in all the

schedule properties and also half share in the business

as "Talkie Engineering Company', Subedar Chatram

ggf

Road, Bangaiore, along with the machinery. stocks, deposits.

capital and amounts to be realised. So also half share ir-_.__the

business of 'Teceo Works' Factory with the

amounts to be reaiised, furniture, good--wili etc.

to his half share in the joint family

he is entitled for i/4*' share then. share

assigned to the share of late C. suit
schedule properties inclusive "premises
described in Scheduie«B along? stock,
deposit, capital and the credit of C.
Nanjappa in other heads. Thus the
plaintiff is entitiepd share in the suit schedule
propertiesifpiin a,dditionl_Vlto 1:/i'/-lit' share in the properties of late

the plaintiff is entitled for 3/ 4th share in

the properties which belong to the joint family

lﬂof --_pia.intiff.. and'll.llate C. Nanjappa. All the acquisitions,

; -improvements and business deals are made in the name of

ll'-4C'_jlate5--'Cl."iblanjappa, since he was the Kartha of the joint family

i lfp'-eonsisted of the plaintiff and C. Nanjappa. In addition to the

acquisitions of business premises, late C. Nanjappa and the

plaintiff also purchased two sites under a sale deed dated

31.03.1971 after the relinquishment of their respective'iiights

by the other two brothers on 30.03.1967'. After

late C.Nanjappa, Defendants--2 and 3 Ltnnfecessarilyzinterfered':

in connection with the management oflthe'*.';pusinee.s'

have attempted to create certain back
of the plaintiff and the plaintiff 'notice on
14.09.1983 asserting his the claim of
Defendants 2 and tirsti caused a notice
on untenable certain movable properties
which are not they do not belong to the joint
family the iderniefs the claim made by Defendant

Defendants 2 and 3 taking advantage of their

positicnfhas eziiployéeés have taken some important books to

V7__«thciz' custody'V.and they are unnecessarily causing interference

xpeaceftil enjoyment of the plaintiff.

Q/2'"

The plaintiff since could not resist the unlawful

interference by the defendants has decided to file a suitprfor

partition and separate possession of his 3/ 4th share _

joint family properties. Under Section 8 :o'i"** ''= 'V

Succession Act, since there are no CAlas:;';'4~eI..--c'heir_s"~to lat'e.C.;_i

Nanjappa, the plaintiff being the tin¢~--r;livide'd lviisentitlevd '

for his half share in additionto l[ family
properties that may be of late C.
Nanjappa and Ii of the
Schedule annexgd Succession Act,

the plaintiffiin all t(}_::3',.'.{¥h share in the suit schedule
properties - include's.. rnovables and immovable
propertieysgg The plaintiff is in exclusive possession of suit 'A'

schedule. _ in addition to the joint possession of

v other'. ., V V V

Theullcausedof action for the suit arose on 23.07.1983

late«..yC.ll\Ianjappa died and subsequently on 14.09.1983

'interference was caused by defendants 2 and 3 and

Q/I

when a demand for share was made by defendant No.1!"-,on

04.11.1983. In the circumstances, the plaintiff

decreeing the suit declaring that the plaintiff to

3/ 4th share in all the suit schedule gifoiuezties

separate possession. by metes and bounds and a1s*o.fo19 3');'4ﬂ?

share in the business fully described in Sacbeidule-:i;3 along
with machineries, stocks, 'd.efposi'ts,.V--_ amounts to be

reaiised etc. '1

5. The No.1 in the trial
Court are as 2
The suggestionsloflé' regarding the release deeds

dated 3O..«£§):I31V.I£%67 executed by this defendant and late Sri.

C.Puttanna correct and are intended to mislead.

Was' between plaintiff and late Sri. C.

arid... thjlxaintiff had no rights or share or interest of

the properties owned and possessed by C.

l.'ig'Nan'jap;pa. Late. C. Nanjappa, late. C. Puttanna and the 'first

defendant ~ C. Nanjundappa' acquired both movable and

ex'

immovable properties and carried on business jointly and._the

properties so acquired belonged jointly to C.

Puttanna and first defendant. '1' he plaintiff did M

himself with the joint earnings by C. Nanjappap,

and the first defendant, the sons of lateV__Chii:kanj1_ia'; -

was only one item of land left by of
his death. Late C. Nanjappa, late and first
defendant did not take or benefit from
the said item of and they moved
over to of ancestral property
to the possessiniilfyfafuj.-C of their sisters and the
children of thelsisterysf' C M C if

Sri." to Bangalore about 60 years ago

_iitrasV."'agcd'about 3.5 years and took up a small job as

an offiee"fb;)yVV in Select Picture Circuit at Chickpet,

Thereafter, Sri. C. Puttanna and first

.1-defenda1it._.'caV.i'ne to Bangalore and C. Nanjappa, C. Puttanna

first defendant by joint efforts and joint labour

-acquired certain movable and immovable properties ancbalso

built--up the business known as 'Taiike Engineering "

at Bangalore. All the movable and immovable

the business belonged to C.

defendant jointly. The plaintiff has-_4_left

of about 8 years. He never associated' himself joined
with c. Nanjappa, c. Puttanna in the
joint earnings, joint all these
belonged to C. defendant and

to none else.

The further suggesVti_o1*is"'regarding release deed is that

the pla.intiff.,havingiydissociated from his brothers, did not
't*intei'iest..in thlewjoint acquisition of the properties by

three-. Nanjappa, C. Puttanna and the first

"defendarit. fi'l*1ev'..'.properties were acquired and the business

"jointly by the said three brothers and as C.

«.:."Nanjappa--idesired to become the sole, full and absolute owner

lof_4tli~e*'properties, business etc. to be retained by him, late C.

Puttanna and the first defendant executed the release deeds

dated 30.03.1967 in order that c. Nanjappa shall 'E)€~~tll'ie:

and absolute owner of the properties and business' hie;

may dispose of the same with unfettered powers

sole and absolute owner of the properties"'retaj:lé-ﬁts.'
The plaintiff who was roaming frorn"'place not
staying in any particular :v.i_il.age_>shad'Anothing to
do with the joint Nanjappa, C.
Puttanna and came to
Bangalore and he was being
given food and t}ieﬁ'l1o't1se Where C. Nanjappa, C.
Puttanna and the first residing, whenever he
came to lvh'ousse,V" a stranger to the three brothers

andshellhad to participate in the joint efforts of C.

and the first defendant. The plaintiff

_i.(.1gd'not aslsociate himself with the three brothers. Thereafter,

'{_'_i1e_rna3rried and he and his wife were also given shelter by

V" fthlree brothers C, Nanjappa, C. Puttanna and the first

defendant. The question of plaintiff continuing with C.

ex'

Nanjappa as member of the joint family or the question of C.

Nanjappa becoming Kartha of the joint family did

Likewise the claims advanced by plaintiff in regard to

Tecco Works and M/ s. Talkie Engineering

rnisconceived and baseless. It is meaningless to contend

plaintiff worked for the improvementg.of.the busii'ies.s.a".; C

Defendant Nos. 2 with late C.
Nanjappa in the C_0nC;f'A3/flit was only a
paid servant in the Works and
he did not rights. The business
run under "M/s. Talkie Engineering
Company _ was concern of late Sri. C.
Cp and first defendant who owned

thefconeerri late Sri. C. puttanna and the first

:v_:"'defendai'i.t_ their interest in the Concerns, Sri. C.

became the sole proprietor. In the year 1980, the

-business of Talkie Engineering Company became a

'ifp.ai"tn.ership firm with C. Nanjappa as Managing Partner

§f

having 80% share in the Capital and 50% share in the proﬁt

and loss, Sri. C.P. Chikkanna and ON. Rajashekar

other partners each having 10% share in the

share in the proﬁt and loss as cotiid fr,

partnership deed between C. Nanjappa aiiei"defen.d'ants0'2

3 and this was the position as on Sri. C.

Nanjappa.

The business. T eceo Works
with all its assets et'e#;"-an'dVj"vt:hepremises No.15~A
Tumkur aipvartnership concern. Late
C. Nan] appa:"ha's«'. 7 and assets and 50%
in the proﬁt, 'io_ss~ 'and CF. Chikkanna and CM.
2 and 3 each have 15% share in

theiicapimul ginvestment and 25% share in the profit and

0' '.:°Io'ss in the of the partnership.

'»'I':h0e'«.p1aint1ff had no manner of right, share or capitai or

of any kind in the two partnerships. The plaintiff was

gniraerripioyee in the partnership concern of the Taikie

§w;"/

Engineering Company as on the date of death of C. Nanjappa

on a monthly salary of Rs.450/-. He is only a paid

the firm and he has no other rights of any kind._ H _

at no point of time was in the management iofggthe'

and defendants 2 and 3 are persons lawfully continu'ing an'd

carrying on the business as the 'oartnership
concerns. Taking frauduleintxadvarityage'~--of.:the circurnstances
that C. Nanjappa died all of plaintiff was

being allowed by_C.,, be inl'li.is""house and of the

circumstance other We1l~wishers of

C. Nanjappaxwere the house with C. Nanjappa, --

the plaintiff has teoxtrrnittled and removed large amount of
cash, Silver furniture and other valuable

rnovalole Sri. C. Nanjappa and also taken several

tgglocuinents, which were with C. Nanjappa.

Ialaintiff has no rights of any kind during the life

'C-.l"lNanjappa in the plaint schedule properties. After

death of C. Nanjappa, the properties left by C. Nanjappa

to/'

were succeeded to his heirs namely, the plaintiff, the.g"ﬁrgst

defendant and Srnt. Chikkananjamma ~ sister of C. "

and the children of Smt. Doddananjamma,

Nanjappa who predeceased him. The

partition of the estate of C. NanjappafVwithoutV.mafking

sister and children of the deeeasedf'=sisteVr '~C:_::i§fan:jfappa is
bad for non,~joinder of and befdismissed.
The said suit is also had for movable and
immovable 04.11.1983
got issued and the site
bearing No.i:,_A659f Korarnangala extension
which was to C. Nanjappa. All
the left Nanjappa including the building

site_VAi11V1K*ora1na;ngala__Extension shall be brought into the suit

alithe and proper parties, shall be impleaded

the suit before further proceedings are taken in the suit.

--*fI'he contentions of the defendant No.2 in the trial

t _ ltl'-Vourtare as follows:~

Q].

The Execution of release deed by the first defendant

even if it is true, it would not come in the way.._df_"h_e

succeeding to the estate of the deceased C. _

However. the averment that late C. Nanjapypa a:'1'd".thev if " it

remained joint and acquired propertiesis plai1a.ti.f?_'

was an employee in the ﬁrm of late was

the Managing Partner. Anygamoontfigof assertion.,Qn_,the part
of the plaintiff that late C. hirnself remained

joint would not makethim nonexistent joint
family. Nanj'a1fpa during his life time
belies such

Thveéligoncern 'T.ec_co._Works' was a partnership ﬁrm

consistitiggof_la,te,:C.__'Nanjappa and defendants 2 and 3. The

ﬁrrn"W"as'1:egis'thered on 21.02.1983. Hence, it is futile for

_m~..the.plaintiff to contend that the business was carried on by

Nanjappa as Kartha of the family. The other concern

it Engineering Company" was also a partnership ﬁrm of

the defendants 2 and 8 were the partners. The

plaintiff was not a partner in any of the firms referred to

above and on the contrary he was appointed as

assistant on a monthly salary of RS.450/-. Thetiilainitiff V'

not entitled to succeed to the estateﬂtof

claimed by him. None of the suit schéedtile properti.es

joint family properties. Defendlanfts. 2 "been
carrying on the business 'ar1Q»~'frfa1k1e
Engineering Company" as They
were managing the" iof C. Nangappa
was not keeping: "defendants 2 and 3
interfering -'finns does not arise. The
plaintiff is E3/4th share in any of the

properties clainied hirn.

-Thyell Nanjappa was a partner in respect of

"Teeeo43'..--'vis7orks" and "Talkie Engineering Company"

defendant and third defendant. The said

a partner with 50% contribution in Teecoa

80% in Talkie Engineering Company. However,

ex'

there was different rate of share in profit and loss. "The

plaintiff is not entitled to claim anything in the entirely'

of the firm as his share. He is a legal heir of

Nanjappa alongwith other defendants

There was no ancestral propert*y,.4__ to 'which they --Vdeceal-sed

Nanjappa succeeded and he possessed.':'f§oi"VVV any
ancestral property and all in the
name of the deceased.l\lanjap};ia::~asV._Va;;i' of his death
are all self acquired is entitled
to share the self acquired
properties, 5 name of the deceased
Nanjappa. Thesuitylis' dismissed in so far as the
are»«concerned," is no prayer for distribution of

thV('3~l1"1tV:CVI"{',SVt 'tt1etde_ceased Nanjappa in the said ﬁrms, as the

a/yplaintiffx partition. The late C.Nanjappa has

_l'ea,.left'.beh1nti who is not impleaded as defendant in the

7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Courthas
framed the following issues: f V '4 if

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the first if

and latte Puttanna have relinquished "their

favour of late C. Nanjappa and thustpplaintiff

C. Nanjappa have constituted aljo-int family

2. Whether the plaintiff.._upro\fresi.'that schedule
properties are acquiredpout jcrint-l.j'V_~e__fforts and
contributions offplsintiff Narij_appa§'?:

Drove that the suit
schedtzle prope'rties'rareowri-ed and possessed by Sri

C. Nanjappfaf, ﬁrst defendant 'P

the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for

/.4th._eshiare..:iri4Vt'i<'§j.suit schedule properties 'P

p 4, Is the s"t11t'¥oad for nonjoinder of necessary parties '2

-..fl'o.virhat share or order the parties are entitled ?

it The ﬁndings on the above issues are as follows:

sf'

Ex.P3 were executed in favour of late C.Nanjappa. F'ur_t.her,

the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff

reveals that evidence of PW»-1 is false. EX.P2 and V'

that these documents were executed inffavou.r 'of C.Na1_ijap--pia.fi"--iA

There is nothing in EXP2 and if

relinquishment of rights in favour
Nanjundappa and his brother P3
indicate that C.Nan_'iappa work has
acquired immovable it Therefore, the

Trial Court held. contended that

the relinquiishmenti'of':'itighptsl._}§)y__his brothers C.Nar1jundappa
and C.Puttann'a__vva_sxinauhis The trial Court further
held thatﬂthe decéasghq plaintiff and C.Nanjappa did not

continue .eas.._m.erribers of joint family. Whether the plaintiff

cyontinuedifinfvthve family or not will not be signiﬁcant and

of will not get affected because properties are

'i 'svelféiaequiredffproperties of C .N8.1"1j appa.

1 1. The trial Court has further observed that the ca's'e_of

the plaintiff is that TECCO Works and Talkie

Company were established out of joint efforts

C.Nanjappa. Defendants contend that

do with it. Evidence placed on record that..excep;t.'3

acres of land, one shop premises portion in
the village, Chikkanna, fathe.r":r)f'thde had no
other properties. PW} has his brother
were not getting properties.
Evidence of sold to clear loan
and portionpf amount was utilised for

establishment of4_f{'a1vki'e Company.

if c¢iir:"has further observed that PW} has

not 'iiis:v:'_jevidence about the quantum of sale

T'v.:AA"ccnsideration~ portion, year of sale and what was the

consideration utilised to start Talkie Engineering

PW} has stated in his evidence that shop portion

after he has attained majority. PW} has not

indicated his age in the plaint. EX..P2 and P3 revea1s.g""thgat

C.Nanjappa was aged 54 years in the year 1967 and

must have been born after 1925. Evidence

Talkie Engineering Company was

1939.

13. The trial Court has fzi1rthe1*"ob;se'rv_ed that'-evidence of
PW1 reveals that shop portion he attained
majority. This 'y\(a's after 1943.
Therefore the 'a portion of sale
consideratiohmof utilised to establish

Talkie Enginweeringl cannot be accepted.

_ A 14..'Trial has further observed that it is not in

dis'pute"that. Works was started subsequently. DW4

has deposed was started about 25 years ago. This

_ﬂ.,.eVidence unchallenged. PW1 has not stated the year

\i%l1ich"the TECCO Works commenced, the investment made

V" the nature of contribution to establish the business of

works. DWI has deposed that C.Nanjappa was the

sole owner of Talkie Engineering Company till his death.

evidence remains unchallenged by the plaintiff.

D20 and D23, C.Nanjappa is described as sole

Talkie Engineering Company. DW3Mhasg_ th«at.';

C.Nanjappa alone was managing the} of

Engineering Company and woxrksg said
establishments were convertﬁedy_ it is in
the evidence of DWIAV and plaintiff was
brought to his housefby. the was allowed
to work in "on a monthly salary
of Rs.450/'indefiendent right of his own in the
said business. and the circumstances,
is not trustworthy. Ex.D4 is the

orig_i1rial"ofV Ei§.'Pi« it reveals that defendants 2 and 3 were

M/ s. TECCO Works with effect from

_l2..l..44'..198O the capital invested by them was 25% each

4-arellentitled to the share, the profit and loss at the

irate" of 3250/.) each. Ex.D5 and D6 are the deeds of amendment

gs rnade on 23.2.1981 to the partnership deed. They reveal that

Q',

M/s. Talkie Engineering Company was taken over by TECCO

Works. The Trial Court has held during the iifetin:iej--Vpof,4

C.Nanjappa, the plaintiff had no right or interegt V'

schedule property and defendants «:3

along with C.Nanj appa.

15. The trial Court also was
not getting any funds 1 C.Nanjappa
came to Bangalore" as gate
keeper in theatre" one year, he

began to w(ir1{ll'as.:'operator?'~.fi'here""is' absolutely nothing on

record to shovir-that had income from ancestral

properties or his brothers were handing over their

earnings «to i-him... Underllthese circumstances, there is no

diffilculty» to 'A' schedule properties were purchased

""out of his__ow_n ~incj:ome.

» trial Court also observed that it is not in dispute

Cﬂanjappa died intestate without leaving C1ass--I heirs.

it C Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, property of

ﬂy!

C.Nanjappa devolves on his brothers. namely deceased

plaintiff, deceased Puttanna and defendant No.1, who

alive on the date of death of C.Nanjappa. On

death of C.Nanjappa they had 1/31*?' V

schedule properties.

17. The Trial Court has as -g.
schedule properties are D5 and D6,
defendants 2 and Buwﬁerep had 50%
of capital died other brothers
took 50% Ex.D14 is the
balance fﬁllhaintiff has not disputed the
correctness of 4.1' 'V--DeceVa'used plaintiff had 1/3rd share out
o'jfr5'0°/9 Nfa:nJappa;s"sfnare in 8 schedule property as per

Court also observed that memo dated

iztras ﬁled by the defendants counsel stating that

donot press issue No.4 and accordingly the said issue

V pvxuras answered in the negative as not pressed.

19. The Trial Court has decreed the suit in the following

terms:

It has declared that legal representatives T'

have 1/ 3" share and they are entit'1ed"'4for

separate possession of their 1 /3"' share:.'.__ 2

20. I have heard learned counse1:_for_vthe.'appellants and
the learned counsel for the :ha,Ve perused the

trial court records.

21. lth_e""appei1ants submits as
under: T T T V 4' _ T .

Plaintiff t3';_l3.'i\lanjundappa, C.Nar1jappa,
ilrstllmdefendant AND C. Puttanna were

broth.ers_;. at No.2 C.N.Rajashekha.r is the son of

A'v.:"d'efendarit_V No.~l lﬁl.-.i\V.Tanjundappa. Third defendant is the son

Puttanna. He further submits that the relationship of

has been admitted in the written statement of the

llldefendants 1 to 3. Third respondent C.P.Chikkanna is the

son of C. Puttanna. C.Nanjappa was the Kartha of the Hindu

Joint Family. He further submits that on

defendant No.1 -- C.Nanjundappa and C.i9uttanriAa:"

release deeds in favour of C.Nanjap;jJa;V the

Hindu Joint Family. C.Nanjappa arld,ﬂlj.Nanjurldeip}ia'--~.;V

plaintiff continued as members
C.Nanjappa died on no iivife nor

issues.

He furtherisfubinitslthatlafter theaeah of Nanjappa, the
plaintiff/apiieellantffis.*entitled"»to--half share in all the suit
schedule prop«ertiesVvai:§:l""tVAiz1 to his half share in the
joint it properties! V' the plaintiff is also entitied for 1/491

share 111%-g;§"~--?;3_e; assigned to the share of C.Nanjappa.

Thus; all is entitled to 3/41" share in the suit

__._e_se1iedule which belonged to the Hindu joint family

ialaintifi and late C.Nanjappa.

er'

He further submits that under Section 8 of

Succession Act, since there are no class-I he-iris '

C.Nanjappa and the plaintiff being not" nu

joint family, he is entitled for 1/431 'lthle'j,o1nvt

property in addition to his own share.' S'

Entry~II, Class~II of the schedule Secti'on*'S of the
Hindu Succession Act, the plaintiff is'.:»e'n_titled to 8/ 431

share in the suit sciieduie piroperties. .. V

He ap"pe~ilVants have speciﬁcally
taken the C.Puttanna and the first
defendant,-_, taken their share in joint
fatriilgr 'executed release deeds as per EX.P2

favour of the Kartha of the Hindu Joint

'wvkF'atnily, A (3__.Nan_E
He further submits that the trial Court held that the

and C.Nanjappa did not continue as

members of the joint family and this finding is opposed tothe

admission made by the first defendant. The Trial .4

in not applying its judicial mind particularly to V'

made by C.Puttanna and C.Nanjundappa'¥~ﬁrs"t

EXP2 and P3 respectively. The said

registered. The plaintiffs/ appellants '*subrnit_Vti1at=
conclusively proved that therey_was'maV'jointffaznily and
C.Nanjappa was the Kartha oint Family.
He further submits' lPuttanna and
Cﬁanjundappa the said joint
family prOp:V€,_1"ti€SlA from the joint family by

executing release deeds .asfper'EX.P2 and P3.

-Tlheflearned counsel for the cross--objector submits
as under; " if

The-..__VTrial Csourt has held that the suit 'A' schedule

' if ".pfAopertieps are the self acquired properties of late C.Nanjappa.

had 50% share in the 'B' schedule properties and

* remaining 50% share being that of defendants 2 and 3

31/

who were his partners. The Trial Court While defininggfthe

share of each of the brothers under the Hindu "

has held that on the date of death of C.Nanjappa,__his.brothers-if K

C.Puttanna, C.Nanjundappa and

were alive and therefore each of,*th_em are' " entitled. to

share. The Trial Court should that on'the3date of
death of C.Nanjappa, he :1iiVi.r1g.'brothersti and his

brother C.Puttanna had predeeeased_h_irﬁ;'."}';h.u's the share of

plaintiff and the f1:t'.St Jin...4resp'eet""'of the properties
left behind 'each in exclusion of

the deceased.._bro'ther"* 3

23... Umashani{var,p:lea1ned counsel appearing for the

resporidents.. that Respondents 2(a), 2(b) and 2(0) are

legai"Vrevpresentatives of Chikkananjamnia, sister of C.

.. amid during the pendeney of the suit

expired in the month of October»~1998.

".'fVi_de order dated 30.3.2007 this Court has allowed the

application ﬂied under Orderml Ru1e~/10 of Civil Procedure

Q//.

M...

Code and legal representatives of Chikkananjamma were

brought on record.

amended on 15.6.2007.

24. In the light of the rival conterﬁions

parties, the points that arise for""'szr:iy consid_erat.ion.: are as

under:

{1} Whether the in RFA
No. 167 1fa_I.f_e .entit1ed _for pau"t'i'iiion and separate

possession-:i__"o_f 3.,'4.}h..'iV't'sh'are the suit schedule
properties?

{2} Whether " the H of the cross~objector for
the"shai'e of plaintiff and defendant No.1
one 'half elachin suit 'A' schedule properties and

_l each in share of late C.Nanjappa in the

H 'suit schedule properties is to be granted by

_ the Judgment and Decree dated
_ 16'.9..i2ooo in o.s. No.3'782/83 22*

V' Whether the judgment and decree of the court below

has to be interfered with or not?

at/.

Accordingly cause title

25. My answers to the above points are as undervfofilthe

following reasons:

At the foot of the plaint, the suit schedule..'pro'1§erties farer,

mentioned as under:

Schedule 'A' Properties:

1) Property situated in East,
Jayanivasa bearingVD.No." 'it id a V'

2) Two sites situated"af' teshwanthapur
I-Iobli, Banga1:o£e'jsa:-z§m5ts in sy. No.34/4,

bearing 35 feet X 50 feet.

Schedule 'B' Proiﬁeftiesz at
l_}~"}91fem1,s'es N'o..l5--.A Tumkur Road, Bangalore, where
factory vstyrlied as 'TECCO WORKS" manufacture of Cine

Pr"eje*c?tui*e= iS~..$1tij'af€d.

Premises 16 and 17 situated at Neelakanta

. . V_ .44 hui1ding;~ bedaar Chatram Road.

the pendeney of this appeal, genealogical tree of

V V family was filed. The genealogical tree is as under:

.3,»

552.5 E w w mdz ﬁ:§_n.,,..§ ._

wﬁvozd mswuﬁﬁ

§_a.§_:..w

852 .3 5 § W £m«.u:%.$.. ,.
$23 .

ﬁoz 43

. .~.oZ..a¢«...-- Em

moémm no uummzumﬁ diam Ewm
5 Ea. N. .082 .5 E ﬁcasaas

ﬁ%>wQ

385

E2 .41" 5
E339" 1.:

.. ._ E .a,Em;m.a.E<. . . _.oz .3 E 32 .3 5
zoom 5 33 am 5 8:: 85 BE L. HHumn._F..&E.. ...:._8:&w Ev Emaaaw Em Savanna can 3% Em. :33:
_£m.«m£m. Z0 mmvv£m5w.Z. U gdmonmmmwm. Z. O . wﬁﬁmwgm \..mﬁE.Eb..(EE:m mdbcmrmnmsw mﬁbmwmopmw mQQmxxEO..m.Q mumﬁmmﬂum
.... W # # M 4 W . # _
. . ._ Emm c~n%a=mam$.. .. @032 oz.
roﬁwnmﬂ. wﬁamumg . . . .323... . am? 5 8%.
Fun._.EﬁEmm.U §wUdE.Q._.2. .. .xmn.::.m.€.n.mnwEW Hvwté Emmmamwﬁ
mcwuaauama §g_&}%,% . . . . .
Soom 5 BE. ﬁmgmmﬁ E BE T 633 ..._§m§_ .33 :bmm82u-Ea Sm? 5 Si
wnam6u:.€mZ.U mmgwuﬁsmcmﬂ Q.U,... m._Emwwc.m.mwxumnU.... ....m:£.Rmw£.mU mﬁﬁﬁmmmcwuvoﬂ ﬂaaﬁzd
_ _ _ '_ . M W
Emmy E 8:. - are mﬂammﬁum
83$ E E3 mﬁamxﬁu
HE gﬂomuoqﬁmzmc

27. The learned counsel for the respondents has ﬁle_d a

memo dated 25.8.2008 and it reads as under:

"The respondent Nos.1(a), 1(b) ar1d§l"(c)"beg"to m;«;ta;[1r r

memo in the following terms.

1. it is submitted that;"t«r.:"the V.s'u.i_'VC_
properties belonged V to
Sri.Nanjappa died issueieiss. predeceased
him. As on the date of theddeath' his
brothers Sri. C = v..Cd.Nanjundappa

and his sister were the only

legal rep;'es'e1'1ta§*,iVe':sf;i 'wh'o;'vJe1"e"_"entitled to succeed to
his estate, 'As legal representatives of
Sri.Nanjapp'a.4_"are entitled: J1 /Std share, each. in the
assets; ' sf. Sri;-Nanjaplpa ie, the suit schedule

prope;-"-.ties'; :

ie. the first respondent herein

passed aVWsy4j'..--on 25.08.2000. C.Nanjur1dappa had

dd'-..«.4_'three children viz., C.N.Rajashekar, C.N.Susheelamma

'l0"C'.N.'Bharathi. C.N.SusheelamIna predeceased

._piC.Nanjt1ndappa. Whereas, C.N.Bharathi passed away

. V during the pendency of the above appeal. It is relevant
.. {to submit that B.G.Kanthara3' and B.G.Latha, are the

é/H

legal representatives of Smtsusheelamma

R.Meena and R.Neema are the children

Smt.C.N.Bharathi. Neema passed

07.05.2003. Under these circumstances,_.. it 0

representatives of C.Nanjundappa are: t ._
C.N.Rajashekar i 0
B.G.Kantharaj
B.G.Latha

R.i\/Ieena
3.11: is submitted that entitled for
1/31" share in the suit svehdeduhled Sri.C.D.
Nanjundappa at1d«..S'_mt. ICh€ik}:anaiija_tI;'rIiadare entitled
for I/3rd share, i.§nd.erw..th'eseV_'circumstances, the
LRs of for their respective
shares the er. I

I .C . N . Raj .ash%eka_1_'t 4§fi--'/ Qﬁfstiare

2. B,;G.Kantharaj' am E§.G.Latha are entitled jointly

A s;*R._ 1';/.Ieei"_1'a:'is_ entitled for 1/sch share

_\R7here.fore;'t.1nieAdappeal may kindly be disposed off by

'W""--gi'anVting"shares as stated above, in the interest of

'and equity."

28. An application Misc. Cvl. 21224/ 2009 was ﬁled-,by

the learned counsel for the appellants on 1931

for inclusion of one more property in the memoiandftim of-«T _

plaint as schedule 'C' property viz.

Nos.87 <3: 88 situated at Kengal :Ro;ad,

Bangalore measuring 100 feet x 25' the it
is stated that the appellants_.far_e legitimate
share in that property and joint family
properties. itolinclude schedule
'C' property This property was in
possession of late C.Nanjundappa and
late Pnttannallpu:rs1_ivant: deeds which have been

produced. per Exl."P2..V and' :P3.
A"£39."'iThe"respondents have opposed this application by

It is stated in the objections

Respon_(1e;1tl~" l\ios.4(b) to 4(d) who are daughters of

the absolute owners of the said property.

Vlgot his share as long back as in the year

er"

30.03.1963. This fact was known to all the parties of..___the

suit. All the parties and their predecessors have aetedt'u_"por1p'

the release deed dated 30.03.1967. The application V'

for amendment to add fresh schedu1e"is I27.'

Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure. _

30. The counsel for *~]_--¥aS tilled ohjection
stating that 17 years has of ﬁling the
suit, till date of passing;-the .d_eeree. Appeal was
ﬁled the year Appellants are
legal represVent:1'tiyVesV.o-t iip'thpe"..l_pl'aint.iff. As such. they cannot
make any claim property which their father
himself inopt Legal representatives cannot be

per-rr1itte'dVto,_v enlarge_ the scope of the suit by including the

property.' intention of the application is only to seek

_m~..rer'nand of the Inatter.

2,/'

31. Legal representatives of Chikkananjamma eh-agve

made it clear by filing a memo as to what they V.

and the extent of their eligibility.

32. The plaintiff has left oputgthef'propertyV..'V--"--l.After

lapse of time, legal represer1tatives'=.:.of theV"pl.ai1itifff'fNant to
include one more property of Vplaint as
schedule--C property Viz. pro.p.erty Nos.87 8: 88
situated at if yftoad, Bangalore
measuring it is not proper
include the if the legal representatives of
the plaintiff property, they may file a

separate for partition.

Court held that the suit schedule

Hppprcperties self acquired properties of late C. Nanjappa.

has also held that there is nothing in EX.P2

to indicate that the rights have been relinquished

.i;f.favour of the plaintiff. Therefore the contention of the

Q/'

learned counsel for the appellants that Puttanna

defendant No.1 have executed release deeds Ex.P2 and

in favour of the plaintiff is not correct. The trial"(:.'.,:oL1'1't: V'

carefully examining the evidence on jrecord_ after.'-3

perusing Ex.P2 and P3 has come to the

plaintiff has falsely putforth a gro'u:nd of of V

rights by his brothers C. Puttanna in his
favour. It is this ﬁnding the learned

counsel for the

34. __the appellants submits that
release deeds dEx4_'_.P2v aiidf" been executed Way back in
theyear in of Nanjappa. In so far as Ex.P2

which eVxe,cutedf"by Puttanna is concerned, he was dead as

on thedate of the suit. In fact Puttanna died in the

'Pyear 1982... Therefore it is unnecessary to discuss about

only document which I have to interpret is

which is the release Heed executed by C.

.Nanjundappa. Learned counsel for the second respondent

er'

submits that EX.P3 was executed in favour of C. Nanjappa

only in respect of the properties mentioned therein:

will not come in the way of first defendant succee'di'ngestoi' M

estate of the deceased Nanjappa since

all the properties by his own efforts and hisp'V_g:¢'lf

funds. Eventhough the learned' appellants
submits that in View of B§i§:P3, is not
entitled for any share the he failed
to point out any defendant from
succeeding to Nanjappa. In my
view, release come in the way of first
defendant of the deceased Nanjappa.

been filed in the Court below in respect

of nongioinderfléof nfecfessary parties and no finding has been

Vhglven Court on the said issue. In the partition

.1 .,a1l't;he niernbers of the joint family are necessary parties.

ffhe: non--inclusion of any member of the family in the suit for

' partition is fatal. This aspect has not been considered by

the trial court. The trial Court has simply accepted»-__the

memo and has not answered the said issue. Therefore}-.he..

ﬁnding of the Court below relating to nonl--j:oiiid.er;"

necessary parties is not sound and propei'.ar;.d the

hereby set aside.

36. In this case C. Narijappa
and immovable properties. His
wife Jayamma died in the no issues.

Doddananj amma, sneer' the sisters"«of pre--deceased

him. C. in the year 1982._

Chikkananja_mma.VVCC'-sister >p"o»f"-...i\'an}appa died during the
pendency of the 4_'suit.' C.D. Nanjundappa died in
theyear in-92. V'D.e:fendant No.1 «~ C. Nanjundappa died in

-Schedule annexed to Section--8 of the Hindu

vsuccession V'Aet'»p-._iridieates C1ass--I and C1ass--II legal heirs.

_V7.._pU'nder 'preferential legal heirs are father, Son's

son, son's daughters daughter, brother, sister.

Ait'4'V.'j~As'C'.statedHearlier, Puttanna, brother of Nanjappa died in the

ygmttdiasz. Therefore third defendant ~-- C.P. Chikkanna

cannot become C1ass--Il legal heir. in the instant case, one

sister and two brothers were alive as on the date of deathef

C. Nanjappa. Since they are Class--II legal _

Schedule annexed to Section--8 of the Ifiindu if 'v

J-

they are entitled for shares. Now nlairitiff'

defendant is also dead and Chiltfliarianjlarnfrna

Therefore their legal representatiy¢§':g-are..entitledVuiforgﬁishares.
Therefore legal representatifres -- C.D.
Nanjundappa are ver1'titled:""for' in the 'A'
schedule 50% of the T3»

schedule legal representatives of the
first defendant"-5_' C, are entitled for one--third
share in 'A' sche.dnle firoperties and one--third share in

5(A)'/9 r of. ta.'}3i"'~-schedule properties. Similarly legal

rvepresen.tatiifesu."_'of'Chikkananjamma (sister of Nanjappa and

Hpiaintifil V"'Ve;1titled for one--third share in the 'A' schedule

one--third share in 50% of the 'B' schedule

if With this modiﬁcation, rest of the Judgment and

V ' of the trial Court is accepted.

37. In View of the above discussion, I pass the followi.ng:
O R D E R

(i) Appeal is allowed in part.

(ii) Cross--objection is allowed in '

(iii) Legal representatives of tllieplplaintiff it Nanjundappa are entitledfoittponesthirdpsha;re"'in"'the V 'A' schedule properties and----o:r1e_--third.share 50% of the 'B' schedule properties. " pp

(iv) Legal representatixf/€:.S_,:l'_0.f .firlsf.I"_'c1..e=fendant ~-- C. Nanjundappa«p:.a'i*e entitleti loneetgililrcl share in the 'A' schecliiie.-vpr_o3per=ties___3.nCl one--third share in 50% of the schednle':.ljpfop:e1=t.les.

(V) Legal repre'sen't.ati.x_xtesiof Chikkananjamma (sister of arev__entitled for one--third share in the 'A' 'V._schetlol.el"properties and one--third share in 50% of . properties.

l''''--~{1.ri) '' No.2l224/2009 for inclusion of the '_ p l V is rejected. _ .1 " Viﬂinclling of the Court below relating to non~joinder of it it it "necessary parties is hereby set aside.

gig"

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court