Karnataka High Court
Sri Ningappa S/O Shivabasappa Morabad vs Sri Basavaraj S/O Basavanneppa Morabad on 23 May, 2012
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, Ravi Malimath
I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF MAY 2012
PRESENT
ATH
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K L. MANJUN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
RF 4. No O15/2OO9 (Dec)
BETWEEN:
r: hingappa.
S 'h has ppa Mar h n
ars . a Mai a
Ds Dh'\acI
h . F
Zl1
I )
cc (rti
I
a
) (
:2:
Agc: 18 years. 0cc. ii tudcnt.
Sri: Basavanueppa,
S /o Shh'abasappa Morabad,
0cc: Agriculture,
.
Since ceceased Sc legal representatives
2(a) Shanthavva.
tb/c Basavanneppa Morabad,
Aged about 52 years.
0cc: household, r/o Morcwad,
P q tb Dist, Oharxvau.
2(h) Paravva,
ar,
Wi o Hanumanthappa Mardingaunav
Age. d about 45 veais, r/o Badageni,
Tq Kalaghatagi, Dist. Dharwad.
2(c) Basavara).
S/o Basavanueppa,
Predeceased by his LRs.
2(c)(i) halnirarva,
nio has avaraj Morabad.
Aged about 38 years,
0cc: household,
h/c Marewael Tip & 01st. Oharivad.
2(c) (ii) ]tlan
1 juir Dharenpa Warthi
Aged about 25 years,
0cc: household,
h/c Ammi.nahha'ri. Dhai.wad.
2(c)(ih)Vijircahxmi d/o Basavanej (Vloni.ibad,
Aged abor.it 8 years, 0cc: st.udenir,
P/c Mareu'ad, Oharv 'ad.
hlrarrc abs a c, Pl)rd1n
'toed at' )t 14 veia )
t r star Pit
a'huor representeu 01/ natur rI
(i/
ouanchrm. respo nenr 2(c
t
o Banivaraj 5lr,tpae
2(c) (v Irlahantesh s
) I a'' c
1 a ree'
:3:
Minor represented by his naturAl
Mother Smt. Murtavvu,
W o Basavaraj Morabad.
P/ o Marewaci, Dharwad
aj(
(second wile of deceased .Basavar
3. Sri Shivappa,
Sb Shivabasappa Morabad.
Cca: Agriculture,
4. Smt. Pakiravva,
W/ o Dharmappa Chippalakatti.
Ccc.: house work.
All are rJ o Marewad,
Tq. & Gist. Dharwaci. Rcspondents
(b Sri Madimmohan M. Khrmnur,
. R2B, R2C 1, R2C2.
Advocate for P lAccordingluR ID. R2A
1,
R2C3 & R2C4 are armors r/ by R2C
N.S. Hub baili.
By Sri M.S. Deshpanrle and.
Advocates for R2C5.
Notice to R3 arid R4 is served)
against thc judgment
This a5)peai is file ci u /S 96 of CPC
ed. in 0.5. No. il4' 2003 on thc
and be cree dated 27. 1 1.2008 pass a CJ r an
w 0
1 C the o aP
Aod't
hi 1 a I P vice iS Dr
embodying Cow.nai sawn crs
frie.d for deciar don and final decree
-.
report. etc.
L HEARING THIS
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINA
ED THE : FOLLO WING:
DAT, KLMANJUNATH, J, DELIVER
JUDGMENT
2 h No..
I. The appellant wh..o was defendant no.
ftljtic,.u& j I indyp (Senior I 1.4/2003 thc fiN of' third litv and correctness Divisicn), Dharwad. Is onestioning the Ieaa I nf tn" ,udgment and ckcrec pd.'b%ed liv the ('nun 1 to s LiIt(I '7 I 2006.
2 IN. 'atsi' c1n,tc ths at' irt asn i On... Ba'.appa had two snn b' name \IarInIT.app and 1,' Shi abiappa Iaritarnappi had no t%%ue' anu 'i it)' lb younger son )t Basappt air ci> hi 'i1e Gadige a.
3nd dauuhter name
Sins ahasappa hid thiee Ofls i
\ Shn appa and P1 akna ci. Etic.
Basd anncppa. mzappt.
sor 4
t
'ldtt son ot S anabas:pp noire> 13a a4rre p ii I
;ain B 4Vd S 'sFg • a% t OIt 1 4 f arntill It 4' u riaj
ui I ut t oi ?Ci pa?at po' esslull ta1tflZ '1' i
ii--
vlsr, c.spqnpn ho a4! .t 'ka .r. . -
•
4
f ?
'i 4 1' j.' ri
• I 1. !4
I ' s ' £
• d \i '
fl b
2 •t'it't-.
a ' • • '
•1 ç
• • '
I tb) -' 1
F 4 . a
1 he deendant ..ontested th ufl nn the iound mat the
up h's he plamtift datcd CL I_ 1 P7 1 inux.tcd ii
Will t
bC
ore 1
.!nd tn''
ot up and the vww hi, flu CiJ,C KC
nrct It staliec a lu 'h it the "so Notherc name \tarnamapra
and Shn abirappa ssere in tntz together ii ci there s" In
'.1 me
partition bet'ss een the u's o brothem s and aftei tile death nti&d c'ni hiothtrs. all thc liMier g SIt' iba appa ai t .qua1 shate •iiW in oider to knok ot the saluable riu1n ot the other ti's o sons of Shi ahdsay pa. .iamds 'ungapr a and Shn appa aid thy dauhtcr P1iak.ra a. the plaitu I l' 1 C s y t11 Niii and ht "me cut is not n ainta.nal It ..
.I'e \'i' ...
Ct tieI.nt(' n°ctnti] w
1 1'Lj iii c'
t tnc.ed ii
sal). •1 \lt., tar'l d
p..st.' •I ''Ij', .tisc[ 'I•--.It'ilT1t
\%. zt'l' %% iflU ( t•'• I. •
It.' 1 fi 9 1' hit.'j "d
i([. 11 C • n:
6
•a d
(b' the hsjs cit ib' pleidings tlit' ti ilowin,.! i' U '
additional '.sue 'set t at' icd In the t al C is
JS,(LS
fI'fl' • :" 'I
K I JJ jii7: •k. ' ii lit!? - i'n' t: in 'h I •-r•ss_ •..r, t..' i'
?flLI LS
II 'it Kiwi Ilk. ';a.,uin ;a iAii ;i;i..Itita:tqi; ¼' • 'c ..
'1
'g ircJ U I fl tal)u ) 1i i'iiti!I (N --
t .u# ,'--,,p.' r... :i: i-ni.. i'c'queaihcti Jin "alt sh.p in tb ,.' • plaintiff nt,ca'tcd iSSUc 1 ',.in :i' IT iwthc, 11w pia'n':,# pr-ivcc tIar be •' ll.nwi
- -
• ' s'k# C' ill Si,,i ,b.., r c ask ci i c i i U lath r ha &it.nihsnts pi or... 'bat the pia;i'i'Pi' tuii (.Va'fs' :' 41 !a' o "j till?) --1 R. 'J lilY) ,' Irt in 'liL I ba I in Igai. no- iii i.ii p 'pink ii iii 'Ut iflc 'J s:I i' It't iad lb lilt gktg'ngisgnp. and beiftt ins 'in, 'wiclnn as• t.'t.'nant 'A. .,stc ci S jJI, i . ' 's :;arlse lfJ Iti.' hi' 'cli IL)DIT ()1 41 !S.S E! I lit In; iii fvnc..i' Ip' i . i p.. • ' 'hitk •fl• L IUi'•C' tiLi 'P p r'i ' .1? I I iiiLt' PL •t.& ib" • •".tt . ifl .'.p':
ii C a • it • K •• Jr "d.- ... 'he ' :r t 1 t' u.n.c'r,tai. Cli. p!.t':.T;t.
r.
11%
" n&I '' ic "%• 1
'U '
0 iC 't.
'nr' .t it'
¾' ' -. f 'fl ti. IL F
- .-- ' r 1 1' •' -- . . .
:7:
examined as
defendants, second defendant-appellant was as D.W.2 to D.W. 1 and four more witnesses were examined .5.
D.W.5 and the defendants relied upon Ex.d.1 to Ex.D ence.
5. The trial Court after appreciating the entire evid additional held issues I to 3 in the affirmative, issue no. 4 and suit of the issues 1 and 2 in the negative and ultimately the plaintiff plaintiff came to be decreed declaring that the t schedule Basavaraj has become the owner of half share in plain th 111 6 share I to 3 and it is further declared that he is entitled to called in out of the share of Shivabasappa. This judgment is question in this appeal.
6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. Though several grounds are urged by the leaned course counsel for the appellant in the appeal memo, during the of arguments he has focussed only the following points.
9'..
)jj
•lccvr I 'ig lj) lj;1 tIlt' i;iciI (nj, t t
n.tliitttcI •i vi i
ic :iit c/itt' ti' iii
:,v lit/Sit,; issi •
o fl' t,ktg 'c't1'C 0
•
II
5 1
the 'Innrt' h a'
Ln
' ..
'1c
Lt.v s tat, 'iSP
k n I; sr 'o ,;
;dc p.c c I
an I the trial C ow t bus not app' mit ti tin: .
the and the attc stew and h i it ;r tsg
i
1 he!! thu tfl
thc cc,
k pla.ntslt is p c'rcu Wit prvtounde'I by i 1 vcd C .n,ri 7 tu , pa' 'Q' ill:'.
(3 .h c;t cling to hun h t, '
'kfl c's in 'tag"ap •ic 18 and I
pt
' '. 'i 't'.c'a Inc K
tho "cIC,k 'o In s 11 c .nclt'i 114(1 ' i nil
t
, g.j I, 1 4
g
1
. .ljj
ha i i 'i / in i'i/'t .u?',45
I'! flint ; P7- s .lJ'tt' •4..i
it!' .r ,
,g.
rc 'd- 1:.r(c..j"t,i s
44
'p
l(:gt.
"igj.fls iii ndi' )j P$ft •. -- Ii.i. e -, c
S. II • 1 .4C iiuiI' i Iii.
te •.. I.
.1
1 ' 1.1'. 1 % I ) . ,..
fij • •1'
It V 'i , •'
a.
,q,ti.d it ',.d 'ha".. I'7 thL
v a' di' -- as "K i.' jIs a
lIar'ian.cip, a ' p ' i
fl:•' ta I •'
'i ft viJin., n i:ii; (nd • i
ti.. g ,
t
ji, .
_• ti a/Ic ,, .1 j4 .. , '
bequcaslung i/u ,'i opt I A i, na.'
iIaruanklp/' a i i ntis"
La; a'. ii-' had in i &°i't 'r !'equeath t'lt. chgzi' )f I,j'
in
;vifc (iadiA r a
cquet theCi wsatidt
-- IitFe..r' rstdr's It
the tr'aI Court 'ad ICilLal d II.:
Ii' judm wi. an d.rte '.'
tie'h rcI rat'. ; I C. 4 r j'
t it te t
flhzttS ft.
h h'd aI- f:.&k 4r. %tie
-- idt c 1 t ' • he jJ'Lh '.••
ivg !d to e 2
1
1 t t jarta, •p t
.1" CCI t t
•Jt
r iu.n' I. bj-a .r '
jj3 S %$ •1
I d 'S ii • • • •:
10
o'se' ppcar1ng n th
S Per contra, tIK icarned
'spondent'plnnti $1 snimas that thc plaint I iint nro\ u
thc nt ois to hu I i I I U r
LISC L \c
1
4 niflifl '
(oun na not aPpreciated th es idenLe
e. en thonah die ti
cx idencL ax ailabic on 1 Ford h reqr e I
derail, Lonsidenne the er contends that 5k hen the Coon to dismiNs the appeal. FEe tiirth hr \\ ii thc qu s ior t ft (JadigLx a ha ot Lhaller ned ppH does not a:Ne, appellant Lhallenging the Will ot Maritama the snarL f thu CadluL a S 0 1 a C so far 15 dNrn I C FL umtanuLs he equest thL ( on! 1 IF a d d e fta"no ursL1 for he part'e L se I s it a en der t I U sn 1oir in Whethe th°jinding en 1 ste to 2 hi the ( an b / ' 1 is just and proper?
not 2 flherhe the trial (mat has eoinnntted an trio,' at if franunç approp t is stirs ía ed at the t u/inc he par i s ii t gad t h r cit rj ktarita a ill a bequeathinq the shart of his it ije (nil/gem a a lien 'lit sas alive I 54 hulni tl,t augment tine lii a if h r( ( ' r c,tie Lit ci i/f 'd c sd a nfrn ' 11:
each other it
10. Since all these points are inter linked with points together.
would be appropriate for us to consider all the ute. It
11. The relationship between the parties are not in disp ritamappa and his is not in dispute that during the lifetime of Ma een the two brother Shivabasappa there was no partition betw in dispute. But brothers. The share of Maritamappa is also not l and while the only dispute is whether he has executed the Wil thed the share doing so whether Maritamappa could have bequea along with of his wife since she is also having equal share of Bombay Maritamappa, being his wife as per the provisions School of Hindu Law.
the
12. As rightly pointed by the learned counsel for 2, namely, appellant, the trial Court while considering issue no.
cuted the Whether the plaintiffproves that Maritamappa exe 2.1997 and registered Will in favour of the plaintiff o 02.1 12:
of the bequeathed his half share in the stilt property in flivour of the plaintiff? has discussed in paragraph Co. 18 ann 19 .
judement. It was the ease of the delbndants that Maritaniapps was was putting his. signature and he was not an illiterate artd he relied not putting his thumb impression and Ex.P, Tthe Will by the plaintiff does not hear the signature of upon in Maritamappa hut it has onls a thumb impression. T'herelbre n paragraph no. 18, the trial Court has considered the contenno that Maritamappa was in the. habit of putting his signature and was no..t puttin his thumb impression. in ps..g,rap.h no. 1 8 the trial Court has considered the argunte.nts of the Advocate ICr the dethndant on!' in regard to the signature of and thumb impressi.on r.el ied upo by t.hc. piaintil,Y on the. Will. In paragraph no. 10 he.. has come to the. conclusion t.hat the plainti f' has nroveo the Wil I., laut cii jCrtt,j.nateiv tire trial Carat h.as not L.oasdet:d 1 th 1 ::
em.jiri c €t P\V. to P. W \.\.J1n2.re swi be and the attestors to the: Will, in order to find. ou.t tl.rat the Na ntnt n i on cc the 88 d, he ons ow the e'idence let 'n 11. % PN to P W Witi oat i.o isiJei'r, h 1 t 'dene t t.a' 1' at Uic 'itne s iii trial I. nuit fun come a te wn i'a -on t'- 1 the plainult na pu" cii the W iii and that "IC A iii ha 'ot oi''. mit) %UICtOLl .1ItUIT1st:ttte% I hcrcforc "e are c't the unin'ori.
the tinding' of the trial Court on the .jutstion of ill. :S pen cisc and not based on the prope appreciatior cf tie : iderce aid laM b i3elsed in the rcuwstaxc hae to t°isc. th tindins of the ui-il Court rn ssue iii c. ft .sflot in dtpLte mat the :fe vi Marianiappa a ili' •-
aflne ii ect.xtuk ictti i1l Sic Ieddlti.r ne leal'
k'sinpç. j1I t'at stt
Cd d ) • 1k- b;1
\Iaritaira pa I tcau i drj Uk t, i' :- jti 1
r e
Iv.•:. . Ii'. .• S - .. . ' - 'h.' •
'iI!tG Ic,
dLia' ..-.-e ."i .'n 'sn- he -,i; s_d .i••
.1 tb & •.
b •'
II (. I fl 44 • S
14
iegard to the effect of bequeathing the entire property to the plarntiff without considenne the right of (adigc v i Iherefo t we are of thc opinion that an issue nas requard to hr iamo and the tn 11 (our also equir d to onsider the sam i accordance with lais Since this point is also not considered we haw to set aside the judgment and decree of the (ourt helow and emand the matter to the trial (ourt for he h consideration in accordancc with la 4 In the resul thi ippeal i ado Ned The judu fit d durec passcct he Ci it Tudge (Si Dii Dha sad 0S o 00 atd 008 herb e dc hemi i .3 01 dir A e C C S 15:
15. Since the suit is of the year 2003, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within six months from today.
Sd& jTJDGE Sd! JUDGE bvv