Smt Mahadevamma vs Smt Kadamma @ Thayamma on 3 April, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Mahadevamma vs Smt Kadamma @ Thayamma on 3 April, 2008

Author: N.Kumar

Bench: N.Kumar

an 1-
.1" ""n"' "Iii" can"? ﬁf  'T ar~.rr5a:.aaE
nnmnn THIS THE 63" nAx'or nPR1L ﬁﬁﬁﬁ
amrona
was HON'BLB MR.JUSTICE u.xmMAn .f!  _ _
_E_J§£5UQ_3j:R sncoun APPEAL No.A_2_a.o3i§*,t§t5'¢ IZTT;  

 

sunugug an-I.-I-Ion Iindiul-Insult

ifﬂl MRIIHMEV
Win avnmnsscounn -
AGED ABOUT sﬁ VﬁS,. ,*"- g
are JAMAMAHALLI vzpanmn ,.'
nunna HDBLI, '
MANDER

.,§_£ ---- -V _ ,._ _ _
1 at-sir  %

ﬁi6'ﬁﬁ:iﬁowﬁa=@'cﬁiavfﬁcowﬁn
AGED ABOUT 53"vEana,'

nxo ruwwxxnrnanu vznuasn.
:unng.HonL1;"nAnnvn

 ﬁﬁ::  'Ag 9 ".MB .....
' " '.5.-'G  WWGIGBGOHDA

: gAQ§QxA§QUT}§Q $25,

53

"= 'RIO ﬁummixnrrnnu VILLAGE.

aﬂ5DB% H£3EI, HHHEVH
3% 'PD I.l§I.l'|l'l
ans mnxnnnn

: Jffﬁ '"Ht3(:Hr:I-IEGOIIBA
Egan a$oﬁT 65 vis,

%'RJu JHHEHHHLLI VILLAGE
HAﬂD?A '

saw sANHA.nAxnMMA
W0 KALEGOWDA

. AGED ABOUT 62 YRS,

RID FLJTTI EQFEALD 'III L-L-AGE,



5 $301' annmm

W10 EARAIAH

man ABOUT 55 was

M0 I-RBBAIJA MARIANA!-IP:LLI

nunnau-10301, Mmnm   0.
 30520313530295'
{By sri x'vana9nAaAn. ARV run E1:._ : "

nrzsqca nah "res ulvrun nla -Inn', Hiya 'l|f'I'lh'=."'I.I'£!§'_I'~ V
:l.1.i.'.'.~ nan an ldiulﬂl-I urn'-I LUI-l..\a'§_-I rultmagslal Iran'

JUDGMENT M30 nncnns 0A'm0:'«_15.'r.-2006 1>As0;1I::_ IN
r.a.ri0.:s1:'200a 05: 'i"':1'E FI ia'E0_'~ﬁF 0*':-f_is?"-i.irei'cE'$10Ii-is
OFFICER, 5'58'? TRACK COURT-I:'pV !IPaNll"f'ﬁ..;._ ALHFDUING
THE APPEAL M0 3501';-'N0 AsI'0E_j*TH0_  AND
nncnxn nnrrxn: 23.2.2OG5'jp'«PA:3Sn_%:2.IN_=.OS~;N0. 11ar2000
0:»: THE: I-'I LB 01:' THE PR!g'.'CI0VI'L;' 00n0z;<.¢Jn.nn.) 5.
amrc, munm.    .0  ----

'J"E-I15 .nx01=-w.0:AlI:'......0n:_" $03 ﬁmxsszon 1'1-us
"M-I"|t 1":

...n::, ..... 000.4' ,-  0: 

This 0:: - thy 2pd0f0ndant's second appeal

.aqgain§t _§h§ jdﬁgmpnt and decroa at tho Lawn:

 *.1_V';p5I}e'}».lga'.:Vg'«.t'3c1,0z'::!t;, which had decreed the suit of

tﬁeiiaplﬁiﬁtiffﬁf for partition and unpaxato

V' .p0ssé'ssi.in.  their respective share in the suit

i"30"ﬁ§h0dpla*pr0p0rty.

2. -For the purpose at convenience the

 -«parties are rnfarrad 1:0 as they are rafarrnd ta

'L/.

in tha original suit.



.3-

3.. Hayi Gama § Chiruwqowda was the owner

:21' than suit property. Plaintiff No.3 in his

widow. 1"' Elaintirr, defendant: 1 to :3 Ari?

five daughters. Second plaintiff is tho«'..':.:r":u$I-"«s::e:|'i{sit  M

or the 1"' plaintiff. All t;her »dau§r}1?.§j:s'r. .5".-..t  

married during the life time  

case at' the plaintiff is' V:_a_v.'t"t;-iViJ:' "that! 
the 1*' plaintiff, 2" __p1aint_j.:.f§t:_jr5q»§  ﬁtter

the entire family ::t'a:'a_§ga:'m;;arat;_>,'  "h§j«t[:ar1armd the

aasequies t:a.-rem..::ie.-2-.  Ema'; 3-lmri 3::-.-.7-.~I.a
ass treamng tha 2"' ylaintiff abwhis wt'; sari,
Eséciéueiei " h_isI__ gioad' 'i:_é'iahiridur fhé biqunthéd all

the   uncixérv a Iriii aiataci
13.11.1954

,' 4. a plain paper and sub3eqL;_«a:_nt11F;~~ }'1nd§.--r £1 Vréqisterod sale do-ad dated 'list. the "e"i:'i::'.--.~~.~.'-'a' property was boquoathod in ﬁlaintiff. Thus. after the death of nay:a.ms;rtrg5;at 2'" plaintirr became the absolute '<:L*nar.4 .311 the suit schedule property. _t "':;r«a:f'e:&=$_§:ni:"' No.1 than-gh came to know about the 'rho did not cnallanga the sauna, hwwor, VT jffgizg got the Katha <11.' thy suit: acngtiulg praggrty .4...

Pqainrst the order of the Tahaildar, a ﬁwiaion wan: filed baron the Deputy commissianar. Und"a_::

those circumstances, the plaintiffs' prqsent suit for at daclaraticun that "

plaintiff is the absalute achgdule property on the basial'-«o1i'_'_'itiie and for permanent inj'iVJ_;i'cj:ior':i'v- 1:21:-_ 1:h3a alternative for partition a:_ui"-cafe;-.a}ra£i '--9:§§a§:asion of the: _:_:ulaint:i£.t's' Shﬁrg schedule enter-ad:v'Vﬁj§§§§'a;é§:nc§¥'§,312:5'"<§§anta§§E}§di the matter. Thu 1" darnviuziéntw written statement uanying mi Vc1q1miii%ii¢r"i the plaintiffs. She 'mar father Mayi Gouda took the 1""

V.*de.f§'nda§nt_'isﬁngisband as was: illatum sow-in---law and trdafeﬂ 'iaiiit§?iij*j_a:Aé:sVV'ano of the joint Iamily members.

"Ifhus,44"ti.-a"J'V.'.-§u'{::i'..1Vant No.1 and her husband constituted A'jr:>1.4_;1tvVV"£amily. It is clnfonclant No.1 and her . :i_.'l|.£l'AB}V2}'ia:]'§IA!A2'31 who are managing the affairs of the :'..:£'.;iIInii1';I' and after me death or Mayi Gawda, the ,lII"||.,uIt4n"A,I-an alga. AA 11 Juli I I1--L "J: MIL H' D II. 5-9" In." CIJ property is the absoiuta property of herself and her husband. They denied the: execution or Ui'1J. by Mayi Gcxwda in favour at the 2'" plaintiff; addition to that, she took several:

daxencas. .~~-_ .5. Daxnndanta 2 to 4 Q*rvi§'::tan?":§§i:éjte:ng!:3t % supporting the plaintiira. as

-3 'I-7 :5

-3 01 JP-

In 1&-

<0 9 jar!' -' é .

. IF: ' In In «I:

n.

In 'u E 1Ii <|.'l we-'

1|-| 51 6 and g1i'<:ciTiJ'::«=:sE?3v_V5 :'i:idc§im§hts,_ %éﬁich ari inérncid ii nxs.P'£. .95.' of the defendants, 1"' dafendgpt vie Voxa;m;i1ie_f§"~a»§ DNA and they have also ..yrit1Ai£a1:sm.-A5' DHa.1 ta 3 and 5 to T and "'1;:ru'dumgdV_ & :V'd§cumenta, which are marked as D|f3.1, anﬁ 'i'ho Trial court on appreciation of thu _ a:E'~:I.V:9'e'.;-eénuici era]. and documentary evidence on racord VT _ "im:l:d that relationship between the martian is not séhaciula property, thay have failed to prove that the emit is had far non joindar ad.' nacnssary pnrtina and misjaindar of cause of action, am nut entitled to the declaration n:::;1:§'h1v;.::jE'~:i£~ and therafone, dismissed plaintiffs Ia: non joinuer oft j-aindar rat' cause of ncti':$V_n';-..V.. .I='L:Aggz1V':i4a.va';'§ V1:!*ia % said judgment and dacxea the plaintifrs praierrody The lower aggellate Court__-an r¢.ap:§2za<:iAa:t:iéi'n.'Vétt.-'tn; gntixg L;-mg-:2 ""'==*"'i.:9;'"f"skaémlilatin-g the ifill isE'--c:5ncér.na':§f~ind_ '*~a§.--- far as possession is cancarngd, xi': ham. 5 daughters along with ""~thei.¢:L_j'§'«m<;t1:e; a:;é'~e.n.tit1od to aqual share in the ":5;u:i3':'"scr;.g;m;.gA:"'p:operty. Thus it decreqd the suit

-at. 'gVi:.'i~;-a for partition and separate V --passcx§:a§i.éf~;."".V aggrieved by the said judgment and ' §:%t§c:»e¢ 63:' the Laws: Appellate Court, the 1"

ttﬁtfthﬁént is in second appeal.

C71 :-

Geurte below reiterateci the very same ground:

urged batcra the courts helm? and I do not £:i."hd any merit in any one -at them.

9. The material on .1 . 4 :__.--~-'"

OWL 'W schedule property ;"=«he-J_;oi§geTT'~. Gawtia. I-Iayi Gewda died 1eVevj,ng "behind and 5 daughters. 1'1-my ar§_?:V"'c;Laee-I.."he.{_J:'.53 In View of sectien 9 e£..ﬁ£.'he"._H::i,heiisV._':sf;:'c<;eeeion Act, 1956,. all <11' them axe '4-.'éi,z'~..'."J. e!':...z:e in the 514;: 1-r.:hedI...l-.=.~ p::.pei=;.".}'. The plaintiffs set up a '£3.11 saiﬁ ta hﬁra been aiiacuiiaci "3:

the e'.~idenee'«..en concurrently held the

-"'!!I.n'.;i_.J.J. 'halt; p::3"eve:!.;..«'The 1"' defendant set up an V":aee"'e£«v.ii1af::vL:m_ son-in--~1aw, which is not at all npupléitrabi-aV"."."}:<§e:=.hvtha facts and claimed absolute V .iv::l.tJ.oE"t;o""V:jeh'es suit schedule property. The Lawn:

"'&VV'.'A4 E.5.epei;_ate" Court was .t'uJ..'l.y justified in negating 4'_'_f;_'_.h§:_VV'*s1aid claim or the 1" defendant. Therefore, .:'_4'in---ethe light or the aforesaid amnitted Lege; hgzseitian and the .1.a- «;_-e.1:..i..g the gartiee, *:...e the dvaec:-9-as for partition and separate possession. As all of them are co-owners. it cannot be sgigi that anyan-a in in exclusive possaasion not entitled to any dacrae against the--..'::£:no§';h'$rA "

ca-own-mt'. That is what precisely M19511-ate Court held. Thus decree cu': the Lower A;:§§_ét'l.;atﬁ'v- V:t::r::.I.1_x*ii. ' accordance with law, based _c_'_s_Lﬁ"-..:.'l_.a--a;_:r_V;:J. .i*»*:L§§'nncVvc;': and do n-at suffer from V afif _ i_ag_1;V.j§.;.J;_'""~.;i,'}zsf.f"i.a:j}rai1:.;.', which Sd./:3 » Iﬁucldﬁi 5fA'§ai--*.¢V

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court