Karnataka High Court
Abdulsab S/O. Buddivantappa Patarad vs Sultanama D/O. Buddivantappa Patarad on 9 September, 2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9 T H D AY OF SEP TEMBER, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.5927/2013
BETWEEN:
ABDULSAB S/O. BUDDIVANTAPPA PATARAD
AGE: 54 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTU RE
R/O. KANDAGAL, TQ : BILAGI
DIST: BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANT.
(BY SRI JAGADISH PA TIL, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
1. SMT.SULTANAMA D/O. BUDDIVANTAPPA PA TARAD
AGE: 71 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. KANDAGAL, TQ : BILAGI
DIST: BAGALKOT
2. SMT. DONGRIMA D/O. BUDDIVANTAPPA PATA RAD
AGE: 64 YEARS , OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. NADAGOUDA, BUDHIHAL,
TQ: HUNAGUND, DIS T: BAGALKOT
3. RAJAMA D/O. BUDDIVANTAPPA PA TARAD
AGE: 63 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. KANDAGAL, TQ : BILAGI
DIST: BAGALKOT
...RESPONDENTS.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
ORDER 41 RU LE 1 READ WITH S ECTION 100 OF CPC,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE TH E JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 20.9.2013, PASSED IN R.A.NO.20/2012, BY THE
2
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BILAGI, AND THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 28.7.2012, PASSED IN O.S.NO .105/2010, BY
THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BILAGI, AND ETC.,.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED TH E FOLLOWING :
JUDGMENT
This appeal is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for partition and separate possession and the matter was contested. The trial Court held, according to the 3 r d defendant there is a gift deed in her favour, although it is an oral gift deed, but the same has not been proved and partly decreed the suit. In appeal, the said order has been confirmed by the lower appellate Court dismissing the appeal filed on the ground that the act of gift has not been completed and moreover possession is retained by the donor himself, as such the suit filed for partition and separate possession has been decreed in part.
3
3. Based on the oral gift in favour of the 3 r d defendant by the plaintiff, there has to be delivery of possession, In the absence of delivery of possession, mere entry continued in the name of the defendant would not get the benefit of oral gift.
4. In view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises and the second appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
Judge Mrk/-