Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 10]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Neelamma W/O Late Maheshwarappa vs Smt Sarojamma W/O Parameshwarappa on 9 July, 2014

                              -1-

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

          DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2014

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH

                     CRP No.302/2010

BETWEEN

SMT. NEELAMMA
W/O LATE MAHESHWARAPPA
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/O ARAVILLICHA, HOLCHONNUR (HOBLI)
BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
                                             ... PETITIONER

(By Sri.S.V. PRAKASH, ADV.)


AND

1.    SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O PARAMESHWARAPPA
      OCC: AGRICULTURIST
      AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
      R/O TAVAREKERE, CHENNAGIRI TALUK
      DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

2.    SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O RAJAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 46 EYARS
      R/O CHAMRAJPETE (KENAKERE)
      SORABA (TOWN) SORABA (TALUK)
      SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
                                           ... RESPONDENTS

(By Sri.B K MANJUNATH, ADV. FOR R1 & R2)


     CRP FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
ORDER DATED 9.7.2010 PASSED IN M.A.NO.16/2006 ON THE
FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., BHADRAVATHI,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER
DATED 20.7.2006 PASSED IN FDP NO.11/2004 ON THE FILE OF
                           -2-

THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & ADDL. JMFC., BHADRAVATHI,
ALLOWING THE FINAL DECREE PROCEEDINGS.

     THIS CRP COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: -

                       ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner to set aside the order dated 9.7.2010 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadravathi, in M.A.No.16/2006 dated 9.7.2010, confirming the order dated 20.7.2002 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and Additional JMFC, Bhadravathi in FDP No.11/2004.

Heard the learned counsel for both sides. It appears, there is no dispute as to the share to be accepted by the parties i.e. sisters namely the respondents 1 and 2 who have agreed to take up 1/4th share out of the property available in the joint family. But so far as the loan to be shared is concerned, the loan was raised from the Co-operative Society for development of the land. If it is divided, each of them would pay maximum of Rs.6,000/- and odd.

So far as another loan of Rs.50,000/- said to have been incurred by mortgaging the property, petitioner -3- cannot insist for share to discharge the debt. In that view of the matter, there is no scope for interference to pay loan of Rs.6,000/- and odd to be made available to the Co-operative Society.

Since the loan was raised by the respondents for development of the land, it is for the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.6,000/- and odd by way of sharing.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Petitioner to forthwith handover the possession of the property to the respondents.

Petition is allowed in part.

Sd/-

JUDGE AP/-