Karnataka High Court
Narasimhamurthy vs Narasappa S/O Naranappa on 21 January, 2010
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
._ 1 ._
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 213* DAY OF EANUARY 20:0
BEFORE _
THE HONBLE MRJUSTECE RAVI MALmA,TH?,'_T.:'~ E
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL1_:NO.O2'1§Z"«Q?""2C}:0*5VT,_|V___Oi'
BETWEEN:
NARASITMAMURTVHY; A' * 1
S;'O~LAT.E E;'I5£1,<TSH-EYIINARAYANAPPA
R/AT VYSY FLA PAL§(A", '
BA:VLANJAA11E'T<ARTEMP'LE
TUMKUR. E' " J
...APPELi_ANT
.(B\;OVSETX/1i\:.AvA:< EOR SR1 ASHOK HARANAHALL1,
T
ANDRE: 'E O
Z NARASAPPA
» A 8/0 NARANAPPA
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HES LRS.
PUTTABASAMEVEA W/O NARASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
R/AT PUTTASHAMAIAHNAPALYA,
HAMLET OF SATHYAMANGALA
TUMKUR TALUK.
\/ENKATAPPA
S/O NARASAPPA,
AOEO ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT PUTTASHAMAIAHNAPAL'Y'A,--.A
HAIVILET OF SATHYAMANGALA
TUIVIKUR TALUK.
RAMAKRESHNAPPA
S/O NARASAPPA, %
AGED ABOUT 49,»YEARs,----~- _
R/AT POTTASHAMA:rAH_NApA'm{A,
HAM LET OF SATHYAEV1.A'|\i_(§'A»LA j '
TUMKUR T.ALUK._._._ ' '
GOvzN:_>Aé:P»AV "
S/O;ix:A§:As;A.;éPA,«.._._'--._ A
AGED.;A'B_C?UT §46._Y'EvARS V
R/AT. OPmTA=::~3HA»MA;AHNA;:2.ALvA,
?_HAM_LET'._-OE 'SATHVY~.AVMAA;OALA
"SO M KUR_ TAM.) K. '-
NA"F'zA_\?AVNAP_PA.§ "
'S/O N'ARAs3APPA., '
AGED ABOuI..39 YEARS,
R/AT PUTTASHAMAIAHNAPALYA,
. 1H'AML_E'5._OF SATHYAMANGALA
vm.I§{I':<Oj~RV.?~'rALuK.
3vAvA.MMA
.. D,[O NARASAPPA,
ACEED ABGUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT PUTTASHAMAIAHNAPALYA,
HAMLET OF SATHYAMANGALA
TUEVEKUR TALUK.
NAGARAJU
S/O RAMAEAH
%z:""
10
AGED ABOUT 40 YEAR53,
R/AT VYSYARA PALYA
TUMKUR KASABA
TUMKUR TALUK.
HANUMAKKA
W/O RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT VYSYARA PALYA : '
TUMKUR KASABA
TUMKUR TALUK.
GANGAMMA
D/O DASAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY 'HER LR"S * _ ,_
BYLAPPA S/O LATE' D_,A'SA§é?PA°'V--. ' A
R/AT KUNTIRAIAHN-A mDTTA.,,_S'--
SWA|\£DENAHALLI" A V
STAYAMi--';NGALA:_ ,
_' '
KE'MRAMM'A_ A'
..,AGED" ABORUTT 53 YEARS,
D/O LATE'-DASA.PE3A
V §?§fAT..KUNT1P{AIAHANA THOTTA,
,S\2A:A4!3sD.E_A:AHALL1
-- ._S+'\T'a'A§*4A'£\iGALA,
1 i'
* Tu I<%%}<U,R' TALUK.
3~_AYAi~}aMA
" W,/O HULLURAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT KUNTIRAIAHANA THOTTA,
SWANDENAHALLI
SATYAMANGALA,
TUMKUR TALUK.
QR!-W
12
13
14
15
RANGAMMA " 4 "
W/O HANUMANTHARAPPA
AGED 55 YEARS,
R/AT VADAGERE POST,
KORATAGERE TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
LAKSHMAMMA
W/O GOVINOAPPA '
AGEO ABOUT 57 YEARS, 1 ~
R/AT BYLANJANEYASWAME TEMPLE
HANUMANTHAPURA PO_ST,_ "
TUMKUR TOWN,
GANGAMMA '_ ; '~UV-
AGED ABOUT 47"YEATRS, ;
R/AT SRIRIPURA, -- _ :
..s<-OA.LJ''RYT_r"4O1ta;_L.;_, A
RARYATTHAM MA ..
W/OLATE. cE:1:~-;I_NA--G1RA1AH
"S;r,NcE DEAD BY LRS,
RAN_D'M_ANTHARAYAPPA
_ "AG'E.O~ ABOUT 53 YEARS,
A 16
. 'S/"'O..,_CH,IN"NAGIRAIAH & PARVATHAMMA
R_/AT'1_:<ESURUMAOU ROAD, RANGAIAHNAPALYA,
KYATHASANDRA TUMKUR TALUK,
CHIKKARANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
A S/O CHINNGIRAIAH 8:. PARVATHAMMA
R/AT KESURUMADU ROAD,
RANGAIAHNAPALYA,
KYATHASANDRA
TUMKUR TALUK.
17
18
19
SETTALLAIAH
AGEO ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O CHINNGIRAIAH & PARVATHAMMA
R/AT KESURUMAOU ROAD,
RANGAIAHNAPALYA,
KYATHASANDRA
TUMKUR TALUK. : '
RANGASWAMY _ _
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARs_,=_ V ,_
S/O CHINNGIRAIAH & PAR_\z'».ATHAnv:.tv;AA .
R/AT KESURUMAOU ROAI:>,w_ -
RANGAIAHNAPALYA,
KYATHASANDRA"';.'_,_
TUMKUR TALUK. '- _ '
:_AGE_O *'Ar;,xOU'« _ 39:Y$AR_S ,-
S/O c'rm\3:\Jjc;.1p<,AIAt_+".:A PARVATHAMMA
R/AT KESl.J_RUMAD_U"'R'OAD,
RA N£3AIA H r-\1A:=iALvvA,
~ --vKYAT"HAsAN"ORA
jfUM}<UR"T.A,L_U_1<.
'IN,'
'0
--v<3OvI.N"OA1AH
~AG.E'D jAaOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O"jCZH=INNGIRAIAH & PARVATHAMMA
_Pv"/'>'\,T}'KESU RU MADU ROAD,
" .. RANGAIAHNAPALYA,
KYATHASANDRA
A' TUMKUR TALUK.
LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
S/O CHINNGIRAIAH & PARVATHAMMA
R/AT KESURUMADU ROAD,
RANGAIAHNAPALYA,
MAW
22
23
24
KYATHASANDRA
TUMKUR TALUK.
SHARADAMMA
W/O PUTTAHANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
S/O CHINNGERAEAH 81 PARVATHAIVIMA
R/AT KESURUMADU ROAD,
RANGAIAHNAPALYA,
KYATHASANDRA
TUMKUR TALUK.
VENKATAMMA
W/O CHANNABASAPPA:
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, A
S/O CHINNGIRAIAH & PARVATHAMMAAA ' "
R/AT KESURUMA.-DU ROAD,
{RAN(3AAI5AH_N:APA--1§rA',_
KYATHASANDRAY¢Y';
TuMKuR¢ALUmj,"~
LAKSAH ivj'Ar4MA
w/0 MUD-D.A_PPA
A"C3ED..«ABOUT 66 YEARS,
.R/AT,S'A.THYAMANGALA
'- T'U.MKUARVfTALUK.
SVM'TA'iF.?;1\v:RVATHAM MA
W/OCH IKKASIDDAIAHA
" GED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R"/AT SUBHASHNAGARA,
AX GUBBL
€26
GANGAIVIIVIA
D/O LATE LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA
W/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT NAGAVALLI
TUMKUR TALUK.
RESPONDENTS-.,,_'
(By Sri DEVI PRASAD SHETFY, ADVOCATE FO_R§'_V":§_';-~--:__§ .»_. R1-R8 AND R24--A-D) **->i< THIS RSA FILED O/S, 1oo"'OF_t:Pc"A--DAIN:ST§"TNE, JUDGEMENT & DECREE DA-T__ED.3'.~8.2.QOS* "E?;AS,SEl:5 II\J._> R.A.NO.1OO/O4 (R.A.2S/97) 'DON-.T+~«1E 'FILE.,_C3F"1TH'E PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE, TUMKUR, AI;LOw.I_NG THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE .TE*~.1_E .v»JuD<3IAE'N.T AND DECREE DATED.31.3.97 PASSED.,"IN 'O.S§;NO:6~l/'1985 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. MuNSIFF:.ANDvI'r~1Et:,t'TLIMI<_uR. FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIjv.ER=ED--A,THE FOLLOWING» SDDGMENT
-The:a'|5'DeHant-plaintiff filed O.S.NO.61/1985 Seeking 'at.d'ecreeé-".fjOffDartitioII. The Suit was decreed. Aggrieved by44the"ASa.'rITe, defendant NOS.1 to 3 fiied an appeai before 2 A:the__PriVDcipal District Judge, Tumkur, wherein by the Order 3.8.2005 the appeai was aiiewed. The judgment and 'Hdecree of the triai Court was Set aside and the Suit of the <=>4<;~ appe||ant--p|aintiff was dismissed. Hence, the plaintiff.
2. Sri.\/inayak, EearnVed.4__Cour'is_e'E" fortheiialppetlantj', contends that the order of theitpvpeiyiatell sulffers from error of facts and to substantiai questions of iaw whichrequaresito'"'~h.eA'b~ir:on'sidered by this Court. submits that the fotkowing 'tor law arise for _
i)" " Whether the__ "lo'1)ver Appellate Court has W.._Comm.ltte_d error in allowing the ; -V _ 'ap_pllt:ation for additional evidence?
ii)' V Whethefiithe lower Appellate Court has seommitted an error in taking the V '~._d'oc_uments on record without receiving it ijn._..~~evldenCe and without giving an ' opportunity to the plaintiff to rebut the _}=same?
xiii) Whether the lower Appellate Court has
- " committed an error in relying upon an unregistered partition deed Ex.D.?'~ palupatti for the purpose of holding that there was partition among family members?
iv) Whether the lower Appellate Court has committed an error in holding that there was partition among family members all...» despite the fact that all the farnil3<f"~4.V members were not parties to patupafijtt___i' marked as Ex..l_"D.7? '
v) Whether the lower Appellate _Co;.Ji<t 'ha"s _ committed an error i'n~~lholdin'g th"atjth'e._g properties purchased _by the defendant are not joint fa_m'ily proipertiesy. despite the fact: that thewlg' defe.ndant'. "
did not have any .separate" income?
vi) Whether_the lower._Appellate_ Courtflhas committed. an erro.r_"r'.n_ not relylng upon the admissiofr m'adeVb;r_ the~-_1 5' defendant in the Writ vi Petition ; ivbgloe-73-74/1 983 regardi'ng{ the ".:e'.xfis«ter1Ce' 113;' the joint vii ) ;"Hi/4'n'/1'7'.-?,e:f':hlLé'_rVr 'th__e_.__lowe"r Appellate Court has ' ._coim;mitted._a'n[error in'gdlsmissr'ng the suit
---- ._t"er partitiotnt-._desp--itev"the fact that the ' _Aproper3ty wasynot -equally divided among ' the"familyvn*iembers?
viii) " Whether the__ ''lower Appellate Court has V.,_c:o.mn'iitte_d error in reversing the well 'Considered judgement & decree passed V by"th.e....Uflal Court?"
e-Vuvpport of the suhstantiat questions of Eaw, he co'i':ten__ds-that the First Appellate Court has committed a A.serEou's"¢error in relying upon the unregistered partition ' at Ex.D.7, The Appellate Court Could not have relied " Wupon an unregistered partition deed to conclude that there was a prior partition between the plaintiff and the germ ._}_O__ defendants. He further contends that there is an admission made by defendant No.1 in WP 74/1983 wherein defendant No.1 has the writ petition that 'Sy.No.27.2»tt»imeasuringiii?/',&'c.t_&:s guntas belongs to the family of of about 35 persons'. thist' averment, the appelia..nt's c'p.ntend's--vt.i.ia.ti§the prior partition set up by the"'d:e_feri--ciafiitis and that the properties are_tl'n_.divi;i'ed"aifid_:'coVin_tii:Vue:.Vt'o be joint family prope._:rtiesi_f" reliance on Ex.D.13 a iegai notice da_téd_ by the son of defendant No.1 A to the plaintiff." "in the 'said notice, it has been stated that Syi;'Ndoi"4:t2_/2i~.g_namely"Aitem No.3 in the schedule of the the ancestrai joint family properties, He.nce,'>'hejl=contends that none of the properties being ggpartitioried, are now liabie to be partitioned. The Appellate
-,,VC-oiirt only on the ground that a second view is possible V. _..i3as reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and has erroneousiy dismissed the suit of the appeliant. 064""
-ca-u.
-11....
4. Sri.Devi Prasad, iearned counsel appea'ri'ngj~f.o:r7~7t_h4e. contesting respondents defends the Appellate Court and submits Tthat...4gt_he're"ibis---.4r*io.,L'eVr§.o'r committed that calis for in»te.rferen"ce'."' none of the questions V"t'h.é1_V':'a5pp'e§llant are substantial questionszgdf 'ie--i_vii foriilinterference under Section 100 of he contends that 'i-aisled there has been an equitabie ilreifiwieirties of the family and in realityi ruecleived more in share than what cosgldhavebee:n'-def-Creed. ';By placing reliance on Exsw.D.1 tot};-.'7_,' he contends that the properties mentioned conlstitute the schedule to the plaint have .vai.i:fead.Vv=bveen-transferred in the name of the appellant and he«nce__>'notvvithstanding his grievance on substantial ggqguestioris of law he would not have a case even on equity. A' ~..VHeuitherefore contends that the partition having been 2 'effected, no grievance could be made by the appellant. <33/c»-~---
...12......
5. I have heard the iearned counsel on both sides and referred to the original records.
6. The appeElant's suit was._one_*fof"~p_§;.rti'tio'nV metes and bounds seeking 2/6"';"sAha;r_er~i'n eaC'lw::'of:Vthie_stiit schedule properties. On 'con-t,est, the suit'.:vniA'a"3...deeireed.2."
The triai Court franfied ays...VV':rn_ariy as *si.>_<" irisues for determination and h"erd-a.?»._ the plaintiff by decreeing the _s'di_t. the prior partition effected o'nA"if3.V3yi tri-aEWCotirt declined to look into the dolcunientsr.o«n-the'"ground that the same has not been registeredi" however, it has noted that the same could be consideration in order to show that the a"re.1~joint family properties in possession of the parties' thereto. The trial Court came to the conclusion nthatzit...could not rely on the said document to prove that .«'--..V'thei5parties have infact divided. On the basis of non- _.:§ac<:eptance of Ex.D.7, the trial Court decreed the suit. The ostensible reason for decreeing the suit was the non"
ML"
... 13 ...
acceptance of Ex.D.1, which is a prior partition b__etween the parties. Therefore, in the absence of..'a.n:y'«.._i'prior partition, the suit for partition wouid necessahiy decreed.
7'. The appeiiate Court considering the reiiability of Ex.D--7 to thew.conVVcé,iisi'ori that Section 17 of the Registrati.o'n 'Act Vrequirinég"reg"iVstration of documents wouid haVe.i.'to'i-beg're.atdff:.n""consonance with Sectaon _th?e' Re'g~.i_stration Act and hence took into consideration'theZ./:,coin'te:n"ts:'"'of the documents for coiiaterai purpose. u'The'fir'st appieilate Court therefore came to the . éc'o'--n¢citfsioi'i..tuhat awpiriior partition has been effected between hence the question of seeking for a p*a__rtition sfihisequentiy wouid not arise for consideration.
8. Though eight questions have been framed on the 'ground that there are substantiai questions of law, the learned coiinsei for the appeiiant submits that so far as weir"
...14...
question Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7 & 8 are concerned are quesftions of fact and need riot be considered by this Cou his case to the substantial question of law_atg'v:N-o.s;:.A3'; Si 6-
9. Question No.3 is as ~~to._ éwliyethern-Lthe ._l:ow"er ' appellate Court committed an re!yi'n.gV unregistered partition deedllnagrneiy, AE::..__Er«7u l'o:r"t.he""pu'jrpose" V of holding that therenwas ya----pgayvrtiltiori arnovnygutihe family members. The appellate-Clourtl:}by':"consi'd.ering Section 49 of the Regvist:r'a.tion:""VAct::';consideration the u nregister.<-Ed" -vS_QE&§lyifa llfolrwvcollateral purpose. Hence... c_o»i*i'imitted by the appellate Further the effect of relying 'o'n_'_'an_ by a Court of law would notiianwiount to"iays_u_bstantiaE question of law that arises for » :co.ns£deration,_ The settled position in law is that an H un-registe'i*ed'g;;d'ocument though not admissabie in evidence can" beuyyloolked into for collateral purposes. Hence, this heir-~*~ ._}'6_ appeiiant as evidenced by Exs.D--2 to 13-7. Hence, I'am of the considered view that this is not a substantia,!..'ct-ti'_es:tion of law for consideration. T T V A
11. The third question canvassed is as to whethe.ri"t'h§ appeiiate an error in not reiying upon by the 15' defendant in Writ regarding the existence of the ".'i'he':'-iiieairned counsel for the appeilafitTcpintentis has been made by the :5 --tes-pVo;nd.eri't«:i'n:''.:ii\:Trit:::E5etition Nos.1o673-674/1983 at it that Sy.No.272 measuring 9 acresit.8y4'guntas:ib'ei_o'ng's'Tito the joint famiiy of the 15' petgvitivorier co'-ns_isting'V'of.35 persons. The said statement is todihe reiied by canvassing that ail the properties . areyje.irs--t_:Vfa'in.i~i'y properties and continue to be ancestral pi*«opeyrti'e.s.3'tmdivided. The statement rriade in the Writ .y ¥?etit.io.n', by the petitioners therein is oniy with reference to éW._V'Su.rvey No. 272 and not with reference to aii the suit «=5/<"'"'
-13..
a sufferer nor his legal rights have beenifaffectedl only reason of one of theV-<co~--p.arcene.rsj"'-notbeing a?' it signatory. This ground raised.'°'by:i.the appellant, taken into consideration-.,:s'i'nCe it ._has._:h.ot*a:ca'us'ed any prejudice to him.
13. V _:Fo__r Vre*as'ons, I'am of the considerc~dVyio.yy_';'.th'a'.t_._no--~ne three questions framed by the.a_p"p.e'l'ia*n;t question of law within the ambit of' Even otherwise on merits it can a case where the appellant has denied "h.isV_p_roperty rights in the schedule properties E><s.D--2 to 7. The properties have been _ appellants are in continued possession of The appellants have received more properties it * in the prior partition than what they could get if the suit flwere to be decreed. Furthermore, some of the properties "in which they are in possession have been stated to have been mortgaged also. This would clearly establish that the o/4""