Karnataka High Court
Smt.Nagamma vs Sri. Putta Jetty on 25 November, 2010
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
«\\'2525";§>§'Z'
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNA'I.'AKA AT BAN'GAL_ORE
I)ATEI) THIS THE 25'"? DAY OF' Nu
BEFORE _L A _AT:
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE s,N,sA*rY.;aN2;RAS§A%NA_ "
REGULAR FIRSTAPPEAig'NQ;'55z1?DF' 293.2. " _
BE'iWEEN:
1.. SPs/ITNAGAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY LIRS
HA) sM'1".JA'.iAsIA1EE':;.;§":%«--
it)/0 LA'I'E NAGAMMA
AGE: 35 YEARS
MB) S1Vf'I'.-E<iAETMAV;AT?I"§'I M
13/ O LATE NAGAMNU}. . '
A3233 YE:.Ags«_ "
1(0) SR1:PREMKL?_MAR'«.. ~7
. « S /A 0 LATE E\§AGA'3\/EMA
~ AGE; 32 Y'E:E\RS.
, AL;LTA1:u._: R/A N018/B
" ~ _ J'Ai'E3ORP;*« GOWDA LAYOUT
« HO'SAl§E3R_EHALLZ. NEAR
DA'1*:;§n:'REYA T1«:MI_»>1,E<: ROAD
I"F"FAE'v*i1XDU, BANGALORE
x SMTE'.M~§ASUYA
mg VENKATAMUNE NAIDU
' 'MAJQR, R/A NO368. gm MAIN
" E HAN MAN'I'I~I'ANAC3AR
._ * BANG.ALOR}E£} - 550 0 :9
. APPEILLANTS
V V ' . , {raw SR1.G.PAPi RED}§)Y, A1)\r"OCA'I"f§}
E .
2/J»/§_'
--'Q2{B3' % M
:3:/0'LA1'E:MAR1'<30w'DA
MAJ OR
M"
AND:
1 . SR} . P'L}'7I"TA J E£';T'IY
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
HA} SMT. LALETAMMA
W' / O LATE PUTTA J E'1'TY
MAJ OR
1(8) SRLSUBBA JYOTI~iI
3/0 LATFE PUTFA JEZTTY
MAJOR V
1[C]SMT.SUNIRAMM_A __ .
D/O LATE pmTA,;:+:T'ryf.... _ '
MAJOR
MD) sM*1*.sA12C;'}Af::w.V- " _ ~_
D/O LATE PUTFA;='§VE'.[':"'Y._ '. " '
ALL ARE R/A---.No.'3/4 * 'ff-»
BASAVANAGUDI STRI~3E;',D~~. -
ANCI--IEP.EZ'I'E, BA'N.GALOR_EK_ "
2, . .sARr.MAR.IG(3wDA" @'1.cfi_1:§:<AP£>AJ1
.V smc 1«:;-~:)EAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTA'I'IVES
2 (A) A
L. .. S'1xz§f{'.':> I3"x-fAf»'JMAj..
W/Q.'MAR.I_GOW'DA, AG E: 78 YEARS
AL:.,;xMA:~aAI-iA_:,I,1, KALLm_~»1A1..L,I
POST KANAKAPURA TALLEK
V BANG}'«.IiC)RE DISTRICT
= :";R_I Q. :\;§:ANCHE:G0w1:>A
AGES: 52 YEARS
'"C'HA'i.'RA \/'ILLAGE._ 13u13:GU1?>I>A
SAK/3xl,E.,, TUNGANE PCS"?
Kr'h\I!-XKAPURA TALUK
E-'3ANG:AL(}RIiZ i)ES'FRI§C'i"'.
/M
2(C) SRLMARIGOWDA
S/O LATE? MARIGOX-VDA
AGE: 47 YEARS
C1-{IKKA MAVALAVADI
DODDA MAVALAVADI
TUNGARI POST, KANAKAPURA
T./\.LE}K.T BANGALORE DISTRICT""" &
2(1)) SM'1'.PARVATl--iAM'MA
D/O LA'1'z£: E'v'iARIGOWDA; .
AGE: 4:3 YEARS '
CHATRA VILLAGE, BUDIGUPP;
TUNGAN1 POST
KANAKAPURA "1'A1_;_u'i<_ *
BANGALORE: D1S'f§{I€XI'. ~
2(3) sRI.MAR11,1fm_E G,c;'vxi;::=Aj V
s/0 LATE _1»»zgg:%:1(;cawL>/\AV~"
AGE: 4-): ..';?'5E3ARS§' _
CHATRA v'1£_LAC«%E; ' BUDIGUPPA
DAKALE,' T.UN(}~ANE« _,PQS'F
KANAKL ADURA '1"A§LU}{-- '
BANG-ALORE DISTRICT.
v ,:2;(F) ..j ' '3'«:51?._::3;3_é;sAx?é: 'GQWDA
. " S/C):L.,A'FE§, MARIGOWDA
1..AG;;a~39%.YEARs
C}:';zx1f§2A,m;LAGE, BUDIGUPP
. "{)AKj~fi .E,Ai1i'UNGANI POST
'~-..__KAVN1~'LKAf'URA TALUK
BANGALORE DESTRICT,
- .T M3)' $.RI.NAGAPPA
" /O LATE F8/'I;'fi~2IC}C)\}VI)A
" AGE; 35 YEARS
NO. 1 E , GEXVIPURA Cr1J'E'i'3'--'x§IAl,1.I
BANGALQRE W LE8
5:~'§v&_,§
gm; SE'v'I'I'.GOWRAME\ZI.A
I)/O LA'i'E: MARIGOWDA
AGE: 32 YEARS
CHATRA VE1.LAG{§i, BUDIGU'PP.A
.DAKA.LE1, TUNGANI POST
KANAKAPURA TALUK
BANGALORE DIS'FR..EC'I'
2(1) sR1.w'1*1'AswAMY GOWDA
S/O LA'i"1%'i MARIE:-OWDA V
AGE: 28 YEARS
ANAMANNAHALL1, KALLIHAILLI
POST, KANAKAIJURA TALUK' . _
BANGALORE DISTRICT
3. SM'I'.GOW'RAE\/EMA ._
W/O LATE VE£NKA'}¥'.l'![_IjV}\EI' -NAIDU". , ~
MAJOR, 1_\¥O,;3E§6. '§.€-TH M1§EN..R'O2_?g.DV '
I~1.f1NU1\'£1f§§i?'fH}§L§j\};"aC}';%,f{ _
1~;sz¢gN<3_A1,Q¥?<:;g 550 --
4. SMT.CI~IANDRAM'MA"---- '
W/0 MAR1é3_0wDA
;aw;Am;0R, NQ386. 9;-"W MAIN ROAD
3 ";eiAz§UMAN'I¥LA_N.AeAR
" ._ BA'NC1.ALQRE » 550 019
1 S§»éi*;V::;efA:J;xMMfx
. "'VMAJO-R, I91/IN A PO.R'1'IC)£\E 015+'
*---..__NO;;:366f..»' 9% MAEN ROAD
I-{AEQUMANTE-iANAG;XR
B£1?€GA1,ORE ~ 560 0 1 9 RESPGNDENTS
- '(i":3':'..1S%<:,1%§;T'1"f NARASH\z'1.E'/IA MLER'i_'HY, AIJVGCATE: FOR R4 &
. IMPLI§AI}ING R4 IN 1A.3)
"I'h.is Reguiar Fir-st: Appeal is fiied under Se3£:i:.i0n 96 of
= CPC against the _jL.1££g£13<511t and d€<:rcé<:: dated 13.2.2002
pazssssid in 0.8, N0.295'§7/1982. an the file sf ('hrs E Add}. City
r...
a
Civil Judge, Bzingaiore dismissing the emit: fer dettlamtioix
permanent. injurlction anti pOSS€S$i()1'}. T *
This Appeal Coming on for hearialg; this
made the foll0wing:- ' t -- "
This is p1aintif;fs' appeal ehatfieraggingg the jfa1:€:';gr':§};:tz3t:'eA ;'a1;'1cI '
decree dated 132.2002 pa:%e»e--r§t inteo'.'tsteNoe.t2t9.m,zgséisi
the fiie of the E Add},
2. The brief facts are as under:
was filed by the children
of late Ve'f;_katar:';.ui1z'.'1\Tfii<1ti"éir1d his Wife Gowramma for the
relief of detéi".:»trat.iQr1__and'permanent injunction that they are
the g§y1ie'rS ofVé.':2itv_'A'«,sChedu1e property; that the order to
in.._HRe N0829/1977 on the me of the V1 Addl.
L;31id.ge,..4Btingalore wili not bind them; declaration that
tfiee 'decttzmients exeeutett by 3?" defendant in faveur ef
V _ defetfz.-d21z.1t. I'€(3's.1 and 2 and also the dociument exeeuteci by
&et'e'n{,t2111t: in fzwoztr at 2%"? cie'fe'r1daI1t. in resspeete Q1" Suit 'A'
"«é%<:he§;i';.1t€: ;3:'epe;'t.y Witt z"1<:et. bind t:h.em a..:1::i cioee net eenfe?
'-1;»:
3'.
6
title to deferldant; Nos-;Qi to 4 21nd 5: for 21 permahezlti
mjunet1'c)n agairxst. defenda11t No.2 and otlaerés'Vo144;ii.fi:.iz1g
under them from izi1.f;e1'fering with piaimiiffs' poéeeaasvioh
erljoyment of suit 'B' sczhedule prti1§€:fi:3r '_a'hd.;fo:""'hoes-ession T.
of suit 'C' Schedule p1'ope1"t,y'. V _
3. Suit 'A' schedule Vhhhearihhg
No,3t':36 situated in
Bangalore W 5€>0 019 22 feet and
North. of three por'{,ioI1s thereon.
The Case "is that the suit 'A' schedule
propefiéy_ori'§i11.e;11y"'be.ionéed to the father of 31*' defendant?
V sold themsuit 'A' seheduie property in favour of
31?}"~fie§eniieihtfifarid hes: Children viz. the piaintiff Nos..}., 2
V _ ar1ci"":;a,1'1(:.iher'"'person viz. Narayaha under 21 sale deed dated
and 2111 four were put in possession of the said
.' ;5:o':p<:5a'ft.y tmdear the said sale deed. 3" zrlefendant soici the
" éiiit. -zfizhedoie property in favoul' of 181- defendant under sale
deed. deified 30.§.{},_§969 without seezarirzg necessary
''«;,~'?
5
2
3%-
'E'
po'r'mi$Sio:1 from the Cicmrt as pi:-m'1t;iffs E and were
minors" emd also COVOVVIICTS with 3?" defer:'tl"21;i'i-.T."'and
Narayana. After said Saks. another owner off.:%L1v1$:o_:3fo1:)t§rty» 4_
Naraya1121 c::o:1i'1"I1uod to be in po§§Sés's«ion'.' c>f_..s;_L1'it_ pro}3€Lf*:y.'i'
Thereafter, W 9.lE1d Sm d€i'e:1d21n{aa__ »i;£.2§ethor--v_o.so1(i
scheduie property in favour 'of '2?1<-1 defefidVa.f1=t véLnV(V:1Who was
put, in Vacant poss€.s$§.on_ .0? ao.:'j4po'rt._ion the Sufi: 'A'
schedule property. Wherj fstooci thus, 2""
defendant initiaEjeg1I"eviction~':p1*'oo'é:é:ti.i,1:1gS for eviction of 1%
and 190.329/1977. Hence, the suit
was flied. V 2 t
In th<3"'*s.1,1;'_f3;__,__.:)r1 service of Sun1mons, it is oniy
dofend-a.:;tgs and 4 who oo1'_1_t€$'{€d the suit, whereao {St
and "E": d<§f<{;:-Iidéxnts remaimed ezseparte. Immodiateiy after
',fi_ii'ng of Suit. 2*" defm/1da11t Ciied. In his piaoc, his first
X1' Vif€-V3 é&iIf1d ohiidzren ::a.n1o on record as his iegal heirs. '1' ho 41?;
' defendant who was in possession of a portion of the suit
p:roperf:.y <:Eaimi:':.g h<:r:'~sez.1§' as so£:o11a:i wife of 211" d£%fer1C1ant,
'W:
V.
ee:>:<1t.e:«3t1ed the m.ai'.t.er by fiii_r:;.g wrii:i:en st21t.e%rne1?:f__._ 3*"
defemtiam: whe is the mmher of piaintiffs,
Statement", and supported the ease of .
However, it is oniy the legai heir:§;ef"2*1"'? éie1"(%:).?g:1"amj?¢"':1id '41": 7.
def€«>:1d.:>1:1tS Clairnirig H} be wife {if 4i;?._"" 'r:1ei'end;2,§ii.'; ::ontesi;e:1
the suit.
5, In the Court b'eEQw2 ,i.:ii1,'i:--1;i'iy "'.'is.s1,1.e.=.. to 5 were
framed and thereafter, issue N0s.1
to 5 as
(*1) *'De- plajmtiffe that Muniyappa their
'« executed the sale
A dééd "'d"a.té:1 o2.12.1959 pertaining to
sehedfi1e"'"'pLf0perty and conferred on his
A {he 31" defendam to 100%: after the
pmperty tiil plaintiffs E and 2 and
't§i'E3ir deceased bmther Narayana atiained
j I1"1E1j0I"'i'[4:\_,7?
4 Egg} D0 they ftlfihfif prove as per the terms of
A the saie deed executed by their materrlai
g:"az'1dfa{'.her their m0t.her., the 3"-1 ciefendani.
"E1353 rm) xfighi £10 a.Iiez1a_t:e and §h_ereb;«' the
(3)
alieriation made by her in favour..._;i;f:'_'1?%%Vi"
€'lefer1daI1t through sale deedi' H
30.10.1989 has not conferred'~r'igfi't ozf
title or possession 7,:_i11:.._fé5wo;1r~.
defendant? V _4 it 1 V '
Do plaintiffs prov'evi._:"i.*:1at
t.remsa.ctior1 by 3"' :defe':;id:;a~r.it: iri flf§w.<3L.1.r'§of is'-'*1
defer1dar1t iH:--.i.u.rr}. defendant. in
f2wc>uif_of 21'"?H_de_i"eer1o,erit.,"'diri'~:.r;o=E divest any
and they
be the owner
poSsesSi'o1Tof the same'?
_er1'tiiled for relief of
"':ieelai9a1,ioIi.»- giieirrziarient injunction against
'» _ the..,ge(':ond" defendant from interfering m
their ;:5o'sSessior1 and enjoyment of "B"
property and for possession of
A (1)
property from Sm defendant?
'sVha'E: order or deereei?
' " Aiiditiozieii issues framed on {)2i08.2001.
Whether the 4": ciefendant, proves that 3"?
{iie.i'er1(:ia'r}.t. aiienategi the Suit erzhedtlie
property in faxfour of 1-"? defendant by 21 eale
deed iieiteti SG."i{lR1969 eirid iienrte the euii: ie
E»-,,_g A
'E
3.
ES
net. rr1ai.i1iamz1b1e being fiied with 21:31:'--*e
eoliusion of the £3?" defer1da1'11:?
(9/Jwhetiher the 4"'! defendam: pmves
Suit is not maimaiineibie the let -- H
has; executed .21 sale deed».
in favcmr of 2"" d€f€}f1.(i3I'1€l..--:'f,O*..Vkihifih"V:';3T'3"*:ij'
defendant, and i'i§3}",4iE11Z€%V'E3_(3fE N21§.5i3>ar13§ a}i'e""
parties?
(3) (a) Whethe17-- 314" defezti
_ .pr0x}e's -.tha:.t late
Muniyappéi »e;s:eeuted deed dated
02. 1959. ..fai{oLir '€5fV'3ié1iVv..defendant to
""" and 2 and their
" 4' d'eeed:ise§:t»i.t§i=oiI';er'Narayana. and again 3"?
* def d d J
i (b)dWheti'1'er 4:}-1 defendant again proves
f;hat"VA3¥"<'i"Vdefendant alienated the suit
~ * "p:I:'Gp€I'J{}7?
4'-ii defeI1da1:1i; proves that the
' -désuit. of plaintiffs I and 2 not having been
fiied within 3 years from the date of their
ai'i'.air1ir1g Ineijziriiy, is barred by time?
(é1)'\?Vhe"t.her 4?" defe3:1dem'i: proves that: he has
acquired hie righi;, title and iI1i.e1'esi ever the
5212:? pF(}pE%i'f.}-' by we}; (if adveree
13
Courig in t:h_e n1<;%a:1xvhi1e, 5"? defendant. W110 Mzas in
occ::L1pat.i<:m of 21 por{.i()11 of suit, property as V3130
d(31iV(:I'€'d the same in favour' cf the plaintiffgé;
the appeal C:0ntim.1€:d 13et4wee11;' "t"h'e'«¢_pIai1:;tiTAfi1':3__anfii n '41-fl-
€Ii€f€I"J.dE2.£1f Chanéiramma who is 74_fl'%'--._r€-spQI:dCr1*; m '~.t.hig%
proceedings, who: claima as Vs.€:C§01'1§:1 "Wife: of 2nd
defendant, Marigawda; daifedv 3.10.2002
toek place in the presergqé Qf c£}~u.r1§'%v(:1.'.appearing for 4"}
respondent =
the 4"? d€fer1da1'1t filed an app1iCat.i0fi "3ée1«;jf1g§~s:»§(;$E1 of the order dated 13.10.2002! \§r;3;sxrfectifiézd----by an order dated 28.11.2002. The %1;3p'£i;tia1.f.'i:):i1" W213 11L1mbe~r::rd as IA. 1 /2008. Prior to that, 3flbtfi€1"f1.}é):fi_iif;E3,t,i(}1'} was filed by the son of Chandramma *~v.__ '£:1airn.iIig 'ihimself to be the legal heir 0f deceased 2""
VA TV.fiA6fe_r{r;121nt: ':\«'i.arig0wda for irI1p1ee1ding under Order 1 R1116 The s-sand 21pp1ic:a;t.i0I1 fileci on 4.32065? initialiy numbered as IAQE /C15 and latez' as {A3/G8. This said «E E4 app1ic:a-ztiion ie i'c1.1S() i.21.kei1 for COI'1Sid€1"af.i()I1 21.1<)i1g W-i.th this appeal,.
10. in the light: ()fi'.}1e s.~3v_1it: betweeiz. the legai heirs. of 2% and 3"' ciei'e1:"fi1ai1't:s being; s;Vei4i'ie_d"'6ut"'0f 7 Ceurii and the E-'*1 and 51-" reéssponcfeiite rema.'iAniIig; e:a:.p::1irie., the dispute which is p€I'1diI1g'V'f{);IV'°»f)OI'1Sid~'3_I;€LiiVOfl b(3fb1"€ this C<::1,1:'i; in tins eippeail 'I){:%At\7qee1é..__t.1*.Ie. p1airi_i.iffs arid 41"
defendant and also with_f_ifi.gEit of her son to come on reC_di'CiV_..e1§;'6'-lei -duefeiaciaieit. To decide the same, this Court. ifziiige VtheV.._{O'1.1{m_%ing"fioint for COI'1Sid€1"c1'UOH on the basispi' iheiéiigi-'i3_i111'iisibfzeippeal. the findings of the Court ti5e.:Q§v c§:9§j'¢ _i_esz_,}.e inWC).S.No.2957/1981 and the grounds a;:§p'iieeii:i.0'n fez' impleadmg" in 1A.3/2088:
the 41% defendant hais right to contest the ';st'.uii; as legal heir of deceased 2nd defendaiat Me1rig<)wda when his M wife and chikiren have s:;e'{:i;1e£i the etiispuiie bets,-veen the plaiiitiffs and i:he~mSeiVes ii": .res3pe<*:i: of 2134 {1efe.:idaim','ss {title ii) the M E 15 emit': seheduie-: pmperfiy under saie deeci dated 8.5. 19741»?
[2} W'het:her 431 defende1ni:'ss sen viz, S'Li'res=,?_1'_ can .:-seek to get imp1eadeti"«:1s;1eg2"a1 'heir'--.e'fL'2"'1'T defesridzult, W d.eeea$ed Mai1ii.g&;;wvda 2i'§1ed"::'c;.r1iee*tvthe Suit as Iegal heir of M':s.;figoxvda?. V *
11. I~£ea.:rd the learigzezd the'.'-.<1ppeE]Iant.s and respondents. perused the.e_'fifid.i'i'1g; Qjf"-1:}1e'" Court below and also £116 oral _d{5:eu3:i.e.:fit21ry evidence available on record and also" 1,j.1r'1'e_ a'pp1ié:at.iGn_é"<&inCI affidavits flied in support therergfv by 44"'-. _a'r1d .f'f:i"O.iJOS€3(Z1 6"? respondents. On re» éip;i)feeiaitie:fi'*«Qf the same, this Court would answer the 飧e1°L%':_:3£iidfer eensideratio11 in the negative far {he V _ fo1ic>i'vingf"re-eéons:
* '22V;''Q«'1én1it,t:edIy, the Suit. Seheduie property was the . pi'e-§f$eft:}r Of one Murziyappag 'father of 3"-1 d€f€:'I'idE1.I1{'. It is an ijf1disp1;t.ed fad, that the plaintiffs are the Children Of 3*-'*3 defeneiailt. amd W anci 2% of 'them are ee~eWr1ere :35 ssuii '%'\;'_,§ Efi ssehedule pmperty along w;it'h 43:1' d€.f€i?'1"}.C1aI}T. zmder s;e=2_}_e deed dated 2.12.i.9f59_. which is at Ex.P--4 by S:"3'...Muniya_ppa in favour of his datxghter G(:x§?r2a;*;1fi:1zx_A ~._f3T'¢-E def'e:1daz'H: and 2233:) her miner c:t1ii'{:1}9e:*z' «viz;-., p.;1:;:i_1'1"'i',«1-TffeNee. 2 7. and emzfiher E'\}z11*2?:j,ra1:"1e'-1 siiilce 'v<;ie.e:,ez1sec1}._"_;"'Thereef<):"-2; Gowramma did not have E1bS.(:fl'LJt.G {he suit schecmie property in igja ""m1d€}~ S319 deed dated 80. E01969 be seen from the record, t:%i01Z!g1r£ the :3a;id";se1ie-V"deeVd was executed on 30.10.i:969,- the suit schedule property e0ntin11e'CiV.._x$fit11'the"'fjIe1i'f1i'j»fie and 3?" defendant. It is also seen 1':;b..at: sLibseqt:e11i'.3§r, EX.P~6 a sale deed dated 8.5.1974 by I3*"'*'defend21nt, in favour of 2"" defendant.
whe'::eir2-.,_i3?i<5e.g1'é:3'7e:1C1a1r1t. is :::011eer1t:ir1g witness. Even after e'XeV("::.._1vi:i€if1«f}f__sz§ie deed in fax,-'()u,r 0f 21"? defe11Cia11t, piaintiifs _ 3.r1d"3"1 £i$;%'ier.:"'c1am. cz:3nti:12;1e:ci to be in pGSS€;7'SSiOE1 ef the suit 'A '3r:}1e£iLz}2?,_.i?l'{);3<3rt.3,:: ASSL11"'I1iI1g for 21 n:10me§1t. ilhe saie deeds VA 16,1969 grind ISE74, .respe(?t.ive:}y in faveul" sf {ie.fe:2_ciz1I':t: N<,>.:~e.§ amd 2 are $10 he {'i<_::11ei{i=e;2*ed as'; 22'f;e<)Eu'E;e "'*,y":,» 2' 1?
Sale deedss, 'r.§t1e1*e weae no need for the: pI'ai.I3.i',iffS and 3"-1 defe.ndan'é. to c.<)ntiI1ue in posssezssgion of the sui.f.w~.:}:;'<::h'e.duIe property even Ehereafter.
£3. FL:rf:her the fact. thalt: the ~{%?<-.'_ IfiVaS.''j«0i'11ed' . 1*" defendant: in execution of sale deed 1:2_vAf.:w0u1'_i"'o_f'72"<?1 defendant, inciicates that i.11.e'"-ee11~1ieVr,_sa?¢V~.g:1é'et}""W'é:s net abs0lu_t:e ssaie deeds b11,-fa nQn1'é.:--".L§1:! $3.16 ::Iee{:1'-..::1s3Véfiozzigended by the plaintiffs and 3?" :gi'efe..n'E1;1n'_L_A.' same is further f0rti_fie<i in in HRC 329/1977 which was filed byVV"--25"'1. 3"' defendant seeking her eviction .aof the suit scheduie property, whegfeili the (fO111V_fiif)f Small Causes, which was dealing with "v5:é£id"*.ev'i-1211011 p'i*é{:eedingS, has given 2: firlding {O the 'rfgimtionship of iemdiorci and terlant. is not est£§'blisEie<:§fheiiiiszeen the 23" defendant and 3"' defendant whiczh ;.1.;>..*:' <:'naIler1ged by 21'" defendam; takirzg up the sexme 13;"; 1}ie.vie'ic>I1. Therefore, the eaid firading has reached v~?f:'iir1;aiié§q, '§_'E3e3'e1"t3:"e? giefendzimss I emd 2 _ha;x-Ye net:
LE5,/E IE9:
ctcmcziusiveiy estabiisshed that the saisst deeds---__ dated 30.101969 and 8.5.1974 are absoiute: sake title {'0 suit sc:h<--3du1e property is conveyed in tfleir"f7e1iia':1a:'_:_"a
14. It is further seen that, £5148 7.
to rest by the parties 1.8' P,1~'3§int1ff£:.Aand. defendant No.2 by enter:-rag 71f1a'*.:§:> 'az1 cofiigardniisefiivhich was pres;en1:,ec1 to the Cexarf fly: 3j; 1Q.2QQ2;'..;1:~y.i:::h Exfas assrepted and recorded in the p1~es6§n.g:t:.. _of appearing for the p1a.1%Vntiff s1[ to 4. Therefore, with the said C0mpr€)miSe.,'Vtuhe betwe(--:I1 th€ plaintiffs and (i€iCE)1']4¢;';"[«':'£}f}I.ZS Quazid has faached finaiity. is rem.aim"r1g is the Ciaim of 4"! of the suit sctheduie property claiming _ £1e§Sé;}f E53: Iegai heir of deceased 2"" defendant. it is that, an an earlier €)CCE1Si()II".i, V»-'}'].f;'I"1 the nlattez' up, it was submitted by hifl' that she had filed a ééiiii for partitiarz ageiinst the legal hairs of .?,"<§ defendant 352:1 the Said 31.2%': is diSm11ss.~::::<:i. €:haf as it ¥'£'1£:3.}7, rzmw 'u.f~";
1..
19 Coming to the right of 4"? defendant ti) contest the suit as legal repressentative of decéezzsed 2*"? defendant, _a.gi_mi{ti_edEy the marriage betwc-3611 £116 2"" defendant.
is Said to have taken piace in _i;13..e,__yea_:" 3¢vh'en »L.52{:<'1._ def<-:r1dant"s marriage W213 in ssubaéistciicété 1,¥.=i_i:E1 _ C%:3iw*2:r.i3:1:i1}a. During the subsistence of tiiejixarriage, betwq;er2_:'1\;'{ari:gowd2;' and Said Gowralnma, I11a:rr~i-e1,t.ig'E*_'i:%:;2§:\2:,*ee'1f1' 'flaizlrigowda and Chanclramma is not vafid_Ti11£)f.}%aw, her corfientiorz that she is leggwiify v1.2$7ed;:tiVéc--;i is opposed to p?0ViS1d'i1S "of Pfiridij-A Act.
16. 'uf'h.¢ ref<)x19e,4VAtlfieiéontention of Chandramma - 4"? mat: «the iegai heir of deceased Marigowda .V'«.AiS.V.Ki»'ithc>11Ei~:V2ifi3iV----_basIs and so 21130 the ciaim of Suresh Kuméu", s()'1'1 j_0f Chandramma and Marigowda. During the '.QOL1I'S€'~()f';E1I'gU,II1€11iS, it is submitted that the suit flied by '4_'"?_dii_f'endar1£1 Charzdramma and her 30:1 Suresh Kumar a.gfé1iI1st. the Iegai 1*epresent,21{.iv<:s of decezismd 2?" dsfendetnt "E'vf.21.1"ig§(>wda for pari.Ei.ic;ar":§ is said M} hzivzza been diamiaaed, 23 fiver: assuming that the said suit is net diepoeeé Of, when the 1" wife is aiive, the 4123- defendant Cha;1dran1:n.e;:"eeannot continue the present suit as legal rep1feee:3.Laf£1{*evA4'~.Qf deceased Marigowda nonetheless, she cam».-.e13.a'i'1.e11.ge __i::.e» compromise arrived at betweer: the W1 x%;rife.ené- C]";i1:i_ren of deceased Marigowda with th-é_p1einfiffs'.' 11 Therefereg the epeléeeééen the .<}.t.:;
defendant for 1"eCa.HiIV1g--.zv.£)f_%f§%1e%{_Q%'€ie:v"v :d.:aj:ed 3.102002 by filing 'Tvj:1Qe_5;nVe1e.f 'ei,;11ziV'e for Consideration and the 88.1316 is 'gie<f;uiredAVte'* l§e-{_diéiI1issed. Similarly, when the mafl'i%3§§'Ce.. beew'€.¢Iithe 2% defendnat and 151:"? defendant Ci1e,f1dre1:1ma«.._is not recognized in the eye of Law, the son iii.:i:1'1'i__Vee"fieierzdant viz. the proposed Gilt defe11&ant V . Suresh Eiergiezr, has I10 legal right to come on record as the ef deceased 29¢ defendant and 1:0 eontest the .'aii{Z-i>V1;efs5:a1e1 Eitigation between the piaintiffe and 21'"?-
" defendant. If: is 3330 not open fer him to seek re-eel} ef the erder dated 3.16.2002 entered irate between the piaimiffs ""'*"'°"'§ % s<5§'-Wk 22 withi11 6 n1<.mths from this day. So fair as other re-iiefs are COI1C€1"1"1€'d, since the matter is settled between vf[.h:'C.V}5lIiiV--I1f'?ffS and other defendants. the oijhezr prayers 1naii,e ifj:'v.the "si1_it' fioes not su1'*vive for ct0nsider21f.isz?1 ir1"vi_e$;s; o'f.Q1'*dVer'7sf ' this Ceurt dated 3.10.2002. _
19. Aeeordinggr, the a;spes:l"--Qf fie'~p.1ainjt.=iffs.:§sflsilowefii in part as sgsinsi.' 4"' yrieiendgzfii; ::.}a;'sé sf prspesed 6"? defendant to come on ree0.fd"is r_e_ie'ef.e,d_iand the eiaim of
41.}, and recall of the order dated 3.10.2002 passed petition is rejected on merits s;;s"w.e1I as"».qfi'1imii.ati0n since the said application is 0' '~filed 1s.ps_eA' six years.
_ ;i'3;ee0i*C3.0i';3;gky;"{1*3e p1ai.nt.iffs' appeal is ajlowed in part. N9 order asio*essi:s.
see E§$i?£§E RV