Sri Vadiraj Varna S/O Late Seetarama ... vs Sri B Venkatesha Varna S/O ... on 29 August, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Vadiraj Varna S/O Late Seetarama ... vs Sri B Venkatesha Varna S/O ... on 29 August, 2008

Bench: S.Abdul Nazeer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 2973 DAY 01:' AUGUST 2003 5  Q

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE 9.. ABm:»L..NAzE'ER" 57.j     

REGULAR SECOND APPQAL NO.  

BETWEEN :

Sri. Vadiraj Verna .  

S/o. late Scctha1amaVama 

Aged about 32 years   «
Badakere of Kotcshwara  .  V
Kotcshwaxa Post     _. 
Dist; Udupi «~ 5"",f6  9       APPELLANT

(BY am : _A.n:v.)

AND:

 Sni_._%.ﬁB. Vcnkatesha Vanna
  

% é rsgeé arm 59 years

 _ 'R/_¢;  <;a:;.s1mctions*

"  I Cross
(299. Raghawildra Swamy Temple

_ Na"garbhm*i'II Stage

 Papamddy Palya

  2";  --._sr:;.~':2aghavead1~a Varna

S] 0. Vcnkatcsha Varna

 V'  Aged about 26 years

R] 0. "Varna Constructions"



2

19, Usha Kiran, 1 Cross

Opp. Raghavcndra wamy Temple
Nagarbhavi II Smgc

Papamddy Palya

Bangalore ----- 560 (372

Sri. Rajcndra Varna

S/o. Vc11katnshaVa:ma   

Aged about 24 years
R] o. "Vama Constructions"

19,UshaK1'ra.n, Icmss V  

Opp. Raghavcndza Swamy'I'_e'mpIc '
Nagarbhavi [1 Stage  "
Papamddy Palya

Bangalore -- 560 (W2  

Sri. Gururaja Vama ._  9
S/o.   '
Aged about gsizyeam  " '

R/o. No.2O;_V'n7;o'dV . *

P851' Lay-mil   
Vidya Nagar',?._IEf_Cm"9..3._  _
Kunﬁsaamhaﬁli Réwaad  

 

, ' ,:."smt;v..1;a~ks1§j:;i
".1\'ai:a»,i0r  '

C11 0. _  S5iibrahmanycshwa3aTcnpIc
Rwpsmathapum Poat
Arkalgild Taluk

.. AA  Dist. --- 5'73 201

 'Sm. Sjambhavi
 I3/0. lat: Janardhana Varna
Major



wt).

3

C10. Sri. Subrahmanyeshwara Temple:
Ramanathapura Post

Arkalgud Taluk

Hassan Dist. ~ 5'?3 201

Sn", Shashanka Varna
S/0. Janardhana Varna
Major

(.3/0. tiotcl Ganesh
Arkalgud Taluk

Hassan Dist. -- 513 2201

Sri. Krishna Prasad

S/0. Naraya11aVam.a

Aged abeut 33 years' _ 
910.105/5, 9%': Main 3  
Bangaiorc - 560 01()__   V

s/rs. narayana 
Aged about    A
No. };:.)5;.5.' 9th Mai;ixotag1 
Rajajinagar   ,.  '
Bangabiv: -'f:?6(':_Oi.O "

Sari. E Sud_hindr"a« .. _____ .. n
«V S,io;' Nan.-tyana Varna
 "Aged abx';uf".3_4 years
 Main Road

7 Piajajinaigar

"'Ba1lf,§al9ﬁ -- 560 010

s:x':tﬁvaxi;a1cs' hi

x 'T 'A?/0. late Naxayana 

V *  about 54 years

210.105/5, 93' Main Road
Rajajinagar
Bangalore ---- 560 010



4

12. Smt. Manjula

W/0. late S-cctharama Varna
Aged about 46 years

House No.62, Wand V
Koteshwara village
Kundapum Taluka

Udupi Dist: -575 101  REsPONt>_:Ems"e-"  "

(By Sri: K.S. Vyase, Adv. hr R4)

This RSA is ﬁled under section 41'€K) 'of   "

the judgment and decree dt.  - 
No.1}/2001 on the file of the  at
Kumiapuxa,  the appeal   the
judgment and decree d'aE.€}_5.12.Vﬂ~£)j   '"CJ.S.
N:>.425/ 1993 on the ﬁle of the"I_IAA_d<f1_.'  (Jr. £311.),
Kumiapura.      

 

This   st the decree in RA.

.1-1.9.1  "I'G;9£}_,_2006 on the ﬁk of the Civil Judge

'(Se ;Dn,), conﬁrxnirag the decree in 0.3.

   No.'é2Sf.19§73' aa:¢&'"65.12.2000 on the ﬁle of the 11 Add].

 Givii Jefige Kundapur.

Ln



5
2. The appellant] plaintiﬁ ﬁkzd the aforesaid suit fo_17._e1

deexaxatm that the deed of partition dated 

(Ex. 13.4) is null and void and for (x3n&quenﬁa1A"';a'eI'ieet"'.  ~

grant of permanent injuncﬁon n:strainm' .g the eee;eeeeee&e 

and all persons claiming through  ﬁiemjtveﬂneﬁﬁﬁ if

'A' and 'B' schedule pmperciee t1te-  the
partition deed and for    the
paainutrie that the suit %fe.«e not the joint
family pmpcrtiaes.  It " the 'B'

schedule pmpeﬁy   eeee1e;eeee,eeee,7 of his father

    had not Vol1mtanly'
executed the V'  tieed. The case of the

defendants ieethat Vs:uitA"2§"'z:r.:tid ''8' schedule properties are

.-    The 1 13* defendant being the

Vtmether. 16!'. had voluntarily executed Ex.P.4

   cieee£'e::;ej:ed 20.10.1990.

 A. ,3. (Tie the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

  has framed the four issues. The panics have

'T  let.  their evidence in support of their contenﬁons



6

and the documents have been marked in their evidc:;1c_c..___

On appreciation of the oral and doculmntary evidence: 

ntcorti, the Trial (301111 has dismissed the: suit.   'A

aggievcd by the mad' deems, the appeilagt I;4.$s.u$ ':ﬁ'--1Vg~¢'_j;v1   

appeal in R.A. No.11/2001 before the 

Court. The Lower Appcliatc 
oral and documentary cvicfcncc   
the decree of the Trial    ﬁled this
appeal challenging the  Appellate

4.  for the palm' s.

5.' i  £'«;:>_i11:Vt'Scl :&'or. the appellant would contend

  ¢oii;~:s %"  not justiﬁcd in holding that the

slziii  are the joint family properties of

 ' 'ﬂ1c vdcfcndants. It is oontcndcci that the 'B'

"   was the absolute property of the tlather of

 'ﬂit Sectharatna Varma. The-rcfone, the execution of

n   deed Ex.P.4 by defendant No.11 (mother of

Kw



Y

the plaintiﬁ) was invalid. On the other hand, learned.

Counsel for respondent No.4 has sought to justify

decrees of the courts below. It is contended that bajffﬁa, ' courts on appreciation of the evidence cafvtheé come to a conclusimx that there was a i"T--A the plaiutiﬁ" and the defendants. held that the 'B' schedule name of the father of the f>ii1.§i1tiﬁ7.Lo1:;t: ($f'--fhe.'j9i11t family funds. Therefore, fﬂismissing the suit ﬁled by 16.;-Vﬁiisimiasai of the appeal.

6. I havi=§e.;:mf1VViiiy.'4Vc~:c_>11e:i::'.e1wed the arguments of the Iealned fer" pi.-artzies made at the Bar and placed on zecord.

97>. _*1'im eeggtpgieon of the pzaintiﬂ' is that his father a residential building over plaint 'A' ﬁrowrty by spending his own earnings and that A' had not contributed any amount for 'V V Acenswﬁeuctinn of the house. It is the further contention of \m 8 the plaintiﬁ" that his father Seetharam Vanna purchased 'B' schedule pmperlies out of his own _;. A4 and that the saﬁ property does not belong to Z and that his mother defendant No. _V e execute the partition deed E',x.P€¥> «.1ated"'2;:i;v10.199t>.V. ':i£ is] his further contention that the neice Ex. P4 voluntarily. The has Ieitexatw the statements ﬁIeiind:ﬁ__'_'..Defendant No.4 was examineti' the letters written by the No.4. In Ex.D1 agreed that the house ed 'A': belongs to all the brothers._ In .é';x.V:3:2 tee ﬁ¢i1e:*d'o£ the pramtie' had admitted "that of Rs.5,G-0O[~ from Pavagada dead he defendant No.4 to send money. It is an one cf the brother of _ Seetharam 4VaVm:1a dad zeeisding in Pavagada and he has sent

-v"' for construction of house. In Ex.D3 Varna had admitted that the Qemand Draft " defendant No.4 was received by him. Ex.D4 is the Lx 9 letter sent by the Seetharama Varna, wherein he has admitted that defendant No.4 had sent some amount that the said amount was not suﬁient for the constr;*ﬁeti0:;..: _;. A4 of the house and estimate for constructitm of . ~t}1e_: ih.0ue:e._ may raise and he had ahead}; purchasegi _V 0 and he purchase some other cement iii" next 3 PW1 has admitted in his cross-exat1§;ix3:.3;ém'0n D6 are the letters written his rviliefendanttﬂe. 1 1. In D6 his mother has jV'%der§ﬁ{3g_§t0ee 00.4 had spent the amo:111t'«T:.Lffor '--:.'0f____ her husband It material on record that Schedvii,1e"'A' family pmpclty of the plaintiff and ciefemfiaezzttg. "

't V. - A f5e.--- :Ti1"eze"t'i5 éiiﬁeient material on record to show properties were purchased by the t Vifathetrt out of the joint family funds. ''8' «seheduie prgjpertics were purchased in the year 1968. The the minor at the time of execution of partition '' Ex.P4 dated 20.10.1900 and the suit came to be ha 10 ﬁled in the ycar 1993. Plaintiﬁ' was 24 years old when was examined before the court on 3.9.1997. Themfc.ri:_A»i.'f_ "

cannot be said that he has the krmwkdgc mgazdﬁg manner in which plaint 'B' schedule' acquired by his father. Pbrusal of Ex. 7./ that the vendor of 'B' ,_ﬁraSV':~._ 6ﬂe Laxminarayan. There is a the father of the plaintiﬂ' respect of the said property gaizfliex to "<.)f the said salt: deed. pm that Scetharazxié' iirezfririjzg Mutt up to 1968 and ma the _§0 b~ﬁtf1cr had falkzn 131. In fact the A1x--i..»¢'.r:".§5ziticncc that his ﬂathcr was 'Vﬂciupi I{fish..r:.a'Mutt up to 1968. It is also clear 1 -of plaintiﬁ's father Seetharama Varna send money to Scctharama Verna. The hvazxzot produced any material to show that Varna had suﬁcistnt amount to purchase the schedule properties. Taking an over all ViCW' of u matter the courts below have heki that 'B' schedule m N 11 properties are the properties of the joint family. It evident from the Ex.P4 partition deed that a was convened on 4.1.1989 am an agreement t ' on that day in oltler to eﬁect partitioaweof schedule properties. There is not d:§eptite'tt'~ae' 7]:

execution of the document by to % prove that the partition wae_VVe.xe<:z;;_ted "by of coercion, undue inﬂuenoe Tm: of facts. Perusai of the partition deet} P4 §ho{§?e_ ﬁajor part of the wet lands mother of the p1ainunﬁ;eo'TtiusA,.:t};: plaint 'B' schedule not properties of the father of the plaineﬁfando effected on 20.10.1990 is * not V 9, Court on appreciation of the material on teco to the conclusion that the suit scheduk ' '.p:opeftie§ veere the joint family properties. 011 re- of the material on record, the Lower Appellate txas come to a similar conclusion. The ﬁnding of fact F 12 recorded by the Courts below is on the basis of the proper appreciation of the 0131 as also documcmmry ev£dcn<:g:VT'.r;:i'1._V record and them is no perversity, iﬂegality or those ﬁndings. There is no merit in this appc:aLu__ 3 the appeal does not involve any substﬁnﬁﬁi 'q:_1égti:4)_n'--§:>f' _ T in thc result, the appealgﬁgiis 1'3 V dismissed. No costs.

"S        Judge

7

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court