Karnataka High Court
G Venkateshappa vs Venkatamma on 26 July, 2010
Author: V.Jagannathan
Bench: V.Jagannathan
EN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT 3ANGAL<j§f;._""'T._
£MH£d:??u$£im:Qéfiidaycfikhibf201Qj"- ; :R, *
BEFORE
THE HON 'BLE MRJUSTICE :,F.»JA<:3A1s{:§IAé$*f}i;cxN A
R'.S.A.N0. 1580/zzfimé BETWEEN:
3.
L'}VENKA'f'ESHfisPP§§;"*«. .
S/ct) LATE: GANGAPPA,a ' AGED ABOUT 53 YEAR'S, _ 'V KAGCiANAH£~&,Li VIi.}LE§G§{1, -
AVANI HQ~BL{;,_M{,¥IiABA~;'léAL'TAL.U'K,...V~ :<;0LAR_msTR§CT--€5c_s3 1:31.:
MSNIYAVMMER ., w;G"v'E:§:{AT;bgSwAmE, _ mo LA'f{'E' vG;a1§'GA1~":£?A,.--.__ -- AGED' ABVDUI' 'YEA'RS,.,--- KA(}(3_fi;NAHfivLL'i' \'r:.LLAC;E, AVANI i--={C1iE3LI, -Mt;.LA~53AGAL TALUK, £{C?zL_AR 1:)1mR1c.'1'~E:63 131. ' ..... APPELLANTS nay' Sri %cH_}xNnRAsHEkAR REDDY, ADV.) Am%k 3'?
vE::vj:e;A';*AM:v1A, " I L..'5)V/O RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 3?'? YEARS, E§}'XNAHALL§ VILLAGE, AVANI HQBLI, '1'§§ULABAGA£J TALUK, KOLAR DIS'I'RICT'-563 131. CHIKKA VENKATAMMA, W1' 0 GANTLKSWPA, AGED ABOUT '?2 YEARS, NJXKKANAHALLE VILLAGE, V KGTA MANDALAM, PALAMANER 'TALUK, CHITTGOR DISTRKIT, ANBHR,.% F'RADZ3SH~517 424.
"
THIS REA FILED ms. 100 0;R¢;;fP€*, AGA"i'i§i$T7""'r:j';«; JUDGMENT AND :::E:::;:m:«:E DATEI33; 127.03..2i>»1t),.'PAss;E_;§ j W R.A.NO.245/12008 om PiLE*s_)Ii'-«_§'HE 1ié;::E$:D1m'{;~~¥% ' OFFICER, PAS'? 'TRACER CoURfi*'=«.;, KGLAR,' _§3}~§3n2i:S'sm'é} THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMINf}«.T%§E JU¥)G1$i3EN'Ti AND DEGREE DATED: <:}4.0§;;2§)t::a""}i$As%sj1§:;§'-iii oS.v'm§/2003 ON THE FILE 0;? 'THE: If'AI;.rr3:*;f1<i:i}iA:.} <i:n4jt;--quI)<;E (SR.
953.), MULBAGAL... _ -
THIS .g;f;t)zvi'j--:s;"c3~_ 03$: ADMISSION 'I"HIS DAY, THE ce;>.i;1<~*r~:".;:;v§:L:$iE;p§I:9 .i"§HE MJLLOWING; J éoiilaéei fer the appeliants.
appeaz is by the plsaintjffs in the trial "Question the concurrent f11"idi1"1gS of _ the iméiow. The suit filed by the pIaj3;1t3'ffs for M K .dc«s§aratior1 and permanent injunctjan came 1:9 be and the lower appcliata court (3GI1fl1"IIiiid V' said findings by dismissiI1g the plaintiffs appeal. E';
' I :3. Brief facts necessary for the pu:'pQ$é§.__}:}f_V this jtzdgznarxt are that the piaintiffs claimizjig' E116 (i}WI1<31"S of the items 1 to :3 <:<)ntr,3r_1.ded_:':'%;hé1¥:}:§:;¢ u <i6fez1§a1"zts have no right. over thtt $113: pz?Qp¢I"'t}3 a, A' foiiowing their i¥1tCI'f€3I'€I1C6,V.'EL}-"1§i' piéliiytiffs hati :_§:LQ_§$€<i_Ti{ V the relief of dzsclaratiozz arid m§Lt::§::tion. "
4. It was the Jf)ff t:i'1f:.:E'piai_;:1tiffs t:1'<).at the 5:11":
items 4 to i2. éI"€"3 0f the plaim,3'.ffs flfiiiilfijf are ail jointly cuitivat:E11g~ itéii1iS I 3. A "
5. .f1 'i1e'"£iei%$1";r_ié;"1iié on the other hand conteficied $1115.: __ {)11r3' Ajjappa was the cemmmr. éi1;r:¢x$tc}11*harj four sons by name Stmiappa, __I;T§§;t§a13pa and Gangappa. Somappa was V VV _ Cu1ti'€?atjI.1 g No.64 arm the said land was gramteci to .§§unT;;nd%e:~ ~' «mow MORE FOOD SCHEME' in 1959-
"Hess: {;}f the suit pmperties were purchased by
-«'.. S4:}Ii1ap1i:a and he along with his (iaughters were in f:I}_i0j,FI"11€I1t 0:" {lie same. The defendarits ::o11te:11deci Q. /' «M:
that fofiowixlg tilt: daath of their father S{;>1112v1:§§;§_aa'.,..V defendants have beer: 111 anjoy-mark: of :_. 4 property as absolute owners.
6. The ma} frarigedi-..S§§; _isSz,iés AA evidence: was app1'eCi23tcd., orai dGs:¥j ;igm11tafy V and material iSS¥3£:":S 1 to S Wef&:.§a11sweréd..né§gatjve azad against the piaizlti.-$3; _T216;s1iii:..x;x;z;§Ls~sciisrmissed. ?. Th? -Zkfiwer no difficuity in c<3I1fi1frn§r1i;g, _"£'}:1'€~:' dismissing the pia,i11fjffSM'8;;;;p§é%:3l. K: :51: '* 8, Sri. KP. Chandrashekar Redgig ":"<:>r the' A.;é_j3:§ei1§u1%:s submits that the courts i§e}{§w tx§'circ.4i11,Vem'or in recording a findhzg that tin:
daughters 01*" 4S<3mappa, but in V _ fact_;"th<:5§ Fara net: daughters of Somappa. It: is this u.$::b;;n4_isSVibr1:z that the appellazlts counsei put fomrard ft}: "SéA<i:ki11g iI'HL€i'ff:}'€I1C€ with 1:116 judgments of the " cécitxrts b€i(3w. gk /' p I an
9. Having regard til) the afuresaid c0nte;1ti{>'I1 put forward, I have carczfuliy gone t11I'0L:~g.1' "
j:,1c£gIm:m; of the <:ou2:1:s below. Bath the iijaife 3 recorded Categoricai fmciijng '(i;::i?::1i;iAa:1f:3-.Vj_ T daughtars of Somappa. 'I316 Afi;fiii:ate §3< )'u;3.1f t. zhéfs censidered Ex.I3l {ha EX.D2 Dczath ce1'tifica.t:§"':ir1 wife of Somappa and also 'Ex.I3:28 {hie I;heref<:>re fed the file suit proparties steeci and the defendaats also dTaL:"gI1fi4;rs:» "Qf4 Somappa are therefore e11t:iji:1{c5<:i to in the suit properties. The $p;;fi:1ia:»2evA.Q0§H?t'a1sa recorded a clear firxding that. the to place any material to Show
-- t§1at 'tf£1i§3z Téava any right or title over the suit. The judgment of the ma} emu': was dégififiiled by the lower appellate court an rim " ~ , é1for<~:said reasczns.
/' I-MA 6
10. E11 the iigm: of 131$ View taken by the courts below and findings having been mcarded on based on the: docuIn<=:11ts proéuced by both_..%§id€»S;f -5 4 see 110 casa beirzg 111;-afic-3 out for thig court; 't.0"i;if1'_Eeffere_ in this second appaal against 'ti1e"g:0:3;c:TL::'r*r5~i17s.t'f"1fic¥,ing5A 1:] of the courts below and 11:} sfizgbstziigtiad. law €i}"'iS€iS fer consideratioil. Dvr: A. - ..