Shyamala D/O Late Chikka Abbaiah Reddy vs Venkataraju on 20 September, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Shyamala D/O Late Chikka Abbaiah Reddy vs Venkataraju on 20 September, 2010

Bench: Ravi Malimath

 s# £5» as :-

1}? 'Elm HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 

HATED Tim THE 2019 my 012 smprzzamag ;2m:;_.   A' 

BEFQRE

THE I-IOBPBLE MR.JUS'{'ICE  =    '  

BETWE ER:

s;o.mm camama  .'}IEI:i_9Y§:', 

wmnozriﬁmnnnnv    
Hnmu; MMGR, wan AHOIJT  "   _ 
ngmo. 2:5, HEW gmmma S'It".'ajEE_T«A..'>--.V_
 -     ' 

{BY am 3.,  
s1uvEn'.gamm.;-; 1r' ' [jg .  
smmxqzéﬁéavv V -_ A S
smqgﬁmva mI:_3§?

Asmﬁﬂmwmra  _____ ..
A SR£--wRA{'xHvj:*ﬁ:':mI
a.' SIE__1€A$t;€'&;°;_HA;""'.

  E15533, MAJGR5
 --SQ}.'I$ 3?'  CH%  REED?
~ .,   'mamas ATAHR&SﬁHDRAPALYA
   «~ 569017  RESI-"9HD%'T'S

{BY am, DILRAJ mam SEQUE, ALHV. FOR R6;
R1-NOTICE SERVED BYWAY QF  ;
M-R5 HOTTCE IHSPERSED WTIE, R3 SERXFEDI

R33 28 FKFEI) UfS.96= CFC AGAHVST TEE d'{3'BG%'I' A51)
DEGREE DATED 18.61.2905 P913831} IR €,¥.S.Ef3.1ﬁr487/2&0 OR
THE FILE OF THE ENE A}3DL.CITY CIVE WEGE, EAYUKALL
UNIT, BANGALORE EEK-29] DI8&SSING THE SUPP FOR

F4"

  * = %   



-1-

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED TI-IE'. FOLIJOVVINGI

JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree.,:'dat.ed 18.01.2005 passed by the court of the Civil Judge in O.S.No.164.-87/20Q_0,.. the plain'tilf_1f.has'p' ﬁled " "

this appeal.

2. The parties are"refe.rredA'to as pervtheir ~rank=U before the Trialcourt. _ _ __

3. The case o--£ﬁi:he5__plaintif_f.., that she is the daughter of Reddy. The defendants 1 to 6 are 'he1'itbroThers... her mother Sn1t.Gowrarnma died; during the year 996 and for the last 10 years before Vliiling the father of the plaintiff Srichikka unheard of. During his life time, he owned <thev"suit schedule property. On a demand for a H share inlthe properties being denied, the present suit is _ "file'ci°seeKing for partition and separate possession. The "defendant entered appearance and denied the suit clairn. He contended that during the lifetime of his father, the properties were divided among himself and his brothers. V4"

The ﬁrs: &fe:nd.aI1t ftzrther eienind that 'B' schadule pnnpertim were waif acquhed pztzpertiea. and it is"

denim that the pmm and aerendan:

posamsimn of 'A' wheduee wmnnxrgfg 2an&§--; % ffj «

4. The 'I'naI' Court dssmamea the emit of me

5. - _ gxmad counsezl appeal-mg' for 'the judpent and d¢t§yea._ fr; he dismissal. He oontencb"th at as to whssther the ﬁrst V prﬁvt3s_w_ t1 1aZ£ﬁthe p]aiz113'ﬁ' has aimady received h crA 9f the mdjng raoordcd by the Trial dafandant hem failed ts prove that the M A L plaiﬁﬁﬁ sngsiieeeiu-ed rm $I1am,,tl:u3 'm;a.1 murt has ex-ma ' H H 'A the suit. Hence, he prays mat thc judment mVadm¢ is liable to be asst same.

6. Heard the mama! and e::s;amined¢[h%§_eo;rda.

*2'. The 12431 cczurt whzze considering issue igm to whether the pxamm pzuwss that the propert.1ea' are thc self aways' uﬁ :€',}31kima ; Ahbaaah, cma m the oancaumm; mat f;if'--f1¢ ._13ni=.a.._ #e1f:' acquired property. Havhag Vmgze the piaintiﬂ' has faileci ta the gichedule pmpertziaes are seﬂ ncﬁgﬁﬁtéqusnﬁal mncnmmn in that they... The 7msue an to of the suit acheciule ; hm 'own ciﬂamed bawmég By pmcéng relianw can the V' V .<:our!; name: to the concluaian the ranges of the dn%ndant ea 'A' schadule pmpertiea are mnwmeé. A issue 39.4, the trial court held. that the H %V C ﬁmtagasgaaa: has failed. to pzzruve that the plajnﬁﬁhm gut Th: reading ofthe entire iudgment mad dame VT disclase that the masnns given by the miai cxzurt me % " inadequatc. me eontenﬁana of me pmmm E that the dacumenm marked have not been mzmidered in im pavwr perspective; The trial oourt has some to the canchzsiua E'/<""""

thai {Em suit aahedzzie ympertgg is mat the ~ V. gwpertg sf the ylainﬁ *3 father. it aizssmici ﬂaw M gem as mam as {:1} What i$ me nhatgm nigh:

By mt dazéng 599,, there is mi3e3:ﬁ@4':;f§1:;$sti£m - * VV . Qv Eiatwithxtanﬂing 222$ 3-sax mm, in v§eW D;fA"« .§E§;3A pf' the E-Iinriu Szmcmasiozzz Asst £f;*.'}$, a ska}? M smz3ﬂs.i@rs5_&...*-.'«:..'E;s¥ pmimn tzcf a ataugmcr with that sf 3.

sea. ﬂit' amgaégé law, $3113 plaintiﬁ' wmzlﬁ the ymyertjgz af her father, 'me vzétiiciéise féiﬂsciasm tizat mg gaiﬁtiﬁ' was 'ham gaid amendment Wmzlei mme :79 has' said 'x1§f'a1'§th3 share in the pmperty, Far' the reasaarzs stmd akave, E am sf the xﬂcw that tbs judmmi: 925$ dgcraa gsaﬁaaﬁ by V. trfa}; mutt Eacm aéequatc rcaaaﬁ and banana fmquizea 'w: M aet..a§i§e$ 'Ehg Trial smart ia zhemmm éimcmé ta rwmmi-ﬁe: {ha suit an maﬁts aﬁisr gvﬁang m %'/M aéequafie cppnrtlmity m both the gartisezs, 33" Far the mmmd manna, the K éecree daigd gassed §};' fag mm Ad.dI..Cit§ ' @$s$mm437;2sea dataad :s.e1z2§s55~§sMa§: kk matter ataxia mmandad m the in acmrﬁanm with Law. mg %' the trig} mutt can %£34u1€;3=~.;2ﬁ8}{:;'""I:i:i. f§;¥§*s'szAof £h1é"':1a:i§tieaes ta defentianm $9.2 an 5 muxt, the mm mm: to Vvyﬁefcnaants. in YEW af we fhe year 2300, the ﬁiai hear and dispaae mg' the 813i1§! fay the and taxi Jana 231 1. Sd/-

JUDGE"

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court