Sarvamma vs U R Virupakshaiah @ Virupakshappa on 17 February, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

Sarvamma vs U R Virupakshaiah @ Virupakshappa on 17 February, 2010

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

 

EN THE HIGH COURT 0%' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED Tms THE i7"'DAY OF FEBRUARY 2(:E': 0..

BEFORE:

THE H'ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND %Ev:r.EAREi)L3%y j » 

REGULAR SECOND APPEALNO. 
BETWEEN: V' M

1.

Sarvamma, _ = Wife of Late T.C.Nanvj21ppa, ' V Aged about 60 years; ' * _[\..> Kaihyalyiniéo' _. _ '~ _ Wife "

Daughjmix o«f1;~ai:f:V T.Cv;~Nanj_a1'p_pE:._{ Aged about. ye:irs--.. ' Both VVR't:siLii;1.g u~£'Tho-s_1ﬁE<é'1'e Village. Kora H€)_b§vi, _ A " v ;Tumku1" T3 in ' ._' ':Tt:E11ja:}<.L1,i' DiStV':"iC{---+-572 101. APPELLANTS By $1111(K,R:.ifgh_éwv;11dr:.1 Rao, Adv'<>c2ue) V % . ANI§.:"

ii}.R;TV._i'ra:pakshzaiah @ VirL1pz':kshappa1, T Szjm -ofhate Revzmasiddzzppa, '-««.--'Agc;d about 75 years, 'E -Emséiding at K.R.Ram21<:h;mdrase£1y Compound, 6 3 P*3.i"""m7 I (Original geneoiogicai table of the family is repr(')duced for the sake of c1m"%£y_ Channabasappa Mﬂmppii ' ._ Revdnnd I{evanasiddﬁ[M§'V}ti:i * : 'viii gﬁélikkasiddavppa Dead» (Dead) {Dead} unmarried _.L _ ru pa p V Z «....,!....7F.C.Nan.jappa vR._¢sp9'n»dVe1;L 2 ' AV Defendant-dead) ..__'Sar\j-1'amangala Kathy-ayani (3_Wia:low) l).1{b)lPresent V{D.1)(a)/ Appeiiant No.2 Appeiiant No.1 6 the interest of the piaiiitiff. The defendant having failed to comply. 21 legal notice was issued and it was there:-tfter, that the suit was filed for partition and separate possession. The defendant contested the suit denying.,the._Cia:i'n1_ofithee plairitiff and the existence of li1'L'3::_ j()i:!1E'_A:i"Eii1Tii}:"_.Vt,-3l"*ii1t;i ;}oi.i'it possession pleaded by the piziitttiff. ltiiwt-its t:vt)l'i'£it:V3.E:i1(,i;t3£iMiilkit {i'16£'.VeV:7 was no indication of the plaintiff (}_1_'Ti"..iV._§ fl€ttlier,.'being re5;<)gnised as members of the joint t'ai't1'i"i--y'in i"espet:t "(')fft!.1»e'T suit properties. The defendant content;ied__ thztfiiis ~.g;~;ti'id.;tt'ttti1er«was enjoying the suit pi'ope1'tie.s 'f'i"(ji"e§tvl1e y5ezii'.19:t_6, a_1s-reiiecteti in the revenue entries. On his deatli; the e.lei'e'n--tE.z_iti:t._"s"ﬂame was reﬂeet.ed in the revenue et1ti'ies"t:;id sin'ce"l'956. the defendant is in possession and ei'ijo_Vyi11ehti't>tf i't'h_e suit properties aiongwith other properties as the 2"1b_sVi(';E.titeivoa$2'ner;~,' He has improved the land, he has raised ioans by

-V mt)t"tge1giVi'i.;; the suit p1'opei'ties and he has even LiiiC!1£tE€d :1 portion ..fet:t'iit:..Ast11ne. It was specifically coiitended that the piziintiff is an utter strtinger and that there was no relationship with the 8' 7 defentfant. The defendant howe.\~'er died (hiring the pendency of the suit and the witlow and dztugltter have come on record as his legal representatives. They, in turn, have filed a11«j"¢t.d_ditiotial written Stattet'nent ettipltztsizitig that the plaitttiff"vv;:ts_ha-notit'tei'r strtmger to the family. The Wl(l(,}\--'vv"J'(A3l1L""l'l']'§\ ':i;l€ft?.n:(l'cti]_{ lha§s}tt'1':st} l e.n'iphazised that from the date of her l"niit:ftjiage the tiele1i'e.ztnt...,, she had not seen the plttiiititf or":t.:iyht:tl},«t e'}:.1_i_mie:ig tinder" him in the village and they p=;ittielip:ttedi'kin the Mal't'airs of the family. it is teitetttted thattheVpproperty"~be'i'titvtge.d to Chikkasidda Shetty, who diet} \l\}}1tf_ae_1Vi ldelt'et1'dttttt was 42 years otd and thatl*t_he" tietendatnt Mallappa had died prior to 1930 é1ll(li"El1t3t't',l:)()1'*$,A'tl]l€'i'@"ll\7v'aS no presumption of joint fatmity of 'I"e-i--e.«ti(>n.s'hip between the plitintiff and the ' tietep:t'd;1r1't. it .

A ._lOn,the"igthove pl.eadittgs. the Trial Court placed the burden the pl:;1__ihtit't' to prove that the suit properties were ancestral and _ joittt. fatittily properties and that he was in joint possession of the * wnte and whether it was prove' y the plaintiff that the defendant had urtiz1wi'uliy got the revenue entries made in his favour and whether he was entitled to the share claimed by him. T§t_e triei court also pitteed the burden on the defendant to pr'('wjt3.._§i~rztt'tiiie suit properties were the ztbsoitrte properties of his fa1ther"Tf.C;':N.:thj:1pp.$/1_t On an appreciation of oral and d()CLI:n1€!}'_t'e11i'y3 before the court. the Trigri Cot:rtrh_eid t11ttt'_tiEr;e plzai:':'tiAiffi:ha.1d that the suit schedule properties Efoint famiiy properties of the had unlawfully got the revenue therefore heid that the p121it§1t--i»f§1:7 the suit properties white negrttirrg that the suit properties were the ahSt>!tEte his farther Nttnjappa.

Liefendéitrt'3------ther'e:1i'ter preferred an appear] agairtst the sa'i'do'"udé:'e1ent"'and decree alorrtzwith am at liezttion under Order the Code of Civil Procedure, £908, to tender ii ia{iAAditi()nt'r.it..'evideriese. The piaintéff had also filed at sirnéiar , t1p_Vpi»ie.a'iti()n. The defendants, in addition, filed an application ii " under' Order Vi Rule 17 to amend the written statement to the 6 existence at an tmdisputed point of time. do not estabEi.~'.h the partition between Channabusappagh"

Mallappzz and Revttttttzt, Sons 01' ztttjappatf'

2. Whether the First A;.>;.3elI;tte justified in :'e_jectit]g the ztpplhiheiitintj ".IA'iIe.(.i OI'(.t(3I' ii. Rule 27 and :t:t<i'S(')::."_tl['}'t.)[t(:§tI!i't5t'}. : i'r.jVt' amendment of \x.-:'iticv:t at-.t,'5atet11e:t.%t 'V$ettér1gv:"tt;§ ..t.l1e plea of pl't(}l' pattttion'?

3. Whether the .('fQt:r_ts i)e.vI(:54\3v'.VL"e,~'e're._ justified in hoiding that t11et'e_V¢.v§{isVts 2-1_'§t:;Vtnt--"mm;tyV z-t-mi the suit Sehedui&:.._pt':>pet:ties; ztate j'0ér«'1'E[i_";1t1V1_iIy' pmpet"tie;s in ll1§i"'E¥'§h_t -.:.t;:.11_Et*tt.:d "--.f"'z1C'«t'V_'that the plttintitt and :f9':t;'eIt§'rt;L1ee! [t"t"."'V'4l!" :gCl1(3l'£'1tt0I] and the ptzitt'1Vttf:t"'h:tts:tttitﬁé»tt:e'ci in'e:;:tegt)t'ict1I terms in his he.x:i'tEe1tce*!'hzit.t'l;::t}e--~tt:ith at partiﬁon in the I'z1n1iE_v 80 LA yeatfsztztti the ztbssenee of £1123.' tn:.tte:'i'.-:1 . [_);;.1¢cd 't'i't*e"p'It1intiff to Show either the existence joint famiiy or that the seheduie pr0pe.rties tire___jeTt:'r'1't".f':1mily properties'? "

f_Fi7e.C't$u:1sei for the appellant contends that the plaintiff ' _ti'::t1Vde'feri<:ittt1ts beiong to the third g€ﬁ€1'£1{i(}l1 efthe familv. White .'*_.t1i'e"etitmsel wotttti Stlbmit that thottgtt Enitéttily the very é l3 It is contended that the courts below have not relied upon any inaterial evidence to establisli that the joint fainily status had continued over the generations and in adjudicating the claim at a remote point of time, it was a duty cast on the. court t(_)'-pirn_c'eved with extren'ie caution in the interpretation of the --:i:ii'iinpeachable V' documents which were available on ije'co1"ti,« to'uindicatei._thu:--.Ithe'i'e was indeed a prior partition which wasi"'.certaini_jg,{'re1"§ect.eid_in, Exhibit D.l already stated. The"Ci()uiisel Wr)_al'dlaibiiviiitiithat the V revenue entries indicate theﬁnarne-s o:f'i"t--he.,grand--father, the father of the defendant and theAA.;jl.e:fe--:ida.iit:.»hi'lnseliijVvi--.n" all the material records 7-.thz'it,iare »ibei5o_i*e* the court. Therefore. the admitted absence of bt-->th=the -,pliaiiitiff"s fatlier and the plaiiitiff for ovei' ii"«--eAighvtt__€iecades 1".i'oni'thew/illage in which the suit Pmperties are s'_iti,a.ated;:1ii':ai'dliy._iérises any presumption of a joint family status. The i<;--ouiisel _ajl..;§o seeks to place reliance on additional documents i ithatpareisai'd to have been obtained with great difficul.ty. l~iaving ii ._i.'egai'd"to the reiiioteness of point of time, at which the defendant ' haé; been called Lipon to establish that there was a prior partition. 8 $4 and has filed an ttpplieatiott under Order XLI Rule 27, to produce before this eottrt at Sale Certiféettte, which according to the Counsel for the ttppellamts would clinch the case of the V;;tpp4e'Eltt:1ts m defendants that the properties, if any, that were me sh;-tre t1)?' the pittitttiffs h:'z'tnel1 were blft)LI_gllt to'S;ét}t§'jinthe,yea!"

E93637 itself and that this wottltl pt'o'v.e tltl_t1ll'~hot"0Illy."W;tS'»Vt'§'!.§:ul't2.1&1 riot' artition, but even the m' thttf fell' to tVhe".._§httt*e"t)f the" V P P P P ._ .V pl21i:ttiff's brtntch were sold ttttd,it" an Llll'CI7i0t'l motive to make an illegal claim ovet de-fténdzthltll'~sf'_';;h'utfe of the property that the suit is The Counsel'at'etl_E£t*nee on the tollowittg judgments in Si,Ipp()E'I of his~--.c;t)t11enttt>éts2' 3('~t1);_..lfet'!t.1p;JttxRtm<ttt]');9c1 1V£l.lf( Vs. Tmpam-1.a, AIR 1927 PC 8 :1 'Vt'.§>)V';.h§ll1tt4§Mgtilkt.Del}-111 Vs.Mr.s'.Re(m' 13m, AIR 1962 SC 287 ti.' ""?e13et)11t:'zt, the Cottrtsel for the 1'esp()nde-nt, who was the t.fpEt1i.itti--fl' before the triztl Court contends that once the reltttéontship ' between the pttrties is 2tdmitt.ed., in the absettce of any z-t<:ceptttbi.e 6 15 evidence as i'ega1i'ds the prior gaartition pleaded by the defendants the plaintifl' is entitled to a hall1shai'e in the suit property as___i'ightEy held by the courts below.

it is contended that a question as to whet.l:e_i"' tl1eife's- goint tiaimily ttittl whether the suit sch'edL:'ie< .p&1't.ipei'ti_§i:si i._v.»*ei"eTji_>ii'1t famii ro erties being ure u:estions's__ol?".t_'2tct whj_ich* have ibeein, Y P P c _ _ A _ . L concurrently decided by the below.'ii*it--it'a\itv}ui' of the plaintift', there is no scope tot' iate1jfero..ncei'hy this Court in terms of Section l_{)() of the Code_of Cyivili I-':rt)ce<iiur;e1,V..P908. It is further contended that §._l:ilC:i::--"\;\/i_iV(1'()i\:/"'\" defendant who has deposed as DW» ll'has..admit'*ted"that her liusband was iooking after the entire joint l7:-nniE_y ip_1'op.-n:;9l'i'ties as the pl'.iintit'l' was a teacher iVi*..vW()i'i§:iiii~g5L"3i5€i\VilCI'éii'£E*:E«£;i"Wt1S not living in the village. It is "'sc()'hte-i'ideVd« lht:'..t1dH1i{l€d fact that the plaiatift's father having died.__dLii'ii2gii"thei plaintift"s minority and the piz1int'ift' himself it "~.__i'haVing liiiagsued a career as a school teacher and having been away _ it';io'i"n. the suit pioperties did not result in a disruption of the goint ii "~t7amily. it is asserted that the reliance placed on Ex,Dl, a ":9 lo mortgage deed could hardly evidence and establish at partition between the members oftlie joint family.

it is contended that the mutation entries do«_"'i1(.)_'t-._elst) establisli that there was :1 Partition £iE"I]()ﬂf_IS{ the ii'1ieiii'1l.'<3/1i'S'<-L)"'§"the joint fainily.

In addressing the substantial questi'o_ris of il_§i\fV af't"a1Ti€43i(J"~.'l)iy, this Court -W it would he necessaryuitts deal iv.-'_i_th~t.he iipplicatitins filed by the appellant respectively.

under Order XLI Rule 2'7 of:it_l'ie {5'l'7V.i(i,i"i§:.\..fjViv.li'l'PI'0C€dLt!'B before this Court.

The diicuiiieiiitsiletitaglit to be produced as additional evidence bythe aignpe-l_la'=tr;t.§ 'amid the i'esp(mdent were in fact sought " '~ to be':L_i1fi¢;'e$e.:1ie_d beforev------t--lie' First appellate Court itself under similar l":;ip}:=lieetio--n_.§; ..i'l"l.ie"First appellate Court has summarily rejected the appEi__cutio1?s late, 'expi'ess;ed in its judgment -- since the documents "««.__E>,ought to___b'e produced by botli the parties, in its opinion, did not _Ca--ppe..:it'i5tt) throw any more light on establishing anything more than 6 what was already ttpparent or disputed as the case may be. on the say of the parties and liars hence rejected the same.

It is contended on belittlf of the zippellants i'E';_:'viiiaM Exhibit D~l, which xx-as :1 mortgage deed_-e'xeeiite(i~,by t__lie"= pl_aihtifl"'s father and his jutiiotf tiitcle yam. 1.9-2iE§i:\~',,'Nﬁiﬂh according to the appellants, was _ziii._indieat.io::. thtit the«--vpla.i~htiff'st. ' father was dealing with his pi'ope'a'--t.y_ possibly losing it. There has come 'oitlt'..eir"ttaiiisactions which were exclusively, E:ie«tween§the'ip'i.:aii1.tiil*f;'_~hisﬁiztlier and grand father in respect t>l'i"whicE;i?.4 t'hei=e_i were Civil Suits and execution pt't)ceeding:ttV_where»proi5erti'e.5"heilotigiiig to them were brought to stile as;'e'«ideiice.d,§5y'i21 stile ce1*tit'ieate._ which the aippellatnts had with difficulty as it was of the year l936 and therefo:'ei;"3eeks'~toproduce the some in support of the contention

--that p'l2tiii'tiiiifi"s branch of the family was exclusively dealing ,.fwiithii't«l.}eir share that was allotted possibly many years prior to i l 922, and comp.letel.y lost by them in those aboxse proceeditigs. 8 19 made out for etmsidering the above appiications in the facts and circumstances of the cztse.

The p1'ima1'_\; contention and the sustained endeaV02:t;f"ot"E,i1e appellants is to content! that though it is eoiieeded are members 0i"'joint iai1"iiEy. there wjtiaa"p.:'i0:.j pa.i'titi{)n anti the "1 family was no iongerjoint atleaste from t'h__e"year 192235 e~vide'r'1<',eu--.V by Exhibit DJ. Even otherwise. iEii".-1;"§}!'€Sui11vpE_iQii--L}-f{Haj existence ofa joint family weakens each _sju'etf_eeﬁi'§--ijig generation and the present dispute in this 1'e,§,Iy2l.ITd.' beiiig i'ai;§ed a" third generatioii member of the jifjii1t:£f£1_i}ii.Eyatthetagh_'ieif:'O:iiVetiu'siy refe:'red to by the parties a'i.1_cE";he _(Lvt):.E.:ii-'.I.[*'i 'e»beeEtt'j)"w' _ and this Court. on an earlier oeeasioii, as°'~:.1 f;'oui*'éh g:ei'1e"r7ation member) even the slightest «-:1m()'t€i1_it' of-,ev'Vvideneei 'wuuid rebut the weak presumption that may fia:e1_1i_I_y continuing to remain joint in status. =._Et is.~ti1eiiabt_)ve core question that requi:"es to be answered to A e'f'ffeeti\1ei5:-- aiiswea" ali the three substantial qtiestions of law that

--.'L1l'*f?2 f"I'&i'Ii1€CE by this C'.oui't.

5 20 The ;=1uI11(>I"ities are: 1.ma11imous on the foﬂowing pI'0p()siEi0n$. Ge11en-slky spceikinag, {he normal state of c:vc1'y__Hindu Fanxity joint. Pn'e.sumabEy, every such family is joisilt"%ﬁ"~tfi$a';d. worship and estate. in the absencre of proof'of* dix-/'is*E.:'_)i'1. ,~;Au_Lff1- is lﬁgal Pmsumpiiun (see: 1€e?wm-2 f'1'¢.z.s'(zc;f'";'{A/S'."Rc!('ffa€-I 1:,3('é'T!"'7"_'\»«?.._(V/ MIA 1 3 7, Narczgun{_v Vs'. Ve11gcI;7:2.c1_, ( l84(3'11'\4[A[.'Z')'I'§:'A' 'C.""1.:%'Vc»"I.c«'i"

Milu/en La]! , (1867) 11 MIA .a't')9v,'VL'h»AfVV\Tf(h.);<)l'/<Ls';-'2?)~.VS}-.E:?ec;}':: CVVV/Vrunder, (1869) 12 MIA, B/mgwan:§__V:::. M};/z;:;AzVh'3«:i;1;&;§%i:;--AIR 19257PC 132) The p:'esump_ti(_m (3%?-L-:va1_i@').n1Vis "g:'é'£1E.s::s:t in the case of feather" 2::;{d Solis: ;?§"IfzTfifhi?=2§ii'(I_\"cm "Vs. Raop Nc'z:"c1_m1':, AIR 1972 SC I 9621' vT'i3§: pr:;_SL2-h"1pt'i'L->._nj.'"i«:.s" stronger in {ha case of brothers than i:.;1"th_e C£lS€'» gif'Cc)u$'in1s and the further one goes from the family the presumption becomes weaker and Rcmzuppa Naiic Vs. Tipprzizna, AIR 1929 PC V~V8).

AA '*~._En the case on hand, one Nzmjappa was the proposmls and "(>ff his three: sons- Ch;1I11a;1%mszz;3pz:. :"«"ie1§Iap13a1 and Rcrwxima »- $2 73 piaitiiifi' made at claim for pztrtition and fiied the suit. The piztintiff about 70 ye:.ii's old as on the (hue oi' the suit.

The mttteriiti evidence on record such as revenue eii_ti"ies in respect of the suit properties life, not stii'pi'isii1g,iy-', in fLi"»'~'_i(5'tiE":ii()Vivi'E.i1t3 defendant. There are no documents L"1\/'I1ii£1biE'3i.Wh,iCh:i"'J\i'U{t_ii.d indicate that the property continued tdbeiijt5i'1tt¢_ fit.-iii'E7]i;i'_'j,'.Aipil;{)'p€i"i$?'. 'In this bzickgipunci, if one is to proceed on itheittile ()1?s€iVid€l:lce'=--'thiEtT plaintifi' who claims that the suit pi'0spe:"ty is j't:init"fe{t1'i_iii';{ property. is ieqttired to dischtii'ge't_he.. btt_.tdeg1 VtLit'.__pift'Nii1g the same M the plaintiff in the C.E1St;_()i'3 h21nt;1.._hapti1't. f'tf()tii1i"ztstseiftihg the same may not be iittt positic)iittj'~tit3"

On the'ethei" ha-sftd;._ii htit the case of the defeiidttnt that the suit ppi'i3peifties_ are hiis"se~h"--zicqui1'ed properties. it is not in dispute ".)_1"E3 claimed its inherited through his 'father and gt"a1iiti44ti'2tti1ei' tit.-dd to citiim that there Wt.-IS at partition between the K mginch tepiieseltted by his gmndfathei" and that of the piaii1tiff's ii i.g:zji1't1f7zithet" -- 1'E3iidI?L't3 is sotight to be piaiced on Exhibit DJ. :1 «.iJii"€5-giiSl€-1'€d m(.)l'Eg'dgC deed of the year 2922 executed by the 5 23 pl::i11t.il't"'s gruntifalher Chzttmttbasztppzt and his younger brother Rt}\-ﬂfliltl - whereby. three items of property all e0mp1"ised in Survey l\l0.l97 were nlmtgaged to one Krishnappa. is contended that the b()tillLiLli'it.'S of the properties as LEL':5'C'l'ibli;(1__!lll said document indicate that the northern btlullelrztryf'~:1)f'*~t,he. lte_rn~~.. eonsieted of property that had fallen te.._the"sl1t1re'reQf-M'2;lIappa similarly. the western botallclary Of are other item £t,lst>V.iee:1sVi.~:wted t)f,"

property that had fallen t0_.t.he share. t§fv.l\/1'all'lppt1I' --It_wa§ therefore sought to be urged that tltisa'pl't)w'ed_Vth;i't ther_eA.w'z:s 21 pa1'tltlon of the joint family p1'(').pe:lfty'*~.as §bet:\~'e5~:lt..C'h};m'r1zibizssappa. Revanraa and §\/32tllappt1--._ ' ' But z1.~;"'t::.-13'} be -s_';een t":1..r5h1 the recitals of the said document there 15;' n-0---«i'ndieati()n that the brothers had effected 3 padrtpietidottigentle»4Vth.at:,the properties had fallen to their respective Sl1z£re,__ N~m"_lhi':sAlit stated that the brothers Clmnltabasappa and V'Revanna*..vée1'e jointly executing the attortgage though they were _' and were holding the pmpertiegs; lr2dependentl_v. 6 Zé In this seenttrio, the })i'€SEtIt]}3Ei{)!'1S that arse in et)ttside:'ing:

whether the burden has, or has not. been dischargeci can <.mt_y be of presumptions of fact. There is no general sotvent for u.?'1:I'+;;1ses in t=1ppEyi_ng_ the case htw.

insofar as the admission said to have by the, ' plaintiff in the course of his cms$--ex1a1"n§-n;tt§0h--pf, therefi1z1v.i::1;g been 21 partition between his gr':aTn'd.._father..ztmt 'gi.t:1n.,(:1V fa.ther':':V:* brother 80 years ago, is__ 21 vugueis~t;1t'e.t}1e11t' e«1ic_ited9 in cross- examination and is to be'£g11<)1'et§Ef';*»2tSs it' not relate to any t:'z1ns21clt0n to W hé_c;.}1_¢V he Vv pa try.

in theL"E4i.§gh't of"._the, a1"u<$'ve, the substantial! questions of law VVf1'z1I1'ieti' gt-:'e ttli ztn"s'w*e1'ed in the affirmative. The appeal is tiiiL§1_ni$S»c§i';»..V " VV ed!-

IUDGE nvﬁ

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court