Karnataka High Court
Manjula vs Sujata @ Teja on 5 August, 2010
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, K.Govindarajulu
_AND 'V IN '1"HI€ }---11631"--I C('_)UR'I" OF iU\R.N.A'I'AKA CiR(..'. 1.31'? I"*3E; \|' C H AT C} [_f'LI53AR(}.l\
l)A'i'ED THIS ':'1---H2 5315* [JAY OF AUGUST. 20 1 0? Q PRESENT 'I'}--{E1 §r1()N"f3LE+3 MR.JUS'l'1CEX/';€}..SAH_H}'{I3f'i€i7"
AND THE HON'Bi_,P,3 MIz.JUs':'1c:§«:%3:.GOxzViMNI)A_I2J:-"J;I1_,i]J ':3 RFA N0.2458H/'2'OO_6 "
BETWEEN i V Z I\/[ANJULA % W /0 PRA1')EEp:.RAf:f}<A1;KA;a_ AGED AB0Ufr:.z;.s ':*;j1«':ARs~ M _ occ:HoUsEHQLp"=.'fi_',.
R/AT s':'Afr_1TON..13A:;AR * MSK MILL R0-Ag3_, L "
GULBAR"'CrA~r58.5"10{2; * _ ~ 3 APPEI.,LA»N'I' [BY SR1.__AI\.(IEVEfI;a}§U1\?iA.R IJESHPANDI3. AI")V..) .» 1 "s.UJ.A'=;:A.563:?---1jE*JA " .Wv/*Q:K_A'B/Ii;;A_KARI")ESHMUK;H '-- AAGEI) AB(3.:U'1' 48 YEARS QC(:;.-H.Q;UsI:":H0:,1) R/'.{\"i".S'iV'A'1'IO;\I BAZAR MsKM:1..1, ROAD " 'c:...:;I,13ARGA--585 1.02 KUMUDINI T W/O Dr SHYAM PRASAIJ AGED AE-3OU'i' 20 YEARS OCC: }--IC)USEHOi.,l.) R/AT C / O 1')I'.Sl~IYAM PRASAIJ IN M[*3I..)I('.',Ai., SI3IR"\»'I(7,'.E(j)F Cx()VI;3R.NMEN'I"
"Was married to Vatsalabai.
OF ANDRA PRADESH R/AT CHOLLUR NEAR HINDUPUR AP. 570 015
3. KAMALAKAR S /0 RAYAJ KRISHNA RAG DESHMUKH' I AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS ; 2 Q}, OCC: AGRICULTURE « R/AT IVESK MILLS ROAD GULBARGASSS 102 [BY SRI. VEERESH B I>AT1L,,ADV., FORVv.C}.'R'1.>&"'R2} THIS RFA FILED U/S 96-.,QF._»CPC' AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DeEGREE'D'1".S0.03.2006" "PASSED IN OS.NO.111/1992 ON TIJEiFILEUj"IO'F.,»III ADDLCIVIL JUDGE {SR.DN.} GULBARGAV l?'~AR'.EfLY_1. DEGREEING THE SUIT I AND SEPARATE POSSESSIGN;- A «. "
BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ' _VE?O.R'*.4_.'I'eI..J[1DGMENT THIS DAY, KGOVINDARAJULU I J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:--" -I I - _ "JUDGMENT v.Pi{i'inTtirff' in OH.uHS'IN0.111/1992 on the file 0fIIIAcid1. I V[SrI;'Dn] Gulbarga, is the appellant in this appeal Section 96 of CPC. Parties wiil be referred V. .fiaccIc;rdin'g. to their status found in the suit for convenience. V' Hanmanthrao was a resident of Gulbarga They had a Son by name _ n V "
,:2./R' 3 Pradeep. Pradeep was rnarried to Manjula [plaintiff herein] and had two daughters. Sujata [defendant.p'No.l} and Kumudini [defendant No.2]. Hanmanthrao"_Aha4t?i;ng died leaving behind a Will dated 16.8.1986; Pi_aintiff+f Manjula seeks for a decree Schedule Properties conten.ding th'at"her an undivided share in the So seeks for partition. if A in 'V l A pp
3. Learned the decree for claim to be gifted by Hanm;in£hreep:,dd:£idg iiietteef to defendant No.2. It is the case'-of that item No.2 is a gifted property 'the lifeltirne of Hanmanthrao. Thereafter '-.,jmprove'1neh.ts areflwrnade. building is constructed. So, upon. As on the date of the gift, a member of the family of Hanmanthrao.
J'S.h.e cannot question the gift by Hanmanthrao, a property i.e., already parted from the family, cannot be "questioned by the daughter--in--Iaw as the husband Pradeep has not questioned the same, as she was not a member of the family as on the date of gift. So, the gift ti/' 4 of the open land under Document dated 6.12.1963 being acted upon, the plaintiff cannot claim righ.t'"~over the said property.
4. After filing of the written st.ate.r:1:e_A5':1~1.tVV,~ _ has got amended and got incorporated item":
of the properties available for-partit'i.o_fr1'.
5. Learned Advocate: the V 2 flfficontend that gift deed is not " Section 122 of the Tranefefs: is compulsorily facts of the case, docuirient the gift deed is not registered.
So, no will defendant No.2 under the gift.» Secondlyjpeontend that eventhough Pradeed- plaintiff has not challenged the gift Cieed,' cl:-allenge itself is not necessary as a Void document need not be challenged. In such a situation, A "il"fibls'e~rvation of the learned trial Judge that, the plaintiff ' estopped from questioning the same as she has come to the family afterwards is not opt. To support his contentions, learned Advocate place reliance on [1] BABU MOTHER SAVAVVA NAVELGUND AND OTHERS V. GOPINATI-I [AIR 2000 KAR 27], wherein Division Bench of this Court was considering the subject.g'o§ an alienation by a c0~parcenar of a undivided prope1fty,'e-this.' Court held if legal necessity is not provediyysaiet bad and not binding on the extentilof ithe persons, who have not sold';__ [2)llS_J!lXPI'i' RAM v. DAYA RAM NAGINJllllliR.r:iL\i'IVV AND [AIR 1961 PUNJAB 528]',;::._.ri'ghts the co~ owners and when the would be attracted Judgment; (3) Anusuis/;1vi.L.;f v.
_ .AND OTHERS [Am 1974 Full Bench of Andhra Pradesl1..High"' Court was considering granting of share to mother or wife at the time of the tlfieljoint family property; [4] GOMTIBAI V. my [CIVIL 1519 (N) or 1930], Apex Court gift of an immovable property should be only
-0 registered document. found the facts of the case wthat there was no written instrument executed by the donor. So, it was not legal transfer. on {he p1'opm'Iy. (.'.Tt<..n'11'c-*1"3(:i 1'i'1z'1t the 1)1'i1"1<'ip1o:s CI"?11i1('?iE1'{"t-'(1 l'1e"1.\«-If to be z;u'1alysc(i from t"I'.'1(..' surru1..n'1(11iiigf, 0i1'm.1n1sE,amCL=s. So, the app1*0z'1<.'1'1 of me ICE}I'§'E(_'f.(Z1.: l..[:icfl;_"
J11(:1g.{c 1'c'qui1'L*s no it'll('1'fL'?}'€'1'}("E". $()a_ pray §T:.\..r,_dVi,$1ni'sSa1 of th L'. 221 p pee-11 .
7. VVc have c*e1rs*i'11_lly "A.g'r<*n:Sim-'ii{;i.__ t_}}1tV 911bI}1iSSi(')l"lS a(i(1ressc(1. i]1éi1'L'.l'i21lV"CjViC1V('I1(Ié'.'})IE1.(fE')d bef()rc us. Identity of the 131*t;>_}j"c:j1:3'r_ 21;n{1 "'r_£:12§i':iL§1':ship of the p211'1.ic[=;:9 \hre not i11.r_iis})1;1.c;\.. .1}: rc,ga_fd :()A b1'1{> H0111 alomr the appeal is..f'i1.cd:'; 'V_Ivu~1}'2c }1g1'11«~<)f{.t,I1¢méib<)ve. the }301'nt Iihatt ar1's C for"o1:1]i"VL:m7isid_¢raiii011 is as uI1dC1"I* "12!/I'1e1}":9'r*M :3lc1':'r1I'g',,f'_/"' pjtoues that she can question _ part.ir§(; Q]"{I'1e pr'bp_§§i'ig; big Hcmmanl'hrao in U19 year 1962 awz1»;e'%:si¢zi:j31e':z.pn :3f7. 1992 in O.S.No. 1 1 1 /1992?"
_ " L'_);.11*"2a:§':v.s\x-'e=§'1* "No" for tile following rezxsonsr in 111.6 tt6L1.:"s(' 0fcvic1cm_'.e.. plaimiiff ST'€11i(.'S she was iV111;_11"':'vi::§:1 1.6 P1"z1=2dt%'c.p in the yceu' I979. P1'adcCp xvas an ..AcI"\:=g>('42;iA1(*. d1'<:('1 in I"}'1E" y<=::2'=1r 1984. Her mo1.l"1c;t1*-in--]aw "«(1ifi4(.1 in the year" }98(). Hex' I"e1l:i'1c:1*-i:"1 «iz"1w-H2-1nx'm1111.}1rau'.> ckicci in the _V021r 1991. Ho)' 1'u1s1.')a1'1('l was 1ivi1'1g at--'1.)z:11'2=1!cly, but' 1:}"1(.*:"c=-? \\'z=2.<; no ('1i.visi011. 2'=1.(:ln.:i!.s the-1E hm"
KLWNV4 ..
8 i'a1'l'1c1"--in--law I'12:'1s lcfi. 2;-1 1'c;§is1.(*1'c)c'i wilfi e.z.13sw<~.1's's 1'ha.1: 1.110 said \=\.='i.1l (t()n*;21i1"1s-"s only 1'1()Ll-SC pr(.)pc1't._*y* in B2-132:1;-11' S11'c:-bi». (,i011it'.=.s t1'12=1.E" z;1c<~()1'('1i11g' to 1116:' 1:)a1'*.i(rL112.11'+s in Ehc A\,.-.'\.I:'.i_'14'i»Vs'}.;rf~ héks 1'cvci\-*e(i Ihc }.:)1'0p<:r1i(rs. In 1.110' Cxamim11Vi._()i'i:i1T1-.Vf"hicf 3 or in me (.'}'(')SS-CX£11"I'1i}1&1'i()I']. 1.116211? ii";-3 noA1.)'1céz=ifi1'i 1"0gé11j(?].__I't'i 7 11,0111 No.2 of the pr0pc>rt_V as 1;o.1ju:)w'i't_is E1(',C}t.1I€"E(fd, 'w1'i;o 11215 acquired, when it is acqui1;{§L($..=V'»V9 hf) (.iVI'v%E;})llt-CZ' that Will was found by the d€E11'.h of Ha.nn1a11t.'r11fa(). keys of tlhe 211mi1'a.h f1'()n_1_. 1: on body of Ha11I11e111fiIV1T117i1%_)'§",$<_£\:.:}?TQi . f%)VV1V"1v:::1§v1(V:"(')171i:1g in 1'eg'a1fd to the -'0n1.y (_)nc'-: l1()L:1se p1"()pcrty d(:s(~.ri_bed' 311111 fcfétr.1'c:d"'_.i.()_ DW.1 is examined. P19 ~=.1f_e..f<:1"$~ '<3: SC.' 1",' 1. and c0n1"e11d 1111211 p1'()ba.te being
--c.)bi.Va.ined-;._"~C01if1~.<2;1c1 that the pieiirlliff herein was also 1'c?1j}'c$'C1'1t.eC1'iii} i§'hC Said case. he was the (:x(:C'u.'t01' of the "Nill. Cmit.g?11(is that 311311? of Pi"€1dt'L'}) was g;{ivc1.1, 1'c=-é[email protected] to "t3I'1c_ 1'_$:1_1't.ict1.11a11's 01' the gg()1d ome1me1'1ts gixrttra to lfhc p1a1?1'1t'iff at t.I'u=r time 01" 111211'riz1;gc-r. S1.at:cs in 1'cg2a.1'ci I0 jiicni No.2 afi. 1)e'21.ggc 10 of his d0p0si1io1'1. (*01'1i.cn('1i11g' it ci.()C.<; 1101 0x1'::;1... (;'.01"1{c1'1dS 't'1'1.2..1.I. ;:)r0pcr1y in w_'x'1i([:11 he resiclcs is a.s':_-;i;_g1ac(i as 38/1. Relies 011 [ix D3 to 12 1 1. The principle in ADUSUMILLI SEET SHMAMMA V. I CHALAMAIAH AND OTHERS is also not _ availability of Item No.2 of the property.-l.:i$.. known to the plaintiff, the factslpf tl._1elé:a4se: ll "
12. In the light of tlxaabove, 't1fieVv.S'utl"nj1lllé,'é,ilon of' the Advocate for the pl.aintiff°lfot.:la lehare m"I1;e':h No.2 in the Plaint Schedule Appeal dismissed.' parties to bear their Owncosts. * Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/W JUDGE cp*