Karnataka High Court
Parwati Kom Vishweshwar Bhat vs Nagaveni Kom Venkatraman Hegde on 13 July, 2011
Author: K.Govindarajulu
Bench: K. Govindarajulu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. CIRCUIT BENCH
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2011
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. 1
JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJULU
RI:: No 39101: 2(li)3( PARi
BETWEEN
I. PARWATI KOM VISHWESHWAR BHAT
40 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURIST
RIO TAROOD, SIRSI TALUK
KARWAR DISTRICT
2. KUSUMA VISHVESHWAR BHAT
27 YEARS. OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK & AGRL
R/O TAROJOD, SIRS1 TALtJK
KARWAR DISTRICT
3. BHARATI VISHWESH WAR BI-IAT
26 YEARS. OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK & AGRL
R/O TAROOD, SIRS) TALUK
KAR WAR DISTRICT
4. GAJANAN VISHWESH WAR BHAT
8 YEARS, OCC:AGRICIJLTURE
RIO TARGOD, SIRSI TALUK
KARWAR DISTRICT APPELLANTS
(BY SRI RAy! 0 SABHAHIT. ADV.;
AND
I. NAGAVENI KOM VENKATRAMAN HEODE
67 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURIST
RIO SOORIMANE, TALUK SIRSI
KARWAR DISTRICT
t
K
9 II
'ii
1 ( ( '4J J 3T
4 1 ) iii 1 i Sub
tW'I VNI'YèI ' IN'
'b tIC I V U S I IHSO' H1N Icl'$III >1% IN'
iN .il \IN 1 19114 I')iIINSN' 4fJ
3 .1 )R1I IC ft 1%dN
' 1 ThI ISdIS UO)dVL()
1
IN IDIWYb 'K SNVIAOI
1-I.>n1%Hc liiflI'c \8VMVfl'I\fl
1) 1 Cl ft ñh 1
1 1' *11% ' c1J( N
•% (%_ '%
.sa -
c lea IL1)Q'V
I
¼114fs HI1SN¼'\ NViiIiS i IVBbIIbI\ t
' fl 1 (t ti )) )
S I a a ) C $V4i
'
1
9
a RI '1 I
Ifl SC ?flfl4
a1U1J\Y3C) ci
1 11 1 1)cI' SN4 C
9 U U'iU k1S ftc' Ii Us
' CD CD C' CD CD - C' C' C' H CD a
CH >< /4 -- - i si H H CD •
C) 9
CD H H S - -- - - -
: --
-- H a C' a C' C'
Li Li• Li CD CD CD (D (H H
CD H a H)
a a a C'
-- CD
C' d. El I C' R C' S a El
El C'1 ElC' E
LHaE2..
DL C' C' CD - rt CD C' a --• --
CD CD H C' C' C' a C' 9 H --
CD CD --CD
Th --n CD --
/1 rt
r± CD --i CD
-- C' •-- --"
CD C) CD rt -- C' --
CD CD
- (Li CD 9 CD CD C' /4 /4 CD H C' H
- CD (C
C' •C' CD -- CD a
--*
El
--*
9 9 --) rt A rv'
CD CD -- =
CD CD ' D
C (C C' CD CD) C)
a 9- 2 9- H
-e t_. -- -
C) CD H 2 C)
-
-9$ El r
a El
CD C' CD 9
El $ I a Ia C'
C-- --
CD --, CD ••-• -
-- C' a
9
2/4 H
--C) CD C' CD 9 CD $ C'9 H CD
H H
--
C' 9- CC a -. El 9 H S C' C'
C'S p- 9 El -
jjH
C' H C' -- Li
H CD CD
- C' H C' C'
CD
9 CD CD C' CD
C' - CD CD
-- C' )7 C' C' C' -- CD -4
-5 _ 9 CD H -
•
H H C' CD
-Ø CD CD
H CD H- S C' H 9 C --
CD CD
aLi a
-- CD --
1 -- -- CD
'r CD -- e ç --
.
-- CD. -- & -- -- --
CD
--* --A --
CD a -- -) CD H
C' a s a ca .- El a /4 CD
Li a a a
CD C' C' Li CD H
S < C'
CD C) H a rt
H •CD
CD C' CD CD
.
Lii
aCD C' a --
C' CD H
E< C' --
H 9 El 9- CD a a C' S S
C) El CDI C- $s a
9 CD C' et --" re
_--SCD
--"
.•cD --I re A
-- a CD -- H a -- CD
CD CD H CD CD <t -- C' C' i --
CD CD CD a
CD CD CD CD C'
are CD C'. CD CD H-
4'
4
4. The learned trial Judge has found the source of title through Ex.D3 and decreed the suit for partition. While decreeing the suit for partition, has not carved out the share in regard to the residential house. The defendants have challenged the finding contending that even in regard to the residential house, there should be a partition in view of repeal of section 23 of the Act. It being not rebutted, the claim of the plaintiffs for partition in regard to the suit house also is maintainable.
So, appeal is allowed.
Sd/a JUDGE P1*