Sri Madappa vs Sri Shivamallappa on 14 February, 2011

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Madappa vs Sri Shivamallappa on 14 February, 2011

Bench: L.Narayana Swamy

I-CHAMARAJANAG.AIR I)IS'1*IéIc":_*--57;1 I I.

IN '1'I"{E£I--IIIGH CGIIIG' OF KARNATAKA, BANGAI,-ORE£__
DATTED TI-IIS ON 'I'I~~II~: 14¢"-I DAY OF FEBEELIAEZY S£_9I:"§:.}{ :g:
BEFORE    K
THE HON'BLI+3 MR. JUSTICE L,NAI;AyA.'I§A'vS§ifAI§I3'.'.1}_  
R.S.A.N0.437 0:15-2(:ﬁ"G9:  A' A   
BETWEEN: TV " 2

SRLMADAPPA. 
SON OF HANGALADA SASAPSA, 
AGED ABOU'I'41YEARS,   _   ;
RESIDING AT HONGALLI v1LLA.GSjj- ' 
GUNDLUPET 'I'AI,UK,._  -  ; I 
<::I~IAMARAJANAGAR--I)ISTR;:c'Iﬁ.-- 5.71 {:1 1";  .. _ 

S   . .,      :APPELLAN'I'
{BY SRLVINOD PRASA'I3;?;A1)v.j;..K    V. "
 :  . . I .  'I 
SRI.SI~IIvAI\xI--ALI.AI>I>A;   j 
SON OF SRI.KoNGA1APPA«. I "
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,  '  

RSSIDING AT HONGALLI vII;I.AGI3_.
G:IND1II.:4I3ETS'TAwK,'  . I

, . V .._     :RESPONDENT
(BY SRI:K.'%iAf3ADARA1..JAIV, ADV.)

RSA FILED '31}I;}S. .1 00 or cpc, AGAINST THE: JUDGEMENT &

 I3I:;cRI«:13',"'-I3AfIfE.I:»': 18«»12--2008, PASSED {N RIA.NG.37/2008 ON"
-.j';-.I.f'I~I:S._I«"I1,I:: C»_F':-THI2. PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACT COURT,

I _ 'CHAEViA.IRAJA£*3AGAR. DISMISSING THE APPEAL FIIJEZD AGAINST
".__"'I'.I»IS. ;;¥.;:">t;_«Iaf,I\A1%:m" AND DEGREE I>A'rI--:I): 0608,2005, PASSED IN
 OS;E\30.1"8'/200.1., ON 'i'HE I«"'II.If«_°: OF' THE CIVIL JUDGE, {JRDN} 3:

SMFC, §(}UNDI,UPE' 1

TPEIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HFlARII'\§G THIS DAY, THE

 "*.;C1(}UI«U' DEZLIVEJRED TI--£I3: f~'OLLOWH\IG:

?

I

1



R)

JUDGMENT

The eippellant. is the defetmlemt has eha1}e11g:e«e1f'~~.Vvthe concurrent jtldginent passed by both the Ct)Lzrts__AZﬁVe1e§}ﬁ.. :"

2A The suit filed by the respor1r;;ie:r1t_i4s ft)"; d1ee'tara.t§,en.ttAsri.d ' injurmtion in respect of the suit _sehed:;1e property'. Itfis "the; ease of the plaintiff that the iptoperty is an ancestral property. After. the his father Sri Kongalappa, the plgtintiff 'iI3}i.€31'viii€VdA Since from the date of death fKfV)n'g'a1appa, in the year 2003, he in ' enjoyment. During the year 1996 since the tdet'e11<i4enit.:ti?'as interfering with the peaceful pessessieinv, he fi1ed*OV§__'N0.35/96 for injunction, which Came ti;be;dis:r:i.ssed..:f0r_default in View of the fact that after filing vof the"-wi's1iit.fij-: defendant restrained himself from i'n'terferenee'§A.;Avfter the death of his fetther he noticed througi Accountant: that on the st:rength of the wit} said to 'been eXeCi.1t.ed by his Iate fatheri the defendant get V""..,er§'te1'ed his name in the record ef rights and he has made it &i'{.§.(':I}1fJi. to interfere. Hence he ﬂied the suit. 9 E

3. On behaif of the de.fe:1*idar1t:, he filed wr;it.t:er1 st.:it_emeni:

and denied the ave€meiit:s iiiaxcie by the p§E1iI'}Ei:fl:' li'"l:€. has eonteiided tha_£: the plaintiff himself is not S*0V'_11.ll'()1l'l i'lalt_el' Kongalappa and he is not in pOSS€:?S£3l0Iv"1lléiDdl"€Dj'0yfl"i£i'Ilvflid)? the ' property. On the other hand, jVi'athei'~..Qi'"'-the pIa:.ifit'if§' Kongalappa executed a will OIid"2:S'.3.1989_'ilh-lfa\tt)§t1I' of the defendant, accordingly got'l'llfﬁS:lj'.<i1Vé1ne enviféféd in the revenue records and prayed fer_Vdi.si1"{Vissal'(;»f._' the suit.

4. Before. examined himself and also i1T3de}9§i'¢'l5:leli'*21 ?.; to PW--3 and he has produced F21. The defendant also examined of the other witnesses DW«~1 _wit.i*1es'sv-----Mile registered the will and DWM2 was seitibe was the attesting witness. DW--5 is an " V' ijnde_pendent Q.3.,afl'heV'"tri21l court by the judgment and decree dated 'decreed the suit- An observation was also made in V 13 that if anyjlldgmezat oi' erders passed in favour of plaititiftl it is not binding on the ether LRS of the decreased 5 3' V:

Z Eiongalappa Whe are not parties to the present suit 3.:'I'1_€i they are alwaye at lileetftj;-* te put faith their ease 'pefere'..tiée"e§)ttf*tpet law.

6. This Ceurt framed the follottﬁngl'etalaetaiitijal .

eflaw on 18.3.2010 ass followsf

1) Whether the First Appellate Court having held that Ke.t§gja']appa» ﬁtiet have an absolute right ientilrvhel'teetasideration of the rptopertitz, appellate eotttt eoneider that to the exteagt had the right of tltetefore the appellant Woulé Vltxalve claim the right to that exte-at t1rV1lol~erl fegistered Will'? 7;:Fi'F1f1'e 'spit leehletlule property was the ancestral prepei*t_3tof: and the fact that the plaintiff was the ll'l"""'e0le cOp.arce:l~et the property has not been disputed. When " ijthel'plpaintitfv.lrlas proved that he is the sole male eopareener of thel'pV:'0pe:rty, he is entitled to get his name entered in the fe've.r3:;te reeerds. The Will which is said te have been lllﬂexeeuted in favour of the defendant is bad in law for the %

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court