Hanmantappa Fakkirappa vs Basappa Fakkirappaa on 7 July, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Hanmantappa Fakkirappa vs Basappa Fakkirappaa on 7 July, 2010

Bench: H.G.Ramesh

---¢¢n- -u-nu'-run----u---n nu --wc.'-

IN THE HIGH COURT GF KRRNATRKA AT BANGALDRE

DATED THIS THE 6'" DAY OF AUGUST 2001

BEFORE

THE HDN'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MRNJUNATH T:

R.F.A No.1é4i1997.m~-

BETEEEN:

Hanﬁmanthappa Fakkirappa
Bhairappanavar E Talwar
since deceased by LR$.

3)

b}

E)

" Sm£.KéTai§vva
,' Aged ab¢gtT25_yrs
=.D{o 1ata.Hanumsnthapa

Devendra,
Aged abmut 50 yrs

3/D late Hanumanthapa, =.' _
Fakeerappa Ehairapganavar.<"'

Mahanthepp3"_ i,ﬂ '_.%
Aged about 39 yrs' _ Vt
Sid lat: H%numanthapa_'

Fakegrapgé=Bhai:;ppgn;var_VW

Smt.Channab3aav#3,'

Aged a1ar;:m:.TT2a 'yrsf . '

Die lata Hanumanthapa"
Fakgérappa Ehairappanavar

'Eakéer3ppaAﬁhairappanavar

SmE.F§keéfavva

'u Aged ahvut 79 yrs

 Wv'NfQ late Hanumanthapa

"T_Fakéerappa Ehairappanavar

u,vT ﬁll are Residents ef Devanur,
'v_Kundgal Taluk

.T'Tx(By Sri M.Ram Bhat, Adv.)

...APPELLANTS

v>Iv1vNav>| :19 RIDOD H'.-JIHA \1)lV.lVN2l\1)l so 1HndD'H9lH \'I)|V.l.\1N2l\1)l so nlnoa Ham mmmmnam .|n .3...'-.m unlu .;.\..............\.~ .. ..........



RT' OF KARNATAKA'1*H|G'H..-{COURT°OF~«iKARNATAKA-¥H|GH-.COURT=OF-TKARNATAKAUHfGH=TCOURTF-OF>KI\R«NATAKA HIGH COURT:-«-'0'-F KARNATAKA »Hl(

END:

1. Basappa Fakkirappaa Bhairappanavar
E Telwar, Age: ?ﬂ yrs:

2. Fakkireppa Baseppe Bhairappanaver .Wi*_
Age: 45 yrs; _Ml_ '' i

3. Matuteppa Baseppe Ehairappeneveni
E Talwar, Aged about 35 yrs}, 5

4. Ningappa Basappa Bhairagﬁanavafrfiv."
@ Telwer, Aged ebeut 25 y£s;l "

'1.'-1
I

Aaayavantappa Basaeﬁa Bhai:ép§aﬁavar

@ Talwar, Aged aecu:-23,y:s; 2_, 2

6. Shivappe EeeappauéHeifa§tenever3if
Aged ebeut ?ﬂ yrs; €'" "_'a"«w,t

All are agricultgtiets;5fff
Residents pf Qevane:,_" ' ._t _: -
htundg-3l:'iTaluk.,Vif.  V" .  . . RESPONDENTS

(By sriVS,$;A:ahatti;we&v;_£er R-2 to R-5; R-3 ta R--5,(sd))\.' ' *.' This_ Rﬁﬁx filed "ugs 96 cf CPC-- ageinat the ».judgment_ and eecree dated 17.3.94 passed in 0;S.NU.25E/35 en the file Df- the Addl.Civil "xqudge, HpBli,"dismissing the suit fer partition. u.xtThieiﬁEAf¢eming an fer hearing this day, the Court made tee following:

JUDEHEHT '*ef*This appeal is by the plaintiff. I The ':=pleintiff filed a suit for partitien and seﬁarate i "«;passeseion claiming half share in all the suit preperties. Accerding tn: the pleint averments, the first defendant is the elder brether of the JL-

VLVNHVX $0 .RInO3 HQIH V)IV.I.VN}IV)l :lO 12lnO3 I-IQII-I \'nl\-Il\-I'M)l\-nl .ln I)lnn'i- ﬂnlu \-nI\-n\-n.I)IH\I .ln I)lI"If\"\ unlu \-l\l\-Ill-ll\l)l\-l\I .ln' nnnnn unn. ..w-. --wwun- are I\r|l\IIr'|lrll\r' plaintiff .L Defendant Nos. 2 to 6 are the children of the first defendant. Three residential houses and three agricultural lands are involved in suit. out of these six properties A ' residential houses are admitted, tc 4' ancestral properties. out of parcel of three agricultural lands'-.. 4'7/S measuring' 32 guntas situatiedr nextanuir village is admitted as property.

According to the plaintAA...air_ermeVn*i;s ""'a."'h:cuVse has been purchased r::¢:;:epep ?'m% Chavadi in the name of "for a sum of ' Rs.200/--. siiﬁared in Kundgol village measuring. 1' '5"~.V'acre-54" and 9 guntas is admittedly a 'iteinante.dA7,land. The tenancy was x s_tandin9':e_'}¥in__:' the ' name____..:af the first defendant." Agricultural_"~nland situated in Survey No.12-1/3 measuri:ng.i'4V.Vacr.es=.V'situated in Betadur village is V'.'-jpipurghaseid 'ii'-tithe name of the first defendant in year V"1§6O from out Vincd gkao Bhimarao According to the plaintiff the Vitenanted land was taken on lease. on behalf of the /' family and the same was being cultivated "jointly by the first defendant as well as the 69/.

\1)|V.l.VNHV)I :lO .I.HﬂOD .H9lH' V)l\'I.l.VNHV)I'.:IO'f.T.lEll'lO'3 «,H9IH .»V)I\'I.l\'IN!lV)|e:IO. l.I.llﬂODlH9lH \'I)|\'I1VN)I\'I)I Jo 1)ll'.I()f')-'I'-ll,-3|]-I Huuiuuuuu ..|n- nlnn-1 plaintiff. The other landpﬁ/haﬁg/been purchased eut of the joint family" income. It is alsoifh statmﬂ in the plaint that the first defendent;_:tT~ being the Eartha cf the joint famiiytfha§i"t purchased_ a tracter and trailer,iihea:in§_ NtthEti"i*

2 .54 3 anti 3 54 4 , after clctai " I all " «. ' assistance frem Syndicatexj*Eanﬁ}, 'Kﬁnd§elL'$ Therefore, he ccntends ,that :he:iis°aentitleﬂ..fer half share in all the Hsuit_f§1e§efties. The defendants have files a statement centeneing that there was nc,1jcfnt'-faniLy;»asi sﬁch between plaintiff and all the ancestral gfepefties were ﬁartitiened in the year 1950. Afte;"l95h;@ theg parties are residing separatelyhx %ugccGfdingiv:tc them, the first defendant has Qurchased a residential house from Allisah;'cQt ef his self--acquired funds. It is *aW,31so ithetevicasai that the tenanted land was a. _hepaesenal gfegefty ef the first defendant; since 7 the i"acqcirea the lease hold. right in his lttgiheitiaaal capacity .and according tc him, the hit'-_ plaintiff cannct claint any" right in respect of ilvthe said agricultural land. It is else contended by the defendants that Survey Ne.1E4i3 was W vinuvnuvx so lanoa H9lH V)|V.l\'INE|\'I)I::l._O -nlnoa HEJIH V)|\1.l.VN2l\'I)l so umnd unlu m..m....,....\. Jfl u....-. _.;._.;_-...l... V.i..-s.-

---wtna wn I\l-llIIin--|u1--|I\n--I- nun --w---'-

-larva': V l\l'Il\lIl'|lA'll\l'I . n ll - uwcn-. in .,l\rII\Ia'rIlrIl"'I t§_ , purchased by the first defendant from one vined Ran Bhimarao Kulkarni out cf his self--acquireq";[ funee in the year 1960. Therefore the plaiygggitif'-.:"tj"\j~e,ye, cennet claim any share tn the said proﬁertigita Leatly} it ie centended .by the udefendéete tenet :5 ' the signature of the plaintiff' west teken. wtitetﬂgx;A availing the bank loan_from the Syhdicate,Benk,":

Kundagel, only as a gua;antor_§ﬁd net eS=a_jeint borrower. Based on the_Aabevau*pl¢aqings the fcllawing issues were framee by the Triel Court:

"lei p:e'~'.:e" that the family of ﬁlefﬂtiff and ﬁefendants are stillt, a 41 ~ _ .\ _ .~e : edK, ' .__i--BfV.De:_deendeﬁts. prave that 3 A famiiy" pattit;pp_ has taken place ff hetweeﬁ etﬁf. and the defendant Ne.1 in E¥A;7 gees plaintiff prove tﬁat _f~ Plot Ne;1,2 and 3 are purchased by the v*xjeint family funds and v.P.C.Nc.276 Zlﬁeuee was constructed on it by the _H§nint family funde?

.V3*'_ v>|v1vNav)| so mnoa H9lH_ v>|_\11vN_2I\1)I so Luna:-Hen-I V)|V.l\1N2l\1)l':IO ianoa u-mun vslvmum-nu' .|n mam unlu m..........,.m. .|n .,......--. DR 2~B} Does defendant Na.1 prove that the said properties are his self- acquired and separate properties?

3--A) Does Qlaintiff @EﬁVE tﬁ$t"ii V.P.C.No.l5E and 151 and sti1;~,§oiqt;"="

family praperties? __ OR 3-33 Baas defendant 7N¢.l trait that in.pcrtinn VPCiﬁ9.l5ﬁ_Qaa_allQtted V to the. defendant N¢§1"'énd*£v3c=_ng}157 was allotteJff_to ;'P12ihti:f- iimﬁi the partition aﬁﬁiﬁtﬁgfét ape" ﬁb,imtram§jaint family prbﬁeftiéé? :"'*u iii' ' 4--A)_ ﬁts: zplaintiff prcve that R.S.Nﬁ}47ﬂS af'ﬁ§vén@f is still a joint family pfmQe:tf?f' ﬂ a¢f%)« peas Wﬁéfendant Na.i prove 'tﬁat win yiéﬁo " vpartition the half Rpdftiéh7¢fu§jS.Na.47j5 was allotted to the_ start) bf plaintiff and plaintiff 7_ has ﬁaid his half share ta defendant "»xNa.1?V"

5-A) Baas plaintiff prove that '""R.s.Nn.1sox2 at Kundgol is -a joint family tenanted land?

RV.

_V>|V1VN_lI.V>I :10 Lanoa H9IH v>Iv.L\1MzI\1)I so 1ano:> H9lH «\1)I\-I1\-Iuaml.» .m umm unlu ...\...............\.AL ;. .......- _..-._t.-----.;__ -__-_'.~ I9 COURT "OF KARNATI-\KA_ HAIGH'-ICOURT 'OF' KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF-"KARNATAKA* HIGH'"C_0MURT ~OF«'7KAR.NATAKA « HIGH -COURT' -;OFf1<KARNATAKA Q. OR 5-Bf 'Baas defendant Na.i prove that it is a exclusively his tenante@mifHiii land sf daft.Na.1?

*6~A) Dmes plaintiff: ﬁjévo Etna: .V V R.S.N0.124/3 is purchasedz from "tng_v_~'*ii jsint family funds? .

6-3) Dmes dafenaantﬂaNa,; ﬁfbvaw"

that it is a selfsacguirsﬁ ﬁréﬁérty of defendant Na,1? "Hf Hit» . HHH H 7--ayi»pé§a¢~ﬁi;igti:rft§:a§é that tractor _tsaiief7'ﬁs;MEZ:85i3w and 8544 are jaint family grspartiési ?:E). sass 'ﬁéfsnaant» Na.1 prove that it is his sélf¥écquired_property? ié} Haas plaintiff prmve that he is 'tnéviﬁgi~ﬁgi£, share in all the suit .Kpfapefti¢s?

xgéi Bass plaintiff prave that he is VH _sﬁtitled to half separate passession in Hiths suit prsperties?

10) Bass plaintiff is eﬁtitled ta future mesne prnfits?

11) Te what relief partiee are entitled tea»

2. The plaintiff has been examined as P§H{ fﬂi

1. He has alee examined one witneee aH3_.i"P...h"é.2'~. The first defendant has been exaﬁiﬁed,ae:D;Q~15"a In additien te that two more witﬁﬁseﬁﬁ haV3°beeﬁ¢"~i examined as n.w--2 and»D.W-3_,Iﬁftet.appreﬁiatihgi the eral and decumentary Vevideeéﬂ; the» trial Ceurt has dismissed the eeit;_§eeiﬁeiegg:ieved DY the said judgment and decree the ereeent appeal is filed by the Qleintiffg*_ .;:'.

3. 'eI_ha§eqhea:dkthe learned Advocates for. the appellaht_ ies ~ well ""as -the respondents. Accordihg~_ tea ,;ne* leatned Ceuneel fer the 1ia§§ellaht;,:tﬁe trial 'Court has net leoked into the e;al:aea'eeeementary evidence adduced by the vﬂiﬁe contends that the defendants who 6: age

--if,plead that the partition was in the year 1950, i".heﬁe_failed to preve the same.

4. According to the learned Ceunsel for i' the appellant, the trial tourt has failed to ieéﬁf' \ 6/ b s.

S at».

U3"

\1.)|'V.IV.\'IN2l\'l)l-:lO_..|.E|ﬂOM3A HQIH V)|V.l.VNHV)| :lO. 18003 HEDIH. \1)l\11\1N2|\1)l':lO .l.HnOD H9IH V)|V.I.VN§|V)| .I.}ﬂ'IOD' H9lH V)|V1VNHV)I ib .l.lIﬁO3 1 COURT OEKARNAIAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA |-||G|-| coup-r 0|: KARNATAKA the evidence of P'.h'-2, who is an official witness summoned by the plaintiff, to produce the_____' /loan application submitted jointly by plaintiff and the first defendant, 'to 'V' the plaintiff and the first Jd,efendan't'= if members of a joint, family coparceners and that they availed loan' the Bank to purchase a tractor _ and';

According " to the i learned for" "the appellant, though the has produced the ordef'«apof the Kundgol, he did not deposition to show thatin ' 'respect of 'Survey Na.180/2 uas" 4acquifFe.di in his individual capacity and" of the joint family.

cont«s:nds~ that Survey No.180/2 is' ._ A. """ W W tenanted land-.,acq_uired"in the name of the first defendant w'hov.._u&*the Kartha of the Joint family, He further contends that as per i' eviden'ce of the defendant, the said land was

-aillontted to him in the partition, in the year as the land was taken on lease and that the Vffe.:_,'V,i"»d-efendant in his individual capacity, has failed to prove the partition in 1950. According to the 6/ . V)IV.|.\1N§IV)I :lO .l.Hl'IOD HQIH V)|V.lVN2l\1)|' :lO".|.lll-10iD'H9IH _\'I)lV.I.\'IN}lV)| .:l.O e.l.2lfIOD*H9lH -V)lV.I.VNHV)l:f:lO«..l.l.IﬂODi H9lH 7\'l)|\'I.|.\1NHV)|, :lO .lHl'I'OC H COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA appeal... if 10 learned Counsel for the appellant, this land has to be treated as the property of the joint family and should have granted a decree in respectlof 'the said property. Lastly, it is contends;d."by.i'y:'--- appellant's counsel that the firstyyyydyefendarxtai'_»wh'o is admittedly jesﬁ/the elder brother at and kartha of the joint family, has acquired thaiii property in his name in the joint family income fig,-.1;¢ed any material to show said property in' ths":yje-ar his self-

acquired runas}f»naésadia§*,g§'palms the first I defendant «has separate-.'busi'ness or income of his own to "a'cq11ir'e~ Based on this submission he»._4reqnestie_d" Court to allow the the learned Counsel for the %respond'entjcontends that the appellant'-"plaintiff .fai1ed--~:,to prove that Survey bIo.180/2 was lease by 'the first defendant on behalf . plaintiff also. He 'further contends that plaintiff has not placed any material to show withat the said land was acquired on behalf of the 6%"

V)IV.lVNElV)| :|O '.I.?:ll'IO3¢ H9|H . V)lVJ.\'IN'2l\'D|' ':lO' .-I.HlﬂO'D- H'.-DIH' V)|\'I.l.\1NH\'I)l' :lO' '.l.Hl'IO3.rH9IH ~\'I)l.V.I;VNHV)I :lO'!.l.Hf|OAD 'H9IH" V)|V.I;VNHV)l :|OV .l.2lﬂOI fc£.._dstemnination 'by this Court. 1 COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKI joint family "consists of the plaintiff and the first defendant. He also contends that the_..__ iplaintiff as well as the first defendant, divided all the ancestral properties in 'i"

1.950 and from 1950 the partiespppppare separately and enjoying the portion:-A~af1lot'ted'- their favour. He also contends' th:at'i' plaintiff has not proved that eras acquired by the first d':e'fend_ant thexjoint family funds. He further bank officials have ga obtaining the signature? the}-.._fi'rs.t""'d_efei:dant as L a' joint O borrower inste'aoE-V "a "gpuarantcanii In support of his contention on a judgment of this Court .::i.n_ an 1215, in man $B1IIVA.E§§uv.JkllU irs..._sn:#.I:vAsA V1'l'1'0BA man not ' AID 0!!-[IE and therefore reque_5"tsp.iit'hi'sv_..V_¢ourt to dismiss this appeal. ..6,._ After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties the following questions will arise «Q/H \1)lV.|.VNU\'I)| :lO'.I.'2ll'|OD HEJIH 'V)I\'I.l.VN}lV)| :lO; .l.HﬂO3;H9IvHI «\1)lV.lVNH'V)|v :lO .l.Hl'|03' HEDIH 'V)|V.I.VN2l\1)| :|O' .I.2lﬂOD H9IH V)|V.l.VN?.|V)I :|O e.l2ll.'IO I COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OFKARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA '7.

12 whether the defendants prove that there was a partition in the year 1950_...__ between the plaintiff and the defendant?

whether the plaintiff pgeyes '.the;£T_';t'he it survey 240.180/2 was taken :1-en? 1a.aseV"-fies'-ee.___t i the benefit of the jpiint consisting of it "i the respondent _i i i it whether the pi_aintiff presets; that the sI.Irvey~' "EsI:eV}:'12e=/3; -efas'<e by the "of the first I V'Id'efeAnd}:gntV'::&§ut "t,h'e amily income? Then'-.t4elati_enshi§§'i' of the partie is not disputed, The "existence of three residentiali ﬁ5159pe1*tie.5,: '«neIIIe«1y vs»: 156, 157 and 159 and 47/5 measuring 32 -guntas are $31.30 her, in "dispute. What is disputed by the 'defendant is that, there was '.a partition shim and the plaintiff in the year 1950. . .,,t_he first defendant is able to prove that a ViI«:..uiV"'p4ax'tition was drawn between the plaintiff and the " first defendant in the year 1950 it goes without ﬁS/ ' \'I)|\'I.I.VNHV)I :lO .|.Hl'IOD H9|H .\'I)|V.I..\1NllV)| F;-IO' '.l.llﬂO'3:H9'IH*V)I\1.lVNllV)|I:lO .I.}lﬂ0DrH9lH vV)|V.-l.VN-llV)l :lO .I.lll'|OD 'H9IH 'V)|V.|.VN2|V)|-.:|O'.|.l|l'IO

-I count or KARNI-\ll-\Kl-\ HIGH counu or KAKNAIAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA saying that any property acquired after 1950 by the first defendant are to the treated' as a self acquired properties and the plaintiff has to. non'-suited on that ground.

8. To prove the partition :o.f'_§ defendant No.1 has relied upen Exi."D1v'.' u said to be a "letter written"i's'..;hy addressed to the firstd.efendant:;_ plaintiff who is an illiterate has in his deposition that,§« cohte€nt.s 'of"vii'.the._'_:$'aid letter were not known the' signature « of "him. has put the signature at" the _' the first defendant to enable hiiznditoiiii the same before the i7evenue..«;V?5uti:oritiesVi '!'he"said letter is attested' _,i:Mal'les=hVappa Kalappa Gajanur. ' Malleshappa Kalappa.___.Oa'j:anurV.:'-has not been examined by the kVeVde_fenda'nt. 'B},ir:"'looking into the said document the Voannott cone to the conclusion that there ii'-"Viifasaa-nartition between plaintiff 'and the first V. "defendant. This letter reads as if the first ii"'»»duefendant was cultiuating the _land of the plaintiff for a period of 10 yeast and,t~hat he had 6/ ' V)IV.I.VN?.|V)l :lOs.I.2ll"lO3?H9_IH \'I)lV;|.V.N'}lV)I iO'i1HﬂO3;H9lHi.\1)lV.I.VNHV)|'*:lO1.I.l|l"IO3 HHEJIH '\1)l.V.|.VN}lV)l :|O".|.Hl'|O3 H9|H V)IV.l.VNl|V)|':lO '.I.HﬂO£ 1 COURT _OF KARNATAKA I-HGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA V 14 agreed to give possession of the property in the year 1970. But the plaintiff has stated in his___ deposition that the contents of the said was not made known to him and that the same5_TM§fas,1'p:'--- 'V' not written in his presence.

plaintiff is an illiterate but he it put his signature. Except puttingi;".hi's it he is not in" a position understand the contents of the 'said ddcumentntiiiipi 'eased. on til'-'§::'.in-1 one cannot say that there wa_s'i','a:i between the plaintiff and"'thje first the year 1950. Ex.P+2i [and ;é~22ifg;§_*summenad by the V 1aintiff'Bank;"'VV»:€uVnd o1. Ex,P-21 P V . 9 and Ex.P-V¥22'* iare"':j'n.ot»e.::"di'sputed- by the first defendant. VV"P.hesedo:ouments are executed in favour ,. off Syndioatepi Bank, Kundagol § while Q f:i.tra'otor and trailer by the " first defendé_nt."'v4:°*;n;.§'~é1 is a memorandum of agreement xwviexecuted by first defendant and the plaintiff Vytith"-tithe sons of the first defendant in Syndicate Bank; Kundagol "wherein the has been shown as joint borrower.

P-22 is a pro-note executed by: the plaintiff and the first defendant in-favour of the bank. 6/ Admittedly} gthe g' j u'\1)|V.I.\'IN2|V)l :lO'*.|.Hl'IO3 HEJIH V)|V1VNliV)I' :lO' .l8nO'D.H9e|H' V)lV1\1N2:|V)l ::lO..l.HﬂO3.H9lH». V)|V.l.VNll\1)|' :lO:.l.l|ﬂOD H9lH \'I)|V.I.VNllV)| :IO .|'.}.|ﬂO COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CUUKI Ur Iu-\KNAu-\Iu-\- mun LUUKI ur l\l-\KNl-\Il-\l\l-\ mun Luulu ur nu-uuvnu-uxn I-nun LUUKI ur IU-"(NI-\ll-\IU\ 15 These two documents summoned by the plaintiff from the bank, clinches the_ whole issue, if there_..___ were to be a 'partition in the year 1950;

was no need or necessity for the firstdefehd'§§£V:-g:.._ :"

to get the signature of the pJ_.aintiff' it application submitted to the bank 3 'A loan as 'a joint borrowerﬁ Theo without considering these two_'Vi'docuzhents'-- held that there' was 'a partfition.'_'ii :t_i:e_i'~--.year 'i1§50. There was no basis for give such a finding ;*'iii"g:._jfievi*._ of .E'.x.P--22.' The first . that the p1ai«ntifffira"s'~e.1§eque:Lé:«;t'ed'*.,to signature only as a guara"nto.t_ to J.1'.oan for the purchase of tractor not ~'he-envgable to show under what ciijcumstiancesg the""--pJ,aintiff is shown as a' joint» botrowec. 2 "

Therefore, I have to hold that the defetidant has failed to prove the partition =19eo' between the plaintiff and the first \\'Q/ A V)|V.lVN}lV)I .:lO7.I.'l|l'|O3' H9IH .'V)|\'IJ.\'IN2lV).| »:lO'*-.l2ll'|O.D HQIH V)|V.I.VN§lV)l :lO .I.l|l'IOD H9IH t \'Dl\,1.I.VN}l\'I)|'-:lO .lHl'IO3 -H9IH" \1)lV.I.VNH\'l)|i i0 ?.I.llﬂ( 1 uuunu Ur KAKNI-\Il-\l\l-\ nlurl Luulu ur KAKNAIAIU-\ I1".-;vrI cuukl Or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 16

10. The' next question that arises for the consideration of this Court _is

1./ -Whether Survey No.180/2 was ;.

the [first defendant in his ' capacity "as a tenant? and

2. whether the plaintiffs' cannot make:

claim' in the share r_espect' said land?

Though the first "defendant..:sta.ted:'.._thaVt I the said land was acquired his individual ' capacity, .,§;e*vevhasj5.'noi2;,3 iiataywriuiateria-l.to show how and under, acquired the lease hold right theix' admittedly, the first V defendant this the - brother and he was the' uk'artha._,ii"of'_F :the"~._Vj_oint family. when a kartha acqiuir'e-S_%.iia'v4:prop§er*ty in his name the presumption iwiunder the lawiis that the same has been" acquired oniiehalf of the joint fanuily, unless and contrary is proved. In the instant case___5except producing the order. passed by the Tribunal, Kundgol, the first_ defendant has -- not placed any material to show ' that the lease <1/' V)lVlVN}l\f)I :l'O '.|.2lﬂO3 H9lH-* V)|V1VNllV)|»::lO"1}inO3 TH9'IH '\1)I\1.lVNH\1)| :lO,i'\ill'IOD- H9lH V)|VJ.VNllV)l :lO'.l.}ll'|O3 HEJIH" V)|V.I.VNH\'I)I :lO -.l.}.|l'IOI r1 LUUKI ur Kl-\KNl-\Il-\IU-\ HIUH cuulu or KARNATAKA HIGH 'COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT 'OF KARNATAKA 17' hold right vof the propertyn is an individual pright. The first defendant could have examined_ the owner of the land who leased out the land intota his .favour. The .first defendant -has alscimﬁsffijé-"

produced Form No.7 filed by him hefore.theT1and'p Tribunal, Kundgol. 'He has also not proddced at [_i Wcopy of his deposition, Vdeposedaiheforsbjﬁheiri Tribunal.

11. According to me, if these doodnsnts had been produced by the.first defendant, they would go against him; yThereiore;<an_adverse'inferenceh -- ' has to be drawn against the first defendant. In the circumstances; fzptn§v§f=ta' hold that as the land is standing_in_the"name of the kartha of the joint fanily the isame hill be enure to the' VhenefitﬁofFthe_piaintiff.

p12; The 5next question' that arises for "57¢¢§s:ugxa£i5n of thisi Court is whether Survey 4iiNp;i24/d3acquired by the first defendant is his hjxseiffacquired property. 'The first defendant has letiin any evidence to show that he had a :separate business of his own or an income of his VS/' V)|V.|.\'INElV)l :lO .-l.'§ll'IO3 HQIH .V)IV.I.VNll\'/)|'.I.2lﬂO'3 H9IH 'V)lV.lVN§lV)l:-:lO .l.Hl'IOD' -HEJIH. V)lV.|.VN2lV)l*:lO .I.llﬂODrH9IH V)|V1VNHV)i1:|O .I.}.|l'IOI ..ru..-.--u.--uu--u uuvun uvunl Vr l\l-"(III-Ill-\l\l-\ 2+4' .1 " = defendant.

18 own. According to the plaintiff the parties had no independent» income: except the agricultural income which they were deriving. The counsel for the appellant contends that if year 1960 the sons of the firstV.:defendantlin-ere." earning and out of ' their 'income the survey 'No.124/3 was purchasec:i.__"'---.V..Thei'v-eir"idenceiw~.i._'o--n record shows that none of theschildren' ~ the first defendant "were earning 'thiisa piece of land was purchased in first defendant. Sinceiitjhew stamp standing in the name of? utn:§"';e»j"o'i'nt gt;d"' as the first _' defendant p?§;ace:d»..:"any'iiiiaterial to show that the said . landdjiaév«..at:qLxired out his self- acquired' funds}. the Vppresnmption under the law is V t_h'a~t_ th.ef?.sa_id .__propervty.»ha's been acquired out of i the-._joititpfamiipoincome. when he had no separate incornegoff cannot be inferred that the viwsaid propeprty a self--acquired property of the ' Admittedly, 'B' Schedule the tractor an trailer' has. been Vipdrchaised after availing the loan from the iiejsyndicate Bank, Knndgol for which the plaintiff "is also one of the joint borrower. Therefore, it r</ \1)IV.|.VNllV)| :lO .I.2lﬂO3 H9lHa VXV1VNHVM"i.O'1Hﬂ$D H9IH \'I)|\1.lVNH\1)| :lO .l.}.lf|OD H9lH V)|\1.i.VN?iV)l A:lO .l.2ll'lO3e H'.-')lH '\1)l\-I1\'IN)lv)I an ulnna COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CUUKI Ur IU-\I(I'll-\ll-\l\l-\ rllun LUUIKI Ur l\l-\I(l'lI-\II-\l\l-\ nlun uuulu Ur Iv-uuvn|HI\H nuun guy." Ur "AK" V I-III-\l\l-I ',_,'Y»' 19 is to be-heid that the tractor has been acquired~\ by the joint family income. of the plaintiff an'd'"~._ the first defendent.

13. In the result, the judgment atd eett§gfF "

uf the trial court is hereby set éeide atd tee *iVt appeal is allowed and the sﬁit of tﬁe.pIeiﬁtif£= is decreed as prayed fer. Parties to tear_their costs, a A i i __,,,.~»'""" ' 7 M,/.;m xi"

'j Ti A A' ..... .. V

-\1)I\'f.|.VN}lV)| :|O RIITOD H.9IH.' V)I\'I.l.VNHV)l»:lO' '.|.}lﬂ0'D<H9IH V)|\1.|.V.N§lV)I :lO'..I.ll-I'IO.'J H'.-')IH '\'I)IV;|.\'IN2l\'I)| 10 ;7.|.lll'IO3 H9.lH5\1)lV.|.\1N}.|V)|i :lO '.I.llﬂ.C

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court