Karnataka High Court
Poojari Chandrappa S/O Late Pooojari ... vs Smt.Ningamma W/O Poojari Joknal ... on 3 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100966 OF 2019 (DEC)
BETWEEN
POOJARI CHANDRAPPA
S/O LATE POOOJARI ITTIGEPPA
AGE.76 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ITTIGI VILLAGE, TQ. HUVINAHADAGALI,
DIST. BALLARI, PIN CODE-583219
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. C. V. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT.NINGAMMA
W/O POOJARI JOKNAL MAREDAPPA
AGE.66 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULATURE
R/O KOTE AREA, ITTIGI VILLAGE
TQ. HUVINAHADAGALI,
DIST. BALLARI, PIN CODE-583219
2. SMT. POOJARI LAKSHMAMMA
W/O POOJARI RANGAPPA
AGE.63 YEARS,
R/O. ITTIGI VILLAGE,
TQ. HUVINAHADAGALI
DIST. BALLARI PIN CODE-583219
3. SRI. POOJARI HANUMANTHAPPA
S/O LATE POOJARI RANGAPPA
AGE.40 YEARS,
R/O ITTIGI VILLAGE,
TQ. HUVINAHADAGALI
2
DIST. BALLARI, PIN CODE-583219
4. SRI. POOJARI ITIGEPPA
S/O LATE POOJAR RANGAPPA
AGE.36 YEARS,
R/O ITTIGI VILLAGE,
TQ. HUVINAHADAGALI
DIST. BALLARI, PIN CODE-583219
5. SRI. POOJARI SUBHASH
S/O LATE POOJARI RANGAPPA
AGE.34 YEARS,
R/O ITTIGI VILLAGE,
TQ. HUVINAHADAGALI,
DIST. BALLARI, PIN CODE-583219
6. SMT. POOJARI PUSHPA
W/O BASAVARAJA D/O RANGAPPA,
AGE.32 YEARS,
R/O ITTIGI VILLAGE,
TQ. HUVINAHADAGALI,
DIST. BALLARI, PIN CODE-583219
7. SRI. POOJARI BASAVARAJ S/O RANGAPPA
AGE.31 YEARS,
R/O ITTIGI VILLAGE,
TQ. HUVINAHADAGALI,
DIST. BALLARI, PIN CODE-583219
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC.100 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 06.09.2019 IN
R.A.NO.38/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, H.B.
HALLI, ITINERARY SITTING AT SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
HUVINAHADAGALI, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 23.07.2016 IN O.S. NO.97/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL
JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, HADAGALI, AND
THAT THE SUIT IN O.S.NO.97/2011 BE DISMISSED BY ALLOWING
THIS APPEAL.
3
THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned regular second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendant No.1 questioning the judgment and decree of both the Courts below declaring that respondent No.1-plaintiff is absolute owner of the suit schedule property and consequently restraining the present appellant and other defendants from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.
2. The facts leading to the case are as under:
Respondent No.1-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction by specifically contending that one Poojari Rangappa, who is maternal-uncle of respondent No.1- plaintiff, executed a maintenance deed on 14.09.1956 in favour of plaintiff's mother namely Smt.Poojari 4 Hanumantavva. Respondent No.1-plaintiff further contended that Poojari Rangappa bequeathed the suit land in favour of the mother of plaintiff on 16.10.1992 and therefore, she claimed that after the death of her mother, the present respondent No.1-plaintiff being daughter has succeeded to the property as her mother became absolute owner by virtue of maintenance deed and Will executed by said Poojari Rangappa.
The present appellant and other defendants, on receipt of summons, contested the proceedings and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. The defendants specifically contended that Poojari Rangappa was not the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and therefore, he had no locus-standi to execute maintenance deed. Even otherwise, the said Rangappa under the maintenance deed has created limited right whereby the mother of respondent No.1- plaintiff was only entitled to enjoy the property in lieu of 5 her maintenance and therefore, after the death of Poojari Hanumantavva, the property would revert back to the defendants. The present appellant, who was arrayed as defendant No.7, also contended that there was family partition on 23.11.1997 and in terms of partition, the present suit land was also subject matter of the said partition and both brothers shared it equally. The Trial Court having assessed oral and documentary evidence, answered issue No.1, 3 and 4 in affirmative thereby recording a finding that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving that Poojari Rangappa executed a maintenance deed on 14.09.1956 in respect of survey No.69/A/C totally measuring 6.64 acres and therefore the mother of respondent No.1-plaintiff in terms of sub-section 1 to Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') became absolute owner as the limited right under the maintenance deed stood blossomed and therefore, the defendants cannot assert right and title 6 over the property in question. The trial Court however negatived the contention of respondent No.1-plaintiff insofar as Will is concerned. The Trial Court having answered issue No.1, 3 and 4 in affirmative, however answered additional issue No.1 in affirmative, which is in conflict with issue No.1 and 3. However, the suit filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff came to be decreed by the Trial Court by declaring that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and consequently injunction is granted. The said judgment and decree is confirmed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.38/2018.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently argue and contend that under a maintenance deed, the mother of respondent No.1-plaintiff had only limited right. He would submit to this Court that Rangappa, who is ancestor of defendants had no absolute right to execute the maintenance deed in favour of the mother of respondent No.1-plaintiff namely 7 Hanumanthavva, who is his sister. He would submit to this Court that the brother had no corresponding duty to maintain a sister and therefore, even if both the Courts have held that the maintenance deed is held to be proved, in the present case on hand, limited right will not get enlarged as there was no corresponding duty on the brother to maintain a sister. Therefore, section 14(1) of the Act would not come into play. In this background, he would submit to this Court that the concurrent findings of the Courts below in declaring the mother of respondent No.1-plaintiff as absolute owner on the premise that the limited right would get enlarged under Section 14 of the Act is perverse and contrary to the clinching evidence on record. He would also submit to this Court that the additional issue No.1 framed was in fact answered in affirmative and therefore, he would submit to this court that the Trial Court having answered additional Issue No.1 in affirmative ought to have proceeded to dismiss 8 the suit. On these grounds, he would submit to this Court that substantial question of law would arise in the present appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the judgment under challenge.
5. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that respondent No.1-plaintiff has succeeded in proving due execution of the maintenance deed executed by Rangappa in favour of her mother. This maintenance deed is of the year 1956. It is not in dispute that the suit land was an ancestral property. It is nobody's case that suit land was self-acquired property of Rangappa. The material on record indicates that it was also one of the ancestral properties. Therefore, the mother of respondent No.1-plaintiff even otherwise had a pre-existing right as a daughter. What were the compelling reasons which made the brother to execute maintenance deed cannot be 9 tested and gone into at this stage. The fact that the brother was compelled to execute a maintenance deed would presupposes that there were compelling reasons. If the maintenance deed executed by brother is examined in the context of preexisting rights of Hanumantavva Poojari, then I am of the view that both the Courts below were justified in holding that the limited rights created under maintenance deed dated 14.05.1956 in favour of Poojari Hanumantavva would get immediately enlarged pursuant to execution of registered maintenance deed in favour of the said Poojari Hanumantavva. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that pursuant to execution of maintenance deed, the mother of respondent No.1- plaintiff acquired valid right and title as her limited right stood enlarged under Section 14(1) of the Act. Both the Courts below have rightly held that after the death of Poojari Hanumantavva, the present respondent No.1- pliantiff being her daughter, has inherited the suit 10 schedule property. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the judgments and decrees under challenge. No substantial question of law would arise for consideration in the present appeal. The appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.
6. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are dismissed accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE YAN