Bangalore District Court
In L.A.C. No.208/2003 vs To Prove That The Land In Sy.No.65/3 Of ... on 31 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H. No.17)
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2018.
PRESENT:
Shri. I.F. Bidari, B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl)
II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
: L.A.C. No.208/2003 clubbed with L.A.C.
Nos.248/2003, 249/2003, 250/2003, 251/2003 and
252/2003
CLAIMANTS IN L.A.C. No.208/2003 :
1) Papanna s/o Chinnappa
2) Dodda Akkaiamma d/o
Chinnappa,
2(a) Gowramma d/o late.
Venkatappa, 55 years,
2(b) Jayappa s/o late.
Venkatappa, 50 years,
2(c) Srinivas s/o late.
Venkatappa, 48 years,
2(d) Muniswamy s/o late.
Venkatappa, 46 years,
Claimants 2(a) to (d) are R/at No.156,
Kembathahalli village, Gottegere post,
Uttarahally Hobli, Bengaluru South
Taluka.
3) Avalappa s/o Chinnappa,
Claimants 1 to 3 are R/at
Kembathahalli village, Uttarahalli
Cont'd..
-2- : L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluka,
Bengaluru.
4) Shyamanna, s/o Chinnappa,
5) K. Narayanraju s/o Chinnappa,
No.123, III phase, J.P. Nagar,
Bengaluru.
6) Smt. Rathnamma d/o late.
Chinnappa, 54 years, R/at
Hulimavu village, Begur Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluka.
7) Gowramma w/o Papanna, 63
years, R/at Kembathahalli village,
Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru
South Taluka.
8) Lalitha d/o Papanna, 45 years,
R/at Kembathahalli village,,
Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru
South Taluka.
9) Manjula d/o Papanna, 45 years,
R/at Thubarahalli, near
Marathahalli bridge, Varthur
Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluka.
10) Munithayamma d/o Papanna, 39
years, R/at Kembathahalli village,
Uttarahally Hobli, Bengaluru
South taluka.
11) Munirathna, d/o Papanna, 33
years, R/at No.30, 3rd cross,
Banashankari, Bengaluru.
12) Padma d/o Papanna, 27 years,
R/at No.28, 2nd cross, Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru.
(claimant No.6 by Sri. VNA, Advocate),
(claimants Shyamanna and Avalappa by
Sri. NMS, Advocate)
(Remaining claimants by Sri. MP,
Advocate)
Cont'd..
-3- : L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
CLAIMANTS IN L.A.C. Nos.248/2003, 249/2003,
250/2003 and 251/2003:
1) Papanna s/o late. Chinnappa
2) Avalappa s/o Chinnappa,
3) Shyamanna, s/o Chinnappa,
Claimants 1 to 3 are R/at
Kembathahalli village, Uttarahalli
Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluka,
Bengaluru.
4) Dodda Akkaiamma d/o Chinnappa,
4(a) Gowramma d/o late.
Venkatappa, 55 years,
4(b) Jayappa s/o late.
Venkatappa, 50 years,
4(c) Srinivas s/o late.
Venkatappa, 48 years,
4(d) Muniswamy s/o late.
Venkatappa, 46 years,
Claimants 4(a) to (d) are R/at No.156,
Kembathahalli village, Gottegere post,
Uttarahally Hobli, Bengaluru South
Taluka.
5) Smt. Rathnamma d/o late.
Chinnappa, 54 years, R/at
Hulimavu village, Begur Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluka.
Cont'd..
-4- : L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
6) Gowramma w/o Papanna, 63 years,
R/at Kembathahalli village,
Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South
Taluka.
7) Lalitha d/o Papanna, 45 years, R/at
Kembathahalli village,, Uttarahalli
Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluka.
8) Manjula d/o Papanna, 45 years,
R/at Thubarahalli, near
Marathahalli bridge, Varthur Hobli,
Bengaluru East Taluka.
9) Munithayamma d/o Papanna, 39
years, R/at Kembathahalli village,
Uttarahally Hobli, Bengaluru South
taluka.
10) Munirathna, d/o Papanna, 33
years, R/at No.30, 3rd cross,
Banashankari, Bengaluru.
11) Padma d/o Papanna, 27 years,
R/at No.28, 2nd cross, Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru.
(claimant No.5 by Sri. VNA, Advocate)
(claimants Shyamanna and Avalappa by
Sri. NMS & MSC, Advocates)
(Remaining claimants by Sri. MP,
Advocate)
CLAIMANTS IN L.A.C. No.252/2003 :
1) Papanna s/o late. Chinnappa
2) Avalappa s/o Chinnappa,
3) Shyamanna, s/o Chinnappa,
Cont'd..
-5- : L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
Claimants 1 to 3 are R/at
Kembathahalli village, Uttarahalli
Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluka,
Bengaluru.
4) Dodda Akkaiamma d/o Chinnappa,
4(a) Gowramma d/o late.
Venkatappa, 55 years,
4(b) Jayappa s/o late.
Venkatappa, 50 years,
4(c) Srinivas s/o late.
Venkatappa, 48 years,
4(d) Muniswamy s/o late.
Venkatappa, 46 years,
Claimants 4(a) to (d) are R/at No.156,
Kembathahalli village, Gottegere post,
Uttarahally Hobli, Bengaluru South
Taluka.
5) S. Venkataraju s/o Shivashankar
6) S.V. Suresh s/o S. Srinivas
7) Smt. Rathnamma d/o late.
Chinnappa, 54 years, R/at
Hulimavu village, Begur Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluka.
8) Gowramma w/o Papanna, 63 years,
R/at Kembathahalli village,
Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South
Taluka.
9) Lalitha d/o Papanna, 45 years, R/at
Kembathahalli village,, Uttarahalli
Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluka.
Cont'd..
-6- : L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
10) Manjula d/o Papanna, 45 years,
R/at Thubarahalli, near
Marathahalli bridge, Varthur Hobli,
Bengaluru East Taluka.
11) Munithayamma d/o Papanna, 39
years, R/at Kembathahalli village,
Uttarahally Hobli, Bengaluru South
taluka.
12) Munirathna, d/o Papanna, 33
years, R/at No.30, 3rd cross,
Banashankari, Bengaluru.
13) Padma d/o Papanna, 27 years,
R/at No.28, 2nd cross, Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru.
(claimant No.5 by Sri. N.A., Advocate),
(Claimants Shyamanna and Avalappa by
Sri. NMS & MSC, Advocates)
(claimants Shyamanna and Avalappa by
Sry. NMS, Advocate)
(Remaining claimants by Sri. MP,
Advocate)
-VERSUS-
COMMON RESPONDENT IN ALL CASES:
The Special Addl. Land Acquisition
Officer, B.D.A, Bengaluru.
(By Sri. MG, Advocate)
-0-
Cont'd..
-7- : L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
: COMMON JUDGMENT :
The learned Spl. Addl. Land Acquisition Officer
(here-in-after referred as LAO), Bengaluru Development
Authority, (here-in-after referred as BDA), Bengaluru,
have made references in L.A.C. No.208/2003, L.A.C. No.
248/2003, L.A.C. No. 249/2003, L.A.C. No. 250/2003,
L.A.C. No. 251/2003 and L.A.C. No. 252/2003, u/ss.30
and 31(2) of Land Acquisition Act 1894 (here-in-after
referred as L.A. Act).
.2. The references in all these cases are arising
out of same notification and also the claimants are
almost similar, hence, the cases in L.A.C. No.
248/2003, L.A.C. No. 249/2003, L.A.C. No. 250/2003,
L.A.C. No. 251/2003 and L.A.C. No. 252/2003, are
clubbed in L.A.C. No.208/2003, for recording common
evidence, relating to all these cases in L.A.C.
No.208/2003 and for disposal by common judgment.
Cont'd..
-8- : L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
Therefore, these all cases are taken together for disposal
by common judgment.
.3. The brief facts of the cases in L.A.C.
Nos.208/2003 and 248/2003 to 252/2003 are:
The land measuring 4 acres 19 guntas in Sy.No.60
(L.A.C. No208/2003), the land measuring 21 guntas in
Sy.No.99/1 (L.A.C. No.248/2003), the land measuring 1
acre 8 guntas in Sy.No.67/2 (L.A.C. No.249/2003), the
land measuring 4 guntas in Sy.No.95/2 (L.A.C.
No.250/2003), land measuring 1 acre 15 guntas in
Sy.No.65/3 (L.A.C. No.251/2003) and the land
measuring 1 acre 12 guntas in Sy.No.61/1 (L.A.C.
No.252/2003), respectively, of Kembathahalli village,
Uttarahally Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluka, are being
acquired for the purpose of further extension of
Anjanapura layout, at Bengaluru. The preliminary
notification u/s. 17(1) of Bengaluru Development
Authority Act 1976 (here-in-after referred as BDA Act)
in No.BDA/SALAO/C4/PR/638/2000-01 dated
Cont'd..
-9-
: L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
20.03.2001, is being published in Karnataka State
Gazette dated 20.03.2001. The final notification u/s.
19(1) of BDA Act in No.UDD/10/MNX/2002, dated
04.03.2002, is published in Karnataka State Gazette
dated 21.03.2002. The L.A.O. resorting to the
provisions of L.A. Act and the provisions of BDA Act,
among other lands, has acquired the aforesaid lands for
further extension of Anjanapura layout at Bengaluru.
The claimant Shyamanna during enquiry before the
L.A.O., did appear and requested to pay higher
compensation or to drop the acquisition proceedings.
The L.A.O., for the reasons stated in the award dated
23.05.2002, passed the General award u/s. 11 of L.A.
Act, where-under, awarded compensation to the
aforesaid respective lands. Since there was dispute
with-regard to the apportionment and title of the
aforesaid acquired lands. Therefore, the L.A.O. have
made these references u/ss. 30 and 31(2) of L.A. Act
and transmitted the compensation amount to this court
along with references.
Cont'd..
- 10 -
: L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
.4. Thereafter the receipt of references u/ss. 30
and 31(2) of L.A. Act, from the LAO, this court registered
the cases in-respect of 4 acres 19 guntas in Sy.No.60 of
Kembathahalli village, in L.A.C. No.208/2003, L.A.C.
No.248/2003 in-respect of 21 guntas in Sy.No.99/1,
L.A.C. No.249/2003, in-respect of 1 acre 8 guntas in
Sy.No.67/2, L.A.C. No.250/2003, in-respect of 4 guntas
in Sy.No.95/2, L.A.C. No.251/2003 in-respect of 1 acre
15 guntas in Sy.No.65/3 and L.A.C. No. 252/2003 in-
respect of 1 acre 12 guntas in Sy.No.61/1 of
Kembathahalli village.
.5. The claimant Avalappa and claimant
Shyamanna have filed separate claim statements,
wherein averred similar grounds. The claimant
Avalappa and claimant Shyamanna in their respective
claim statements averred that the claimants papanna,
Avalappa, Shyamanna, deceased claimant Dodda
Akkaiamma and claimant Rathnamma are the children
of late. Chinnappa. The late Chinnappa and his brother
Cont'd..
- 11 -
: L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
Thammaiah were real brothers and sons of Vakkaliga
Muniyappa. The late. Chinnappa and his brother
Thammaiah during their life-time, out of joint family
funds, as well, through their ancestral properties did
acquire many landed properties. The marriage of
deceased Dodda Akkaiamma was solemnized with
Venkatappa s/o Ramaiah, during subsistence of the
joint family. The partition was effected in the year
1954, in between Thammaiah and Chinnappa, where-
under, properties were given to the share of Dodda
Akkaiamma d/o late. Chinnappa, since her husband
Venkatappa was not having properties. The name of
Venkatappa was mentioned in the partition deed, to
denote the properties given to his wife Dodda
Akkaiamm, during partition. Thus, Dodda Akkaiamma
was given her share in the family properties in the year
1954 itself. Since the aforesaid partition, Dodda
Akkaiamma and her children were residing separately,
separating from the joint family of Chinnappa and his
children. The claimant Smt. Rathnamma another
Cont'd..
- 12 - : L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
daughter of Chinnappa did file the suit in
O.S.No.549/1997 in the court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn),
Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, on the basis of
concocted Will and the same was contested by the
claimants Avalappa and Shyamanna, consequently,
through a judgment dated 26.01.2000 the said suit has
been dismissed. The RFA No.32/2000 preferred against
the judgment and decree in O.S.No.549/1997 has also
been dismissed. Thereafter, again the claimant
Rathnamma has filed the suit in O.S.No.1253/2006
which is pending in the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn),
Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, but the said suit
is subsequent to the acquisition of the properties and
the same is not maintainable. The claimant
Rathnamma and deceased claimant Dodda Akkaiamma
have no manner of right, title and interest in the
acquired lands in these references and they were not in
the joint possession and enjoyment of the said
properties. In-fact, after the aforesaid partition in the
year 1954, after the death of Chinnappa, the claimants
Cont'd..
- 13 - : L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
Avalappa, Shyamanna and their brother claimant
Papanna were only in possession and enjoyment of the
acquired lands in these references and possession of the
acquired lands is taken from their possession.
Therefore, the claimants Shyamanna, Avalappa and
Papanna are only entitle to receive the compensation of
the acquired lands and no others. Therefore, prayer to
release the compensation of the acquired lands in these
references, in-favour of claimants Shyamanna, Avalappa
and Papanna.
.6. The claimant Dodda Akkaiamma has died
during pendency of these references, consequently, her
LRs have been brought on record. The claimant
Papanna, who is a brother of claimant Shyamanna and
Avalappa and children of deceased claimant Dodda
Akkaiah, together have filed the claim statements,
whereas, the claimant Rathnamma has also filed
separate claim statements, wherein, averred similar
facts. The said claimants in their respective claim
Cont'd..
- 14 -
: L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
statements, among other facts, have averred that
Chinnappa and Thammaiah, both were sons of
Vokkaligara Muniyappa. The properties were partitioned
between Chinnappa and Thammaiah, along with
Venkatappa s/o Ramaiah, under a registered partition
deed dated 24.09.1954, where-under, the aforesaid
acquired lands along with other lands were allotted to
the share of Chinnappa. Thereafter, upon
commencement of Inams Abolition Act, the special D.C.,
for Inams Abolition, registered the Chinnappa as
occupant as per the Mysore (P & M) Inams Abolition Act
1954, in-respect of the aforesaid acquired property in
his proceedings, in No.34. Consequently, the name of
Chinnappa was recorded in the records of acquired
land, as owner. The said Chinnappa was possessing
and enjoying the said acquired properties as absolute
owner. The said Chinnappa has died on 08.01.1995,
intestate leaving behind him, claimants Dodda
Akkaiahmma, Papanna, Avalappa, Shyamanna and
Rathnamma, as his legal heirs, consequently, they had
Cont'd..
- 15 -
: L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
succeeded to the acquired lands as heirs of late.
Chinnappa. The respondent has acquired the
properties in these references, while the aforesaid
claimants including Dodda Akkaiamma, were
possessing and enjoying the same as owners thereof.
The claimant Dodda Akkaiamma has died on
07.03.2006, consequently, her children have been
brought on record, who can succeed to the extent of
share of deceased Dodda Akkaiamma, in the acquired
properties. The claimant Papanna, Rathnamma and
children of Dodda Akkaiamma, are contending that
when Chinnappa died intestate his aforesaid 3 sons and
2 daughters were having equal share i.e., to the extent
of 1/5th share each in the acquired lands. Therefore,
prayer of the claimants Papanna, Rathnamma and
children of deceased Dodda Akkaiamma, is to allot 1/5th
share to each of the claimants Papanna, Avalappa,
Shyamanna and Rathnamma and whereas, children of
deceased Dodda Akkaiamma, together are entitle for
remaining 1/5th share in the aforesaid acquired lands,
Cont'd..
- 16 -
: L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
mentioned in these references, accordingly, prayer to
release the compensation of the acquired lands, in their
favour.
.7. The wife and daughters of claimant Papanna,
have been impleaded and brought on record as
claimants, on the ground that the claimant Smt.
Gowramma has right of maintenance, in the share, to
be received by her husband, in the acquired lands and
whereas, the daughters of the claimant Papanna, are
also entitle equal share in the share, which the claimant
Papanna is going to receive towards his share in the
acquired lands in these references.
.8. To substantiate their respective claim, the
claimants examined Smt. Rathnamma as PW.1,
claimant Muniswamy s/o late. Venkatappa as PW.2 and
claimant Shyamanna s/o Chinnappa, as PW.3. The
documents at Exs.P.1 to 42 are marked for the
Cont'd..
- 17 -
: L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
claimants. The respondent has not adduced either oral
or documentary evidence on his behalf.
.9. I have heard Sri. NMS the learned counsel for
claimants Avalappa and Shyamanna and heard Sri. MP
the learned counsel for remaining claimants. Heard Sri.
VS, Advocate for MG Advocate, on behalf of respondent.
The written arguments is filed on behalf of claimants.
Perused the records and the written arguments.
.10. The points that would arise for consideration of
this court are:
(1) Whether the Claimants
Avalappa and Shyamanna
prove that the acquired
properties mentioned in these
references were the joint
ancestral properties of their
father late. Chinnappa and
his children?
(2) Whether the claimants
Papanna, Gowramma,
Jayanna, Srinivas,
Muniswamy and Rathnamma
prove that the acquired
properties mentioned in these
references were self-acquired
properties of late Chinnappa?
Cont'd..
- 18 - : L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
(3) Who amongst the claimants
are entitle to receive the
compensation amount
deposited in these references
awarded to the acquired
properties and to what
extent?
(4) What order or award?
.11. My findings on the above points are:
Point No.1 : Joint family properties of late.
Chinnappa and his children.
Point No.2 : In the negative,
Point No.3 : As shown in final order
Point No.4: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
.12. POINT Nos.1 to 3: These points are inter-related,
hence, taken together for discussion, for convenience, also to
avoid repetition of facts. Before adverting to the further
merits of the case, it is just, to give description of the
acquired lands, in these references. The descriptions of the
acquired lands in these references are as under:
Cont'd..
- 19 - : L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
Sl.No. L.A.C. No. Sy.No. Extent Situated at
01 208/2003 60 4 acre 19 Kembathahalli
guntas village,
02 248/2003 99/1 21 guntas Kembathahalli
village,
03 249/2003 67/2 1 acre 8 Kembathahalli
guntas village,
04 250/2003 95/2 4 guntas Kembathahalli
village,
05 251/2003 65/3 1 acre 15 Kembathahalli
guntas village,
06 252/2003 61/1 1 acre 12 Kembathahalli
guntas village,
.13. PW.1 Smt. Rathnamma d/o late. Chinnappa, who
is a claimant No.6 in L.A.C. No.208/2003, claimant No.5 in
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003, 249/2003, 250/2003, 251/2003 and
claimant No.7 in L.A.C. No.252/2003, has filed an affidavit, in
lieu of her chief-examination, reiterating most of her claim
statements averments. The PW.2 Muniswamy s/o late.
Venkatappa, who is claimant No.2(d) in L.A.C. No.208/2003
and claimant No.4(d) in L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to 252/2003
and one of LRs of claimant deceased Dodda Akkaiamma has
filed an affidavit in lieu of his chief examination, reiterating
Cont'd..
- 20 -
: L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
most of the claim statements averments of Papanna and LRs
of claimant deceased Dodda Akkaiamma. The PW.3
Shyamanna s/o late. Chinnappa who is a claimant No.4 in
L.A.C. No.208/2003 and claimant No.3 in L.A.C.
Nos.248/2003 to 252/2003 has filed an affidavit in lieu of his
chief-examination, for himself and on behalf of his brother
claimant Avalappa, reiterating most of the claim statements
averments of Shyamanna and claim statements of Avalappa.
The documents at Exs.P.1 to 42 are marked during evidence
of PWs.1 to 3.
.14. The undisputed facts in these references are:
That Chinnappa and Thammaiah are the brothers and
sons of late. Vakkaligara Muniyappa. The claimant deceased
Dodda Akkaiamma and claimant Rathnamma are the
daughters of late. Chinnappa. The claimants Papanna,
Avalappa and Shyamanna are the sons of late. Chinnappa.
Smt. Dodda Akkaiamma is a wife of Venkatappa. The
claimants 2(a) to (d) in L.A.C. No.208/2003 and claimants
4(a) to 4(d) in L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to 252/2003 namely
Cont'd..
- 21 -
: L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
Gowramma, Jayanna, Srinivas and Muniswamy are the
children of deceased claimant Dodda Akkaiamma and her
husband late. Venkatappa. These contesting claimants are
Hindu governed by Hindu Mithakshala Law. The PWs.1 to 3
in their oral evidence categorically deposed to these aspects
and also have stated similar facts in their respective claim
statements. The Ex.P.1 is a genealogical tree sworn by PW.1
Rathnamma in the form of an affidavit, wherein, stated the
relationship of late. Chinnappa with his children and
relationship of LRs of claimant deceased Dodda Akkaiamma,
much less, as discussed above.
.15. Sri. NMS the learned counsel for Avalappa and
Shyamanna, referring to the relevant portions of oral evidence
of PWs.1 to 3 and documentary evidence on record, submits
that the evidence on record proves that the acquired
properties are the joint ancestral Hindu Undivided family
properties of Chinnappa and his brother Thammaiah, sons of
late. Vakkaligara Muniyappa and they have partitioned their
joint ancestral family properties, under a registered sale deed
Cont'd..
- 22 - : L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
dated 24.09.1954, but in the said partition deed, some of the
properties were allotted to Dodda Akkaiamma d/o late.
Chinnappa as her husband Venkatappa had no properties,
however, in the partition deed, as a mark of respect name of
Venkatappa the husband of Dodda Akkaiamma has been
mentioned and at any rate, Venkatappa husband of Dodda
Akkaiamma was / is not a joint family member either along
with late. Chinnappa and his brother Thammaiah or joint
family member with joint family of late. Chinnappa and his
children, as Venkatappa is only son-in-law of late.
Chinnappa. The learned counsel in support of his argument,
drawn attention of the court to the certified copy of registered
partition deed dated 24.09.1954 marked at Ex.P.37 and its
typed copy marked at Ex.P.37(a). Sri. NMS the learned
counsel for Avalappa and Shyamanna next to submit that it
is in the evidence of PW.1 Rathnamma and also the evidence
on record specially the certified copy of judgment and decree
in O.S.No.549/1997 and deposition of PW.1 therein, PW.1
Krishnappa in the said suit who deposed as GPA holder of
Rathnamma, evidences that the acquired lands in these
Cont'd..
- 23 -
: L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
references were held and possessed by late. Chinnappa for
himself and on behalf of his joint family members and same
are granted through an order of Spl. D.C. under the Inam
Abolition Act, for and on behalf of joint family of late.
Chinnappa and his joint family members, certified copy of
which is marked at Ex.P.2 in proceedings No.34, as such, the
acquired lands in these references are nothing but the
properties granted under Inam Abolotion Act and were joint
ancestral properties. The learned counsel further submits
that during life-time of Chinnappa, the oral partition was
effected between Chinnappa and his sons, where-under, the
claimant Rathnamma was given Rs.10,000/- in lieu of her
share and share of Dodda Akkaiamma was already given in
partition dated 24.09.1954, since then, the sons of late.
Chinnappa were holding and possessing the acquired lands
as their personal properties allotted to them, out of their joint
family properties, where-in, Rathnamma d/o lat. Chinnappa
and children of Dodda Akkaiamma another daughter of late.
Chinnappa, have no manner of right, to receive the
compensation of acquired lands, as they were not holding any
Cont'd..
- 24 -
: L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
manner of right over the acquired lands as on the date of
acquisition, hence, prayed to reject the claim of claimant
Rathnamma and LRs of claimant deceased Dodda
Akkaiamma. Sri. NMS the learned counsel submits that the
provisions brought into Hindu Succession Act 1956 by virtue
of 2005 Amendment Act, is also not applicable to the case on
hand. Per contra, Sri. MP the learned counsel for remaining
claimants, referring to Ex.P.37 certified copy of registered
partition deed dated 24.09.1954 and also the oral and
documentary evidence on record, submits that the evidence
depicts that the acquired lands in these references were self-
acquired properties of late. Chinnappa and no partition has
been effected during lifetime of late. Chinnappa in his
acquired properties including the acquired lands, wherein, 3
sons and 2 daughters of late. Chinnappa were / are having
1/5th share each, as such, prayer to allot compensation to the
extent of 1/5th share to PW.1 Rathnamma and another 1/5th
share of claimant No.3 Dodda Akkaiamma in-favour of her
children and in remaining extent Papanna, Avalappa and
Shyamanna, each entitle for 1/5th share. Sri. MP the learned
Cont'd..
- 25 -
: L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
counsel submits that, no-doubt the claimant Rathnamma
/PW.1 did file O.S.No.549/1997, seeking the relief of
permanent injunction against the defendants therein, who are
the children of late. Chinnappa and others, in-respect of 30
guntas land in Sy.No.65/3 of Kembathahalli village, based on
the registered Will dated 16.10.1991, executed by late.
Chinnappa in her favour, but the said suit has been
dismissed and even appeal filed against judgment and decree
in O.S.No.549/1997 i.e., R.A. No.32/2000 has also been
dismissed, but dismissal of the said suit O.S.No.549/1997
has no much bearing on the right of claimant Rathnamma to
claim 1/5th share in the acquired properties as one of Class-I
legal heir of her father late. Chinnappa. The learned counsel
further submits that this apart, the claimant Rathnamma has
filed the suit for partition of self-acquired properties of late.
Chinnappa, including the acquired properties in
O.S.No.1253/2006, which is pending adjudication. The
learned counsel submits that at any rate, the children of late.
Chinnappa are entitle 1/5th share each in the acquired
properties as discussed above. Sri. MP the learned counsel in
Cont'd..
- 26 -
: L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
support of the argument that Rathnamma being daughter of
late. Chinnappa and her sister claimant deceased Dodda
Akkaiamma is another daughter of late. Chinnappa, are
entitle to claim their right as co-parceners on par with their
brothers Papanna, Avalappa and Shyamanna, in view of the
provisions contemplated under Hindu Succession Act
(Amendment Act 2005). The learned counsel in support of
the argument placed the reliance on the ruling reported in
ILR 2018 KAR 669 (Supreme Court), (in the case of
Danamma @ Suman Surpur and another Vs. Amar and
others). The relevant portion runs as under:
"Hindu Succession (Amendment), Act, 2005
(Act No.39 of 2005 w.e.f. 05.09.2005)-
Section 6-Develution of interest in co-
parcenary property -Daughters of a co-
parcener shall 'by birth' become a co-
parcener in her own right in the "same
manner as the son"-Appellants were born
prior to enactment of Hindu Succession Act,
1956 - Status of appellants after thepassing
of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act,
2005"
Sri. MP the learned counsel for the claimants Papanna,
Rathnamma and LRs of deceased Dodda Akkaiamma,
Cont'd..
- 27 - : L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
referring to Ex.P.14, Exs.P.14(a) to (c) and the oral evidence of
PW.1 Rathnamma deposed by her, in her cross-examination
with-regard to the oral partition allotted to be effected
between Chinnappa and his sons, during life-time of
Chinnappa and started residing in separate houses, since 20
years after such oral partition, submits that stray answers
given in that regard by PW.1 Rathnamma has not bearing and
consequences on the merit of the case of claimants
Rathnamma, Papanna and LRs of deceased Dodda
Akkaiamma, as no documentary evidence is produced and
marked to prove such oral partition put to PW.1 during her
cross-examination and sources of income from the joint
family available for Chinnappa to acquire the properties,
including the acquired properties, hence, prayed to hold that
the properties in question, in these references are self-
acquired properties of late. Chinnappa and no such alleged
oral partition taken place, during life-time of Chinnappa,
much less, as contended by the claimants Shyamanna and
Avalappa. The learned counsel in support of the argument,
placed reliance on the rulings reported in (1) 2015 (2) KCCR
Cont'd..
- 28 -: L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
1368 of Karnataka High court (in the case of Smt.
Puttasiddamma and others Vs. Siddaraju and others); (2)
2014 (4) KCCR 3581 (DB), Karnataka High Court (in the case
of Mallappa and others Vs. Mallappa and others); (3) 2017 (2)
AKR 209 (DB) (in the case of Smt. Shankuntala Mallikarjuna
Balikai and others Vs. Basavaraj Basavanneppa Sirigeri and
others) and (4) AIR 2008 Karnataka 151, Karnataka High
Court (in the case of G. Rangaiah Vs. Goovindappa and
others)
.16. Sri. NMS the learned counsel during replay
argument, submits that claimant Rathnamma having lost her
alleged right in the acquired land bearing Sy.No.65/3 of
Kembathahalli village, (L.A.C. No.251/2003), on the ground of
alleged Will as suit O.S.No.549/1997 filed in that respect is
dismissed and also RA No.32/2000 filed against judgment
and decree in O.S.No.549/1997 has also been dismissed, but
the claimant Rathnamma again filed O.S.No.1253/2006,
same has no consequences, since, the properties in these
references are being acquired in the year 2001 itself and as
Cont'd..
- 29 - : L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
on the date of the said suit, subject matter of these references
were not available at all. Sri. NMS the learned counsel
submits that in-fact Lalithamma d/o Papanna is given in
marriage, Muniswamy/PW.3 is son of late. Venkatappa and
deceased Dodda Akkaiamma, as such, claimant Papanna and
his sisters Rathnamma and Dodda Akkaiamma and after the
death of Dodda Akkaiamma, her children together in
collusion are in the habit of filing case after case on false
grounds, to deprive legitimate share of Avalappa and
Shyamanna including in the acquired properties, hence,
prayed to reject the prayer of the said claimants.
.17. The Ex.P-37 is a certified copy of registered
partition deed dated 24.09.1954. The Ex.P.37(a) is a typed
copy of Ex.P.37. It is in the evidence of PW.1 that (1)
Chinnappa (2) Thammaiah the sons of Vakkaligara
Muniyappa; (3) Venkatappa s/o Ramaiah, got divided their
properties under a registered partition deed dated
24.09.1954. The Ex.P.37 and Ex.P.37(a) are marked during
evidence of PW.1. The PWs.1 and 2, in their chief-
Cont'd..
- 30 -
: L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
examinations, in-many-words, repeatedly has deposed that
the acquired properties are self-acquired properties of late.
Chinnappa along with other properties. The PW.3
Shyamanna in-many-words has stated in his chief-
examination that their father late. Chinnappa was possessing
and enjoying the acquired properties along with other
properties, as a joint family member, since same were their
ancestral joint family properties. The PW.3 in his chief-
examination has stated that in partition effected in the year
1954, in-fact, the ancestral and joint family properties of late.
Chinnappa and his children are partitioned between
Chinnappa and Thammaiah the sons of late. Vakkaligara
Muniyappa, where-under, some of the properties were given
to Dodda Akkaiamma d/o late. Chinnappa as Venkatappa
was not having properties and only as a mark of respect, the
name of Venkatappa has been written in Ex.P.37, instead of
name of Dodda Akkaiamma and never Venkatappa was /is
joint family member of late. Chinnappa and his children. Per
contra, the contention of contesting claimants and
submission of Sri. MP the learned counsel for remaining
Cont'd..
- 31 - : L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
claimants is that in-fact Vakkaligara Muniyappa and
Ramaiah the father of Venkatappa, had no ancestral and joint
family properties and properties partitioned under Ex.P.37
partition deed are their self-acquired properties earned
through their hard money and not from the funds of joint
ancestral properties. Sri. MP the learned counsel submits
that the Ex.P.37 is more than 30 years old document, as
such, the provisions contemplated u/s. 90 of Evidence Act,
are applicable to the said document, as such, there is no
question of holding that the acquired lands in these
references, covered under Ex.P.37 were the joint ancestral
properties, but same are self-acquired properties of
Chinnappa and his brother Thammaiah and Venkatappa the
husband of Dodda Akkaiamma. These facts are also stated
by PWs.1 and 2 in their chief-examination. Under the
circumstances, before adverting to further merits of the case,
it is just to consider as to whether Venkatappa the son-in-law
of late. Chinnappa and husband of claimant deceased Dodda
Akkaiamma is happen to be a joint family member, along with
late. Chinnappa and his brother Thammaiah or the joint
Cont'd..
- 32 - : L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
family of late. Vakkaligara Muniyappa. Under Hindu Law,
governed by Hindu Mithakshara school, the joint and
undivided family is the normal condition of Hindu society.
The joint Hindu family consists of all persons lineally
descended from a common ancestor and includes their wives
and unmarried daughters. The undivided Hindu family is
ordinarily joint not only in the estate, but also in food and
worship. A single male with other female members of the
family may also form a joint family. It is not necessary that
the Hindu joint family must own and possess the properties.
It is pertinent to note that in view of amendment brought into
Hindu Succession Act, by virtue of Amendment Act 2005,
daughters are also considered to be co-parceners, on par with
sons. Usually in Hindu undivided joint family there shall be a
joint family manager or kartha, who would look-after the
management and affairs of the joint family. The contents of
Ex.P.37 and Ex.P.37(a) copies of partition deed dated
24.09.1954 evidences that the partition described therein is
entered between (1) Venkatappa s/o late. Ramaiah; (2)
Chinnappa s/o late. Vakkaligara Muniyappa; (3) Thammaiah
Cont'd..
- 33 -
: L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
s/o late. Vakkaligara Muniyappa, of the properties situated in
Kembathahalli village. The contents of Ex.P.37 and
Ex.P.37(a) also evidences that the parties to the said
partitions, were residing jointly but because of in-difference
arose between them, their respective families' movable and
immovable properties mentioned therein, are equally divided
and partitioned between them, where-under, 'A' schedule is
allotted to Venkatappa, 'B' schedule and 'C' schedule are
allotted to Chinnappa and Thammaiah, respectively. The
relevant portion in Ex.P.37 and Ex.P.37(a) reads as under:
"CzÁV, ¤ÃªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ EzÀĪÀj«UÀÆ KPÀUÀæ ºÉPÀÈvÀåzÀ°è¬ÄzÀÄÝ ¥ÀÇwð
ªÀǧâjUÉƧâjUÉ ¸Àj ©Ã¼ÀzÀÝjAzÀ £ÀªÀÄä £ÀªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§PÉÌ ¬ÄgÀvÀPÀÌ
ZÀj¹ÜgÀ D¹Û AiÀiÁªÀvÀÄÛ ¬Ä PɼÀUÉ PÀAqÀ µÀqÀÆå¯ï£À°è «ªÀj¹gÀĪÀAvÉ J
µÀqÀÆå¯ïzÁgÀ ªÉAPÀl¥À¤
à UÉ ZÀgÀ¹ÜgÀ D¹Ü 500-00 LzÀÄ £ÀÆgÀÄ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä
¨Á¼ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ §A¢gÀÄvÉÛ. © µÀqÀÆå¯ï zÁgÀ a£ÀߥÀà£À ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ ZÀgÀ ¹ÝÝgÀ D¹Û
500-00 LzÀÄ £ÀÆgÀÄ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä ¨Á¼ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ §A¢gÀÄvÉÛ. ¹ µÀqÀÆå¯ï
zÁgÀ vÀªÀÄäAiÀÄå ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ ZÀgÀ¹ÝgÀ D¹Û 500-00 LzÀÄ £ÀÆgÀÄ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä
¨Á¼ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ MAzÀÄ vÉgÀvÀPÀÌ zÉÃtô ªÉAPÀl¥Àà¤UÉ 260-00 ¬Ä£ÀÄßgÀ CgÀªÀvÀÄÛ
gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÉÛ ¬Äà jÃwAiÀiÁV gÀÆ. 1500-00 ªÀAzÀÄ
¸Á«gÀzÀ LzÀÄ £ÀÆgÀÄ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼À D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀªÀĨsÁUÀªÁV
Cont'd..
- 34 - : L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
ºÀAaPÉÆAqÀÄ ¬ÄgÀÄvÉÃÛ ªÉ ZÀgÀD¹Û ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛgÀ ªÉÆRÛ zÀªÀ¸À zÀ£À PÀgÀÄ
¥ÁvÉæ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆ ªÀåªÀ¸ÁAiÀÄzÀ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV ºÀAaPÉÆAqÀÄ
¬ÄgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ "
(under-line supplied by me)
.18. The Ex.P.37and Ex.P.37(a) and oral evidence of
PWs.1 to 3, also documentary evidence on record, proves that
prior to partition deed marked at Ex.P.37 marriage of Dodda
Akkaiamma d/o late. Chinnappa was solemnized with
Venkatappa. Therefore, it is evident that Venkatappa, who is
one of the party for partition in Ex.P.37 partition deed, was no
one than a son-in-law of late. Chinnappa and husband of
Dodda Akkaiamma. Therefore, as rightly submitted by Sri.
NMS the learned counsel for Avalappa and Shyamanna,
Venkatappa being a son-in-law of late. Chinnappa, at any
rate, cannot be a joint family member either with late.
Chinnappa and his brother Thammaiah or a joint family
member in the family of late. Vakkaligara Muniyappa. This
apart, the relevant portion in Ex.P.37 and Ex.P.37(a)
extracted and quoted above also evidences that it is not only
Cont'd..
- 35 -
: L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
the family properties of Chinnappa and Thammaiah, are
partitioned, but movable and immovable properties of
respective families of (1) Chinnappa; (2) Thammaiah and (3)
Venkatappa, are partitioned, under the circumstances, there
is no substance in the contention of claimants Avalappa and
Shyamanna that ancestral joint family properties of
Chinnappa and Thammaiah are partitioned under Ex.P.37,
since the said claimants have not produced even a single
piece of documentary evidence to prove that the properties
partitioned under Ex.P.37 were held and acquired by the joint
family of Vakkaligara Muniyappa or the said properties are
inherited by the joint family members of which late.
Vakkaligara Muniyappa was a manager. Therefore, there is
no substance in submission of Sri. NMS the learned counsel
for the claimants Shyamanna and Avalappa that ancestral,
joint family properties of Papanna, Avalappa and Shyamanna
are partitioned under Ex.P.37 partition deed dated
24.09.1954 and only the name of Venkatappa the husband of
Dodda Akkaiamma is written in Ex.P.37 in-respect of the
properties allotted to his wife Dodda Akkaiamma. At the
Cont'd..
- 36 -
: L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
same time, the claimants Papanna, Rathnamma and LRs of
claimant deceased Dodda Akkaiamma have not produced a
single piece of documentary evidence to prove that late.
Chinnappa did acquire the acquired lands in these references
along with other properties, on his self-earnings. At the same
time, the said claimants have not produced cogent,
convincing and clinching evidence to prove that when and
how much amount from which sources, Chinnappa did earn,
enough and sufficient income, to purchase the acquired lands
along with other properties as his self-acquired properties.
Therefore, contention of the said claimants and also the
submission of Sri. MP the learned counsel for the said
claimants, will not hold good that the acquired lands in these
references were the self-acquired properties of late.
Chinnappa. As rightly submitted by Sri. MNS the learned
counsel for Avalappa and Shyamanna prior to 1994 and also
earlier to Hindu Succession Act (Amendment Act 2005), a
daughter of joint family after her marriage, she will ceases to
be joint family member of the family, where she takes birth,
under the circumstances, where marriage of claimant
Cont'd..
- 37 - : L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
deceased Dodda Akkaiamma was solemnized with
Venkatappa, prior to 1954 i.e., prior to partition dated
24.09.1954 (Ex.P.37), as such, the said Dodda Akkaiamma
was not remained as joint family member in the joint family,
consisting of wife and children of her father late. Chinnappa.
.19. Admittedly, the Ex.P.37 is a registered partition
deed dated 24.09.1954 and its original is not produced, but
Exs.P.37 and 37(a) evidences that original partition deed of
which Ex.P.37 is a more than 30 years old. Therefore, as
rightly submitted by Sri. MP the learned counsel for the
claimants Papanna, Rathnamma and LRs of deceased Dodda
Akkaiamma, presumption contemplated u/s. 90 of Indian
Evidence Act 1972 is applicable to the original of Ex.P.37, but
the said presumption is only in-respect of signatures of the
persons, signatures or thumb impressions of attesting
witnesses, if any, affixed there-on, but so far as contents of
the said document is concerned, said presumption u/s. 90 of
Indian Evidence Act, is not applicable to the original of
Ex.P.37 and Ex.P.37(a). Therefore, the parties are at liberty
Cont'd..
- 38 -
: L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
to prove the truth or otherwise of contents of original of
Ex.P.37 or contents of Ex.P.37. This court already for the
reasons discussed above, has held that either contention of
the claimants Avalappa and Shyamanna that the properties
partitioned under Ex.P.37 or under its original, are not
proved as ancestral joint family properties of Chinnappa and
his wife and children and also this court held that claimants
Papanna, Rathnamma and LRs of claimant deceased Dodda
Akkaiamma failed to prove that the properties partitioned
under Ex.P.37 or its original are self-acquired properties of
late. Chinnappa, which were allotted to his share in the said
partition.
.20. The Exs.P.4 to 9 are the extracts of RTCs
pertaining to the acquired lands in these references. The
Ex.P.4 is for the year 2008-09 pertaining to the acquired
land, measuring 4 acres 19 guntas in Sy.No.60. The Exs.P.5,
6, 7 and 8 are for the year 2007-08 in-respect of acquired
lands in Sy. Nos. 99/1, 67/2, 95/2 and 65/3 of
Kembathahalli village, whereas, the Ex.P.9 is for the year
Cont'd..
- 39 -
: L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
2008-09 in-respect of the acquired land in Sy.No.61/1 of
Kembathahalli village. The Exs.P.25 to 36 are also the
extracts of RTCs pertaining to the acquired lands. The
Ex.P.25 is for the year 2002-03, in-respect of acquired land
measuring 4 acres 19 guntas, in Sy.No.60. The Exs.P.26 and
27 are for the period from 2001-02 and 2002-03, in-respect of
the acquired lands in Sy.No.99/1. The Exs.P.28 and 29 are
for the years 2001-02 and 2002-03, in-respect of acquired
land in Sy.No.67/2, whereas, the Exs.P.30 to 33 are for the
period from 2001-02 to 2002-03, in-respect of acquired land
in Sy.No.95/2. The Ex.P.34 is for the year 2002-03, in-
respect of acquired land in Sy.No.65/3, whereas, the Exs.P.35
and 36 are for the period from 2002-03 to 2002-03, in-respect
of Sy.No.61/1 of Kembathahalli village. The names of
Papanna, Avalappa, Shyamanna and Dodda Akkaiamma are
being recorded in kabjedar's column (col. No.9) in the RTC
extracts marked at Exs.P.4 to 9 and Exs.P.25 to 36. The
Ex.P.39 is a certified copy of MR No.19/1997-98 in-respect of
the acquired lands along with other lands, mentioned therein
of Kembathahalli village, wherein, after the death of
Cont'd..
- 40 -
: L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
Chinnappa the names of children of late. Chinnappa have
been recorded. The Ex.P.39 evidences that on 08.01.1995
Chinnappa has died and subsequently the said MR number
has been certified. The Ex.P.24 is a death certificate of Dodda
Akkaiamma, which evidences that she has died on
07.03.2006. There is no dispute that Chinnappa has died on
08.01.1995 and Dodda Akkaiamma has died on 07.03.2006.
.21. The Ex.P.2 is a certified copy of order passed in the
court of Spl. D.C., for Inams Abolition, Bengaluru in case
No.34/196-196 (contesting claimants claims as case
No.34/1959-60), where-under, Chinnappa s/o Muniyappa
i.e., petitioner in the said case is ordered as entitle to be
registered as an occupant of the lands u/s. 9 of the Mysore (P
& M) Inams Abolition Act, 1954. In the result, the said
petitioner Chinnappa is registered as occupant under section
9 of the said Act. The land in respect of which, Chinnappa is
registered as occupant are as under:
Cont'd..
- 41 - : L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
Sy.No. Extent
20/1 8 guntas
39 3 acres 5 guntas
43 1 acre 10 guntas
61/1 20 guntas
60 4 acres 19 guntas
65/3 1 acres 20 guntas
67/2 1 acre 23 guntas
81/2 3 guntas
85/3 13 guntas
95/2 6 guntas
99/1 15 guntas
of Kembathahalli village. The Ex.P.3 is a certified copy of Form
No.VIII showing details of assessment of lands mentioned therein to
the Government, wherein, the aforesaid lands mentioned in Ex.P.2
are also shown. The Exs.P.10 and 11 are certified copies of plaint
and amended plaint in O.S.No.549/1997. The Ex.P.12 and Ex.P.13
are certified copies of written statements and additional written
argument of Shyamanna the defendant No.3 in the said suit. The
Cont'd..
- 42 - : L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
Ex.P.14 is a certified copy of deposition of H.C. Krishnappa the
PW.1 in O.S.No.549/1997 deposed by him as a GPA holder of his
wife Rathnamma. The Exs.P.15 and 16 are certified copies of
judgment and decree dated 26.01.2000 in O.S.No.549/1997. The
perusal of these documents and oral evidence of PWs.1 and 3, it is
evident that the claimant Smt. Rathnamma, who is a daughter of
late. Chinnappa and wife of H.K. Krishnappa, did file the said suit
in O.S.No.549/1997 against the defendants therein, who are her
brothers (1) Papanna; (2) Avalappa ; (3) Shyamanna, for the relief of
perpetual injunction, restraining them or any persons on their
behalf, from causing any sort of interference and middling with the
plaintiff's portion of 30 guntas land, described in the plaint
schedule, measuring 30 guntas in Sy.No.65/3 of Kembathahalli
village. These documents evidences that Rathnamma sought the
relief of perpetual injunction in the said suit on the ground that her
father late. Chinnappa during his life-time, did bequeath the land
to the extent of 30 guntas in Sy.No.65/3 of Kembathahalli village,
through a registered Will dated 16.10.1991 and after the death of
Chinnappa on 08.01.1995, she has become an owner of the said
extent of land by virtue of the said Will. The Exs.P.15 and 16
Cont'd..
- 43 -
: L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
evidences that Shyamanna and Avalappa contested the said suit,
ultimately, on merits the said O.S.No.549/1997 came to be
dismissed. The Exs.P.17 and 18 are certified copies of judgment
and decree dated 07.12.2005 in RA No.32/2000, which was
preferred by Rathnamma against judgment and decree in
O.S.No.549/1997 and the same also came to be dismissed. There
is no dispute with-regard to the filing of O.S.No.549/1997 by
Rathnamma and dismissal of the said suit and R.A. No.32/2000
filed by Rathnamma. The Ex.P.15 evidences that in the said suit
additional issue No.1 was framed casting burden of proof on the
defendants, to prove that the land in Sy.No.65/3 of Kembathahalli
village, is an ancestral property of the defendant's father
Chinnappa and he was not competent to bequeath the suit
schedule property therein through a Will dated 16.10.1991 in-
favour of plaintiff Rathnamma and the same is null and void. The
court while appreciating the evidence, incidentally, appreciating the
evidence with-regard to the suit schedule property therein, which is
Sy.No.65/3 of Kembathahalli village, which is also the acquired
land in the reference L.A.C. No.251/2003, has given finding on the
said additional issue No.1 in affirmative. The Ex.P.19 is a certified
Cont'd..
- 44 - : L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
copy of plaint in O.S.No.1253/2006 filed by plaintiff Rathnamma
against children of her sister Dodda Akkaiamma, her brothers
Shyamanna, Papanna, Avalappa and others, for partition and
separate possession of her alleged share in the suit schedule
properties, stating that the said suit schedule properties are the
self-acquired properties of her father late. Chinnappa and among
other suit schedule properties, item Nos.4 to 7, 10 and 11 suit
schedule properties therein, are the acquired properties in these
references. The Ex.P.20 is a certified copy of written statement
submitted by Shyamanna in O.S.No.1253/2006, same is being
adopted by his another brother Avalappa. The Ex.P.20 also
comprised the written statement filed by Muniswamy s/o deceased
Dodda Akkaiamma, same is adopted by remaining children of
Dodda Akkaiamma. The Ex.P.21 is an ID card of claimant
Rathnamma issued by Election Commission of India, wherein,
name of her husband is shown as H.C. Krishnappa. The Ex.P.22 is
a ration card of family of Rathnamma and her husband Krishnappa
and their children. The Ex.P.23 is a certified copy of reference
made by L.A.O. in L.A.C. No.251/2003, in-respect of acquired land
measuring 1 acre 15 guntas in Sy.No.65/3 of Kembathahalli
Cont'd..
- 45 -
: L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
village. The PW.2 Muniswamy s/o late. Venkatappa in the cross-
examination denied the suggestion that under the partition deed of
1954, the properties were allotted to their mother Dodda
Akkaiamma, but for convenience, name of his father Venkatappa
has been shown for convenience. The PW.1 Rathnamma during
cross-examination deposed that name of her grand-father is
Muniyappa, but she does not know the name of her grand-mother.
She deposed that there is no relationship between Venkatappa s/o
Ramaiah and her grand-father Muniyappa. She deposed that both
were not belonged to the family of her grand-father. She deposed
that Venkatappa had married to her elder sister Dodda Akkaiamma
and except Venkatappa, in relation, as son-in-law to their father,
there is no any other relationship of Venkatappa. The PW.1 again
in the cross-examination deposed that Venkatappa was a family
member of the joint family, as such, share is given to him in the
partition. She deposed that Venkatappa is not belong to the joint
family. The PW.1 Rathnamma during cross-examination deposed
that at the time of grant of occupancy in the Inams Lands, her
father and her uncle Thammaiah and Venkatappa were in joint
family. She deposed that she does not know as to whether her
Cont'd..
- 46 -
: L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
father alone or her uncle and Venkatappa together did file an
application before the D.C. Again PW.1 deposed that their father
alone did give an application before the D.C., Inams Lands to grant
the Inams Lands. The PW.1 during cross-examination dated
23.02.2010 admits that their father did give an application before
the D.C., for himself and on behalf of his younger brother
Thammaiah. She deposed that Venkatappa the husband of her
elder sister also got granted the land before the D.C., Abolition of
Inams Land. The PW.3 Shyamanna in the cross-examination
admits that their mother's name is Munithayamma. The PW.3
during cross-examination denied the suggestion that the acquired
lands in these references are the self-acquired properties and were
in possession of late. Chinnappa. The PW.3 admits the acquired
lands are initially and originally Inams lands. He denied the
suggestion that their ancestors were not possessing and enjoying
the Inams lands and the acquired lands are not ancestral
properties in the hands of his father. He deposed that there is no
difficulty to produce the documents to show that the acquired
lands are their ancestral properties, but they are not in possession
of the documents to show that the acquired lands are their
Cont'd..
- 47 - : L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
ancestral joint family properties. He deposed that he has not seen
as to whether these documents are existing to show that the
acquired lands are ancestral properties. He deposed that he does
not know his father did file an application before the Special D.C.,
for Inams Abolition to grant acquired lands in his individual and
personal capacity. He further deposed that he does not know as to
when his father's father has died. The PW.3 Shyamanna during
cross-examination denied the suggestion that the Special D.C., for
Inam Land Abolition have separately grnated Inam lands in favour
of Thammaiah and Venkatappa in their individual capacity.
Admittedly, contesting claimants have not produced the documents
to prove that as to whether Chinnappa did file an application before
the Special D.C., for grant of occupancy rights in Inams Lands
either in his individual capacity or on behalf of himself and his
family members. The PW.1 Rathnamma and PW.3 Shyamanna
consistently deposed in their oral evidence in support of their
respective contentions. The PW.1 Rathnamma, however, during
cross-examination as discussed above, has deposed that her father
did file an application before the Special D.C., for grant of Inam
lands for himself and on behalf of his brother Thammaiah, but no
Cont'd..
- 48 -
: L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
document is produced to prove the same. As deposed by PW.3
Shyamanna, no documents and materials placed before the court
to prove that the Inam lands mentioned under Ex.P.2 are being
granted for benefit of joint family of late. Chinnappa and his family
members and the same were their ancestral properties. At the
same time, the claimants Rathnamma, Papanna and LRs of
deceased Dodda Akkaiamma also not produced any materials and
evidence to prove that the lands granted under Ex.P.2 were held by
late. Chinnappa as his self-acquired properties and same are
granted in his individual capacity as his individual and self-
acquired properties. The contesting claimants also not summoned
application if any submitted by late. Chinnappa for grant of
occupancy right in Inam lands before the Special D.C., mentioned
in Ex.P.2 and whether such application is existing in the special
D.C., office, Bengaluru for Inam Abolition.
.22. The contention of claimants Avalappa and Shyamanna is
that during life-time of their father late. Chinnappa, the acquired
properties along with other properties were partitioned between
Chinnappa and his children, wherein, the share of Dodda
Cont'd..
- 49 - : L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
Akkaiamma was given under partition dated 24.09.1954
(20.09.1954) and the claimant Rathnamma is given Rs.10,000/- in
lieu of her share in the said properties, but the contesting
claimants Rathnamma, Papanna and children of Dodda
Akkaiamma are denied the same. Therefore, the burden is on the
claimants Shyamanna and Avalappa to prove that such partition
has been effected during life-time of Chinnappa and his children in
the family properties, including the acquired lands. The PW.3
Shyamanna during cross-examination deposed that during life-time
of their father the partition has been effected in between brothers.
He deposed that he cannot say in which year such partition has
been effected between brothers. He deposed that such partition
was taken place orally and no written partition deed has been
executed. He deposed that at the time of oral partition, (1) patel
Muniyappa; (2) Hosamane Muniyappa; (3) Chikka Muniyappa were
present and all of them have died. PW.3 during cross-examination
deposed that he cannot say how much extent of land was allotted
to whom, among brothers and which survey number properties
have been divided. The PW.3 Shyamanna during cross-
examination deposed that during partition, they three brothers did
Cont'd..
- 50 -
: L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
pay Rs.10,000/- to their sister Rathnamma, in lieu of her share,
about 30 years ago. He deposed that he has not produced the
documents to show that they three brothers did pay Rs.10,000/- to
Rathnamma. The PW.1 Rathnamma during cross-examination
denied the suggestion that her husband in O.S.No.549/1997 while
deposing as her GAP holder has deposed as marked at Ex.P.14(a),
14(b) and 14(c) in his deposition, certified copy of which are marked
at Ex.P.14. The Ex.P.14 is a certified copy of deposition of PW.1
H.C. Krishna the husband of Rathnamma being deposed by him as
GPA holder of his wife, in O.S.No.549/1997. The said H.C.
Krishnappa the husband of claimant Rathnamma in
O.S.No.549/1997 in his deposition marked at Exs.P.14(a) to (c) has
deposed that since 20 years Shyamanna, Avalappa and Chinnappa
are residing separately partioning the properties and in that
partition, the land in Sy.No.65/3 was allotted to the share of
Chinnappa etc. Sri. NMS the learned counsel for the claimants
Avalappa and Shyamanna referring to these Exs.P.14(a) to (c),
submits that the evidence of husband of claimant Rathnamma
proves that 20 years ago, the partition was effected in the family
properties, including the acquired lands orally, during life-time of
Cont'd..
- 51 - : L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
Chinnappa, since then, the brothers of Rathnamma and
Chinnappa were residing separately and enjoying the properties
separately. As already discussed above, the PW.3 Shyamanna in
his evidence categorically deposed that no document has been
reduced into writing evidencing the oral partition took place
between brothers and their father Chinnappa and all the three
persons, who were said to be present, at the time, of oral partition
are no more. If really the oral partition was effected between
Chinnappa and his sons Papanna, Avalappa and Shyamanna, as
contended by the claimants Shyamanna and Avalappa, definitely
there would be revenue entries and mutation entries to evidence
the said oral partition. Admittedly, no revenue records or mutation
entries and any materials are placed before the court to show that
such alleged oral partition took place and it is being acted upon.
This apart the evidence of PW.3 Shyamanna is very much clear that
he is unable to give particulars as to what extent of lands and in
which survey number, the shares in the acquired lands including
other family properties were allotted to Chinnappa and his sons.
Under the circumstances, the oral evidence of PW.1 Krishnappa
given in O.S.No.549/1997 as a GPA holder of Rathnamma in the
Cont'd..
- 52 - : L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
said suit and his deposition marked at Exs.P.14(a) to 14(c), will be
of no help to prove the oral partition, alleged to be taken place
between Chinnappa and his sons, much less, as deposed by PW.3
Shyamanna, since no corroborative documentary evidence is
produced to prove the same, as discussed above. As already
discussed above, in the extracts of RTCs marked at Exs.P.4 to 9
and Exs.P.25 to 36, names of Papanna, Avalappa, Shyamanna and
Dodda Akkaiamma are mentioned in the kabjedar's column (col.
No.9 of the said RTCs). This apart, the Ex.P.39 certified copy of MR
No.19/97-98 of Kembathahalli village, evidences that after the
death of Chinnappa, the names of children of Chinnappa came to
be mutated to the properties mentioned therein, including the
acquired lands and it also evidences that wife of Chinnappa
predeceased him. These documentary evidence coupled with the
oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and other materials on record, leads to
the only probability that though the occupancy rights in the
properties mentioned in Ex.P.2, which includes the acquired lands
were granted under the Inams Abolition Act, in the name of late.
Chinnappa, but in the absence of documentary evidence or
acceptable evidence, it is presumed that the said properties were
Cont'd..
- 53 -
: L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
granted for and on behalf of the joint family members of late.
Chinnappa and his family members. The entries in the aforesaid
RTCs and MR No.19/97-98 also corroborates the fact that though
it is presumed that occupancy right is granted in the name of late.
Chinnappa only but late. Chinnappa thrown the said properties
including the acquired lands voluntarily into the joint stock of joint
family of Chinnappa and his children, with an intention to
abandoning his right of self-acquired property, if any, upon it, as
evidence on record proves that intention of late. Chinnappa shall be
to treat the properties granted under Ex.P.2 as joint family
properties and let the said properties, including acquired
properties, to the common hotchpots of the joint family, consisting
of himself and his children. Therefore, it may safely be concluded
that the acquired properties in all these references were the joint
family properties of late. Chinnappa and his children and not the
self-acquired properties of late. Chinnappa. The appreciation of
oral and documentary evidence proves that the acquired properties
in these references are not ancestral joint family properties of
Chinnappa and his family members, much less as contended by
claimants Shyamanna and Avalappa. The ratio and the principles
Cont'd..
- 54 -: L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
laid down by their Lordships in the ruling cited supra, reported in
(1) 2014 (4) KCCR 3581 (DB) (in the case of Mallappa and others
Vs. Mallappa and others); (2) 2917(2) AKR 209 (in the case of Smt.
Shakuntala Mallikarjuna Balikai and others Vs. Basavaraj
Basavanneppa Sirigeri and others); and (3) AIR 2008 Karnataka,
151 (in the case of G. Rangaiah Vs. Govindappa and others), are
undisputed, but the same will be of no help to the claimants
Papanna, Rathnamma and children of claimant deceased Dodda
Akkaiamma, to prove that the acquired properties are the self-
acquired properties of late. Chinnappa as facts of the said rulings
and facts of the case on hand, are quite different.
.23. Admittedly, Chinnappa has died on 08.01.1995, which
is subsequent to coming into force of Hindu Succession Act 1956.
There is no dispute that Dodda Akkaiamma has died on
07.03.2006 and marriage of claimant deceased Dodda Akkaiamma
and the claimant Rathnamma were solemnized prior to the death of
their father late. Chinnappa. This court for the reasons discussed
above has come to the very definite conclusion that the acquired
properties in these references, were joint family properties of late.
Cont'd..
- 55 -: L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
Chinnappa and his children and he has died intestate. Admittedly,
the claimant Rathnamma has failed in her endeavour to prove that
her father did bequeath her 30 guntas land in acquired Sy.No.65/3
of Kembathahalli village, which is a part of acquired land in L.A.C.
No.251/2003, as contended by her in O.S.No.549/1997. Though
the appeal filed by her against the judgment and decree in
O.S.No.549/1997 i.e., R.A. No.32/2000, is dismissal, but same will
not disentitle to claim her alleged share in the acquired properties,
as being daughter and Class-I heir of their deceased father
Chinnappa, along with her brothers and sister Dodda Akkaiamma.
As rightly submitted by Sri. NMS the learned counsel for the
claimants Shyamanna and Avalappa, in the year 2001 itself, the
properties in these references have been acquired, under the
circumstances, these properties were not available for the relief
sought by the plaintiff Rathnamma in O.S.No.1253/2006 and this
court being reference court, u/s. 30 of the L.A. Act is competent to
adjudicate the dispute between rival claimants of acquired lands,
with-regard to their title of acquired properties and apportionment
of the compensation awarded to the said lands etc. Therefore,
pendency of O.S.No.1253/2006 in the Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn) court,
Cont'd..
- 56 -
: L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
Bengaluru rural District, Bengaluru, has no much consequences,
to dispose off, these references u/ss. 30 and 31(2) of L.A. Act, in
these references. Admittedly, Chinnappa propositus i.e., father of
claimant Rathnamma and her brothers Avalappa, Shyamanna,
Papanna and deceased their sister Dodda Akkaiamma, had died on
08.01.1995, much earlier to 09.09.2005. Under the
circumstances, the claimant Rathnamma and her sister deceased
Dodda Akkaiamma, are not entitle for benefits, under the
provisions of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. Though
the claimant Rathnamma and her sister deceased Dodda
Akkaiamma are daughters of their father deceased Chinnappa, but
to seek benefit under the provisions of Hindu Succession
(Amendment) Act, 2005, requirement was that Chinnappa ought to
be alive as on 09.09.2005 and the claimant Rathnamma and
deceased Dodda Akkaiamma ought to be daughters alive,
irrespective of when they are born and the said provisions are not
applicable to the partition, disposition or alienation took place prior
to 20.12.2004. Admittedly, Chinnappa father of claimants
Rathnamma and her sister Dodda Akkaiamma, has died, much
prior to 09.09.2005, as such, they cannot claim equal share par
Cont'd..
- 57 -
: L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
with their brothers Papanna, Avalappa and Shyamanna in the
acquired properties. In this connection, it is worthy to quote
observations of their Lordships in the ruling reported in 2015 (4)
KCCR 3265 (SC) Supreme court of India, in the case of Prakash
and others Vs. Phulavathi and others. The relevant portion runs as
under:
"22. In this background, we find that the
proviso to section 6(1) and sub-section (5) of
section 6 clearly intend to exclude the
transactions referred to therein which may
have taken place prior to 20th December, 2004
on which date the bill was introduced.
Explanation cannot permit reopening of
partitions which were valid when effected.
Object of giving finality to transactions prior
to 20th December 2004, is not to make the
main provision retrospective in any manner.
The object is that by fake transactions
available property of the introduction of the
Bill is not taken away and remains available as
and when right conferred by the statute
becomes available and is to be enforced. Main
provision of the Amendment in section 6(1)
and (3) is not in any manner intended to be
Cont'd..
- 58 -
: L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
affected but strengthened in this way. Settled
principles governing such transactions relied
upon by the appellants are not intended to be
done away with for period prior to 20th
December, 2004. In no case statutory
notional partition even after 20th December,
2004 could be covered by the Explanation or
the proviso in question.
23. Accordingly, we hold that the
rights under the amendment are applicable to
living daughters of living coparceners as on
9th December, 2005 irrespective of when such
daughters are born. Disposition or alienation
including partitions which may have taken
place before 20th December, 2004 as per law
applicable prior to the said date will remain
unaffected. Any transaction of partition
effected thereafter will be governed by the
Explanation."
The ratio and the principles laid down by their Lordships, in
the ruling cited supra, relied upon by Sri. MP the learned counsel
for the claimants Rathnamma, Papanna and children of Dodda
Akkaiamma, reported in ILR 2018 KAR 669 (Supreme Court),
Cont'd..
- 59 - : L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
cited supra, are undisputed, but the same will be of no help to the
said claimants, for the reasons that facts of the said ruling and
facts of the case on hand, are quite different. Under the
circumstances, considering the fact that late. Chinnappa has died
prior to 09.09.2005, as such, the benefits of provisions
contemplated under provision of Hindu Succession (Amendment)
Act 2005, shall not be made applicable, so far as the claimants
Rathnamma and in respect of share of claimant deceased Dodda
Akkaiamma in these references. The fact that as on the date of
acquisition of properties in these references, where, this court held
that the acquired properties are joint family properties of late.
Chinnappa and his children and also this court negativated the
contention of claimants Shyamanna and Avalappa that the oral
partition was effected in the family properties, including acquired
properties between Chinnappa and his sons, as such, the children
of late. Chinnappa are entitle for the share in the compensation of
the acquired lands, as per the provisions of Hindu Succession Act
1956. This court held that Chinnappa has died intestate, having
his undivided interest in the acquired properties. The claimant
Rathnamma and her sister claimant deceased Dodda Akkaiamma
Cont'd..
- 60 -
: L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
were married as on the date of acquisition, still then, the married
daughters are entitle share in the undivided interest of deceased
father in the acquired properties, as per the provisions
contemplated u/s. 6, proviso, Explanation-1 r/w section 8 of
Indian Succession Act, 1956. Smt. Gowramma w/o claimant
Papanna and their daughters Lalitha, Manjula, Munithayamma,
Munirathna and Padma are also be impleaded contending they are
entitle share, out of the share to be allotted to Papanna in the
acquired properties, on the ground that the claimant Papanna
without considering their right in the acquired properties, in
collusion with his brothers are making efforts to get release the
compensation amount, but the said claimants have not filed the
claim statement and also not adduced evidence to prove their
contention. Admittedly, Papanna is the head of branch of himself
and his aforesaid wife and children, under the circumstances, it is
suffice to allot the share in the name of Papanna, representing his
branch constituting his wife and children, out of acquired
properties, as he being head of their family branch. During
evidence of PW.3 Shyamanna, the Exs.P.41 and 42 certified copies
of depositions of DW.3 Lalithamma and DW.2 Muniswamy s/o late.
Cont'd..
- 61 -: L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
Venkatappa, respectively, deposed by them in O.S.No.1253/2006,
on the file of Principal II Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District,
Bengaluru, are marked. The PW.3 is being cross-examined, in-
respect of those depositions and Sri. NMS and Sri. MP, Advocates,
also argued much with-regard to the said evidences in support of
their respective claimants, to whom they are appearing. These
depositions marked at Exs.P.41 and 42 have no much
consequences and bearing on the merits of these references and
hence, the said depositions are not liable to be considered to
appreciate merits of these references, since, this court in the body
of this judgment has observed that the suit O.S.No.1253/2006 has
no consequences in the merits of these references. Sri. MP the
learned counsel for claimants Rathnamma, Papanna and LRs of
deceased Dodda Akkaiamma in the written argument, are
contending that the acquired properties are self-acquired properties
and children of late. Chinnappa being Class-I heirs are entitle to
succeed and receive the compensation of the acquired lands, as per
the provisions contemplated u/s.8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956,
in equal share as the acquired properties are self-acquired
properties of late. Chinnappa. The learned counsel in support of
Cont'd..
- 62 -
: L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
the argument, has placed reliance on the ruling reported in ILR
2016 Karnataka 3604 (in the case of Smt. Shakuntala and others
Vs. Basavaraj and others). The relevant portion runs as under:
"(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 8-
Rules of succession in the case of males under-
self acquired property of a male Hindu who died
intestate- property devolved o his heirs-Suit
filed by the children of the heirs claiming right
by birth"
The ratio and the principles laid down by their Lordships in
this ruling are undisputed and the same will be of no help to the
claimants Papanna, Rathnamma and LRs of Dodda Akkaiamma,
for the reason that this court has held that the acquired properties
are not self-acquired properties and even same are not ancestral
joint family properties, but held that the acquired properties are
joint family properties of late. Chinnappa and his children. This
apart, the facts of said ruling and facts of case on hand are quite
different. As already discussed above, late. Chinnappa has died
intestate, under the circumstances, as per the provisions
contemplated under Hindu Succession Act 1956, under notional
partition three sons shares and share of deceased Chinnappa are
liable to be equally divided, in which event it will comes 1/4th share
Cont'd..
- 63 - : L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
each and out of 1/4th share, carved out towards undivided share of
deceased Chinnappa in the acquired properties, his three sons and
two daughters are liable to be allotted equally, in which event it
would be 1/20th share each. Thus, 3 sons of late. Chinnappa i.e.,
Papanna, Avalappa and Shyamanna are entitle to receive 1/4 +
1/20, i.e., totally each of them are entitle to receive 3/10 and
claimant Rathnamma is entitle to receive 1/20 share in the
acquired properties, whereas, children of claimant No.3 deceased
Dodda Akkaiamma together are entitle to receive remaining 1/20
share of compensation, out of compensation awarded to the
acquired properties in these references. Thus, the claimant
Papanna is entitle to receive the compensation amount to the
extent of 3/10, claimant Avalappa is entitle to receive the
compensation amount to the extent of 3/10 and claimant
Shyamanna is entitle to receive the compensation amount to the
extent of 3/10, claimant Rathnamma is entitle to receive the
compensation amount to the extent of 1/20 and children of
claimant deceased Dodda Akkaiamma together are entitle to receive
the compensation amount to the extent of 1/20 share, out of
compensation amount awarded to the acquired properties, in these
Cont'd..
- 64 - : L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w
L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to
252/2003
references. Thus, except these claimants, remaining claimants are
not entitle to receive the compensation amount, awarded to the
acquired properties, in these references. Thus, for the above
discussed reasons, point No.1 is answered holding that the
acquired properties in these references are the joint family
properties of late. Chinnappa and his children and answered point
No.2 in the negative and answered point No.3 accordingly for
consideration.
.24. POINT NO.4: In view of my findings on the afore-
mentioned points 1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The references made by the Spl. Addl. LAO, BDA, Bengaluru, in L.A.C. Nos.208/2003, 248/2003, 249/2003, 250/2003, 251/2003 and 252/2003, all under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are allowed.
The Claimant Papanna, who is claimant No.1 in all cases and Cont'd..
- 65 - : L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to 252/2003 claimant Avalappa, who is a claimant No.3 in L.A.C. 208/2003, claimant No.2 in L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to 252/2003 and claimant Shyamanna, who is a claimant No.4 in L.A.C. No.208/2003 and claimant No.3 in L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to 252/2003, each one of them are entitle to receive the compensation amount to the extent of 3/10th share, whereas, the claimant Smt. Rathnamma, who is a claimant No.6 in L.A.C. No.208/2003 and claimant No.5 in L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to 251/2003 and claimant No.7 in L.A.C. No.252/2003, is entitle to receive the compensation amount to the extent of 1/20th share and whereas, claimants Gowramma, Jayanna, Srinivas and Muniswamy, who are claimants 2(a) to 2(d) in L.A.C. No.208/2003 and claimants 4(a) to 4(d) in L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to 252/2003 together are entitle to receive the compensation amount to Cont'd..
- 66 - : L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to 252/2003 the extent of 1/20th share, deposited in these references, awarded to the acquired lands, measuring 4 acres 19 guntas in Sy.No.60, 21 guntas in Sy.No.99/1, 1 acre 8 guntas in Sy.No.67/2, 4 guntas in Sy.No.95/2, 1 acre 15 guntas in Sy.No.65/3 and 1 acre 12 guntas in Sy.No.61/1 respectively of Kembathahalli village, with proportionate accrued interest thereon.
The claim of remaining claimants, is hereby rejected.
The claimants Papanna, Avalappa, Shyamanna, Rathnamma and LRs of claimant deceased Dodda Akkaiamma shall have to execute Indemnity Bonds with one surety, undertaking to re- deposit the compensation amount either in this court or in any other courts, if ordered to do so, which amount they are going to receive in these references.
Draw award accordingly.
Cont'd..
- 67 - : L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to 252/2003 Office is hereby directed to retain this original common judgment in L.A.C. No.208/2003 and copies thereof be kept in L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to 252/2003.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this the 31st day of July, 2018.) (I.F. Bidari) II Additional C.C. and Spl. Judge, Bangalore ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR CLAIMANTS:
P.W.1 : Rathnamma
PW.2 : Muniswamy
PW.3 : Shyamanna
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE CLAIMANTS:
Ex.P.1 : Genealogical tree Ex.P.2 : Certified copy of order sheet of Spl. D.C. Ex.P.3 : Certified copy of Form No.VIII Ex.P.4-9 : RTC extracts (6 in numbers) Ex.P.10 : Certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.549/97 Ex.P.11 : Certified copy of amended plaint in O.S.No.549/97 Ex.P.12 : Certified copy of written statement in O.S.No.549/97 Ex.P.13 : Certified copy of Addl. W.S. in O.S.No.549/97 Cont'd..
- 68 - : L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to 252/2003 Ex.P.14 : Certified copy of deposition of PW.1 in O.S.No.549/97 Ex.P.15 : Certified copy of Judgment in O.S.No.549/97 Ex.P.16 : Certified copy of decree in O.S.No.549/97 Ex.P.17 : C.C. of judgment in RA No.32/2000 Ex.P.18 : C.C. of decree in RA No.32/2000 Ex.P.19 : C.C. of plaint in O.S.No.1253/2006 Ex.P.20 : C.C. of W.S in O.S.No.1253/2006 Ex.P.21 : Original election ID card Ex.P.22 ; Original ration card Ex.P.23 : C.C. of reference in L.A.C. No.251/03 Ex.P.24 : Death Certificate Ex.P.25-36: Extracts of RTCs Ex.P.37 : C.C. of registered partition deed dt.24.9.54 (20.09.1954) Ex.P.37(a) : Typed copy of Ex.P.37 Ex.P.38 : C.C. of deposition of witness in O.S.No.549/97 Ex.P.39 : C.C. of MR No.19/97-98 Ex.P.40 : Certified of deposition Ex.P.41 : C.C. of depositions of Lalithamma in O.S.No.1253/2006 Ex.P.42 : C.C. of deposition of Muniswamy in O.S.No.1253/2006
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENT:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE RESPONDENT:
Nil (I.F. Bidari), II Addl. C.C. and Spl. Judge, Bangalore.
IBRAHIM Digitally signed by IBRAHIM BIDARI Cont'd.. FEERASAB FEERASAB DN: cn=IBRAHIM FEERASAB BIDARI,ou=HIGH COURT,o=GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,st=Karnataka,c=IN BIDARI Date: 2018.08.03 13:13:32 IST
- 69 - : L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to 252/2003 Cont'd..
- 70 - : L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to 252/2003 (Judgment pronounced in open court) Vide separate order ORDER The reference made by the learned Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, BBMP, Bengaluru, under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is hereby rejected.
The claim of c laimant No.1 M. Lingaraju (Ningaraju) and objector/claimant No.2 M. Manjunatha, the sons of Muniyellappa, is hereby rejected.
The amount of Rs.2,56,634/-, which is in F.D., in the bank with accrued interest is ordered to be returned to the respondent - Spl. LAO, BBMP, Bengaluru.
Draw award accordingly.
Cont'd..
- 71 - : L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to 252/2003 II Additional C.C. and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Cont'd..
- 72 - : L.A.C. No.208/2003 c/w L.A.C. Nos.248/2003 to 252/2003 Cont'd..