Karnataka High Court
Vijaya Kumar vs Susheelamma on 11 April, 2011
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy
BETWEEN AND "AGEL VYIUJAYA KUMAR S/O CHANNABASA A AGED ABOUT 2] YEARS AGRICULTURIST SADARAHALLI we CHITRADURGA \ TALUR' AND DISERRICT SUSEEELAMMA, W/O MAHADEVAPPA ABOUT. 65 YEARS R/Q SADARAHALLY oe CHITRABURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT BPD 26 oman a Nad FS Sone "ABSENT) ) THE JUDGEMENT -- : PASSED IN R NO.3/2008 ADDITIONAL DIS] PRIGT. 8 SSTONS ~ JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, ALLOWING. THE. TLED AGAINST THE SUDGEMENT AND DECREE PASSED: BY THR If ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR: DN. , _ CHITRADURGA, TOR IN O.S.NO.1LUE/2 THE PILE OF THIS asx lace oh FOR. Paw HEARD IN HEARING MATTERS..THIS 3 DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLD LOWING: - - », GUDGMENT 'None appears for the respondents. dent and son of Nos.2 and 4 cle inst the tnree daucnters prete Requl ar in late Court allowe Appe, setting aside the modified the decree, were made séntitbed for. 1/4"! defendant . Nos eke cand 2. ave. made entitled for 1/4 shares. 3. » hearned, "counsel for the appellant " submicted that "the: appe ijiant who is the son of "No.l i.e., Anasuyamma, in whose 40g husha nd ot hos Vos Ff oy 13.%3.2006 bequeathing the property to the Soup began et ics a at om es a - 3 a, exmernh oF lL acre 23 guntas. AS per Exs.Ds, D4 tT on de dy es "+ = ae yo sated ke mrt bequeathed in Of other caughters. The grang Le cre LA. BA La Sechiornr bach F the Lant nas -
chat Mahadevat bpd» pPlaintity father Responden cs 2 ty.
Learned Couns el "APL suit. i af the app father had ad executed th "property out of his ov purpose, own Learned Counsel Sh the Hindu Succession 'OF Cart.
Yo.l and 2 had no- right Lid sa in ellant will Con side ehe huspand a TE ey ole ce OE] No. M2, o cf) SKE CULE in. Question is the further submits that not decreeing Pal < SLT im respect share For the referred to hee Kat C dee 4 ote + £. ey ven ob ye bt LS Cat Li nO sy ey 5 Be Ey on ice 3 yhe val ine: me Or Oe 4 OL x property but by virtne of Section 30, he ¢coula execute the Will in favour. cf ~the:
oun OF PIs own share. in the eilrecute like this, when a Will .bas. been executed to ail the persons, it should be construed as a family arrangement as, referred to in the Judgments xeported in, (1972)4 Supreme Court Cases Loin the. case of. "tN. ARYAMURTHY AND ANOTHER v. ML "SUBBARAYA 'SHETTY (DEAD) THROUGH LR. AND OTHERS & reported in 2006(1) AIR Kar R | 367 an the case of Smt .RADHAMMA & Ors. ate. v.
"BLN. MUDDUKRISHNA & Ors. etc., when it has been perd that th tne facts and circumstances of a meee ~ wey teased ce oA Will has to be considered as a4 ope yp ep reper FAM L AY Arr angement .
- -
6 It is seen from the materials on "5, " + -- 4 2 fi aes record, out of total 13 acres 4 qguntas of ca)
- a ee ce rs ao 2 yore = O iS, 2 Lo acres
2 - o Ze , neem pie ging os >) ere 3 guntas and 4 acres and 21 guntas Va fertility or the Whatbk are been appellant about 4 there is no material. Tf.12.9quntas 4 gurtas is partitioned from aniong. the family members, each one would be entitled. '0 aan share that is to thevextent "of 3 ares 11 guntas which could have -beén. bequeathed: in favour of the appellant. fo that extent if it is modified, tal then the. question..would be to whom the remaining extent of 1 acre 11 guntas is to be distributed. . Thi problem could have been solved by the trial Court itself by making all Yu? ¥ the persons to appear before the med:
Geen ant a a pes _
--
any it ent me ont { y ie ia _s ay va oh oO 0 on Go a wo Song r q ¥ _ eh fu yn oe FG on spn de Aes Be ew te de pe ed bnen tne trial Courk 28S directed the matter afresh by ceessi fhe orders passed by both the Courts Ferring Section 30
-vererred:
are 'supra.
sen aside. The matter stands. remitted to the trial Court. Both the parties. are. directed to a Court appear before. tthe On
24.,5.,20112