Sri Jayaram Reddy S/O Late Govinda Reddy vs Smt G Danamma W/O Jayaram Reddy on 17 March, 2008

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Jayaram Reddy S/O Late Govinda Reddy vs Smt G Danamma W/O Jayaram Reddy on 17 March, 2008

Bench: K.Ramanna

Iii' Tn? HI3}-3. Cvuml. Cr
Damn: nus cm: 17*' Int or mam 2002}

1332033

um: 1~1o1~z'nr.E. MR. JUSTICE   '

nxsc. nnscr Avpnnr. :1¢<5k.2»;s;-r.(og3'%{(§?gc,-gi   V

1 sn: JAYARAMZ"'E£DD?f"'"'  
am Lam: GOVII3DH--_R.E_3DY'--_ ~ 

NEED ILBOUT 65 

R:":'a.T }%'{'''.e.. 135 ;.  L "'4.-'."..a'  'D.'--'.!!?£ﬁ!¥P_.I "";?l'I.aI.a.'~'.'.'%£

mm ::.=.rc:s:L'w_i  '3v".f;_.« V' 

2 am:   
$%fC%%%%:-mi wwrm mrﬁr
 A323 LVABQEJ1" :32 %L~'g_Ia.n.I.1s;
 ms.-13 2«z*z:«,%1%:aa;4%%rmrsz>.a.Nn:xu1~rnI vrunen
 -   4%   Arnnzmms
   (comma m no-my
 I; £1-IANU, ADV.)

 

ma cmmnau msnmr
new Anotrr :4 means,
A 3'19 

P 1
any true awvbiru

kmmummnx roar.
saneamﬂﬁ 37.

2 am rcmrmnun.
mic:  3.52-:
ms-an anmrr 44 mans.
I-1:3-a" :.tu'a"uu..*' TALER,

JIGEHI HOBLI; NHNJEWRA;

BANGM.s0EB . I 



tn!

man  6:':  
nmr ND.136_. noummtmmx VILLAGE 
mm mm, nmemonz av.  k 

4 srrr mmmzm
we WP" iEIJF:"
man now 49       
FJAT No.1:-:6,   
may 2951, ammm  " -. . % '

saw saw.-1*..'a:   V
1:-Jo mm Gov: 3.£I!.I>Y,
HEJOR:      
Ra"A'1' No.13s,»_nonw1;:4:J1ex:x v1_:1.:.mE
AND mast'. nnuenxcm   

El

5 am szaaoamnmf  A _  L
rm'    
Ii.."1"s€I' 'I~¥£1_,,'13@5_;'«» non:-mm'mnI VILLAGE

  Ak 12.=,v;.m*i.,;  a:am_nm,-35% 31 ,

. . . RESPDNDENIS
Jnnlnnnnv II-1! -apuvnu-I
\'uU£'ll'.|ML'l J..." ﬂU.l£'-U

my 55:: *:¢_s ﬁgxmrma ma non CIIU. mm use
332 5.; 4,  n-3 Vmrxcm nxspmrsnn mm;

 MECEELAHEGU FIRST E-'.El:':'S2--':.'I: EILED

% v"%'ﬁ%.'oRnE:11%%4L3%#mmn 111:) or mac, mum? 11-m onnnn
._"-f:nEs'1*§1i5V"_~v.,_D2x'a~i32.2008 inssﬁb 'Iii fJ.§.1~ifJ'.i.576ﬁ r.
As?61!2eL_4' on In 1105.1 5 2 or: am: FILE or

 ADDITIGNKL CITY CIVIL E SESSIONS
WW - B.3l~IQ-AI.DP..'5.'-7 .!\.'|.'aI.1.'!!I?3.'.H'f3_-3 1.1; H13: 2 311-39

'V' II!  $I--.~(

 AA .U;"O1iDER 39 nuns 1 a 2 RN sac 151 cpc.

'£'h.asa Appeals are coming on to: admission

 this day, the Court dolivorod the following:

Ira



J U B G 3.3 H'?
 

The appellants and respondents  in

'--'-t'- t*~- my-*'-peals are ene am'. tue 5-F-Q;-;';' csmman question of fact law"ar§}.if:#e.iva£i;'~, the name are taken up "

dispensed at. _ V

2. These two '.,i'V1IV"'. jae§n :£11ed by '5' 1.2;; a ggzlgntg' order: dated.

2.-'2,-'ease iﬁassadiii».f¢.S~..E.*¢.$'?f§if'2.G0-1 -.-. 1.35.1 n 2 ikdditiormi city c i1r5v._J._ 1 8:» V Ban.gaJ. on , whereby by the plaintiffs-

raap§in§ont:ﬁ'--i"" order 39 Rules 1 and :_aL;%s_.--'-_-_e.i. 1-ar_'*r.:2:k"sa<:.g:; :1. ;5; 9.: c:,2.<;. ._ "'&_lié:i&t;_iﬁ§f""o.r transferring of suit property to and they are also restrained from * :p}1ti:'i..ng up furthor construction in the suit héhodulo property. aggrieved by the said 9:41;: the well: -5-d.e.£ez1.;I1n..;1.-a 3 E 3 !'!l'}'l'l'I'Il(TPl T ¥X--IITC3 _.._..-._ -_.lL\. .5. ........ 9 p 1:3 tn an 1_____..

HHVUC

3. Inc nriif fa-#5 faf 'tiii ﬁi iii fhﬁf the p1o.ini:i££u--respondents 1 & 2 horuijzyhnva filed a emit aguinat tho appellants ether: for partition and nepa:aMt§""-._:j:e§QVii§ui'¢;ﬁ' or their 119" ahara in tr:h""Es'11'i1; ' AV bearirq s},'...e.9!2 megsuniimjg e.<:xe~a '2%'?~ mi§~.,§:§g situated at ﬁoddnneikﬁﬁﬁi 'vﬁurafh Hobli, Bazzgalorei to the p1a1nt1££a-zasponaungaaif g fg hu:e1n their father in a.

sag-tit: pm. ban-roan him and his' ﬁﬁiaéered partition deed du1:;'c1 ' Bf their fathoa: died 1?¢ring*V hah1nn"V*thsmstho plaintiff and ﬂixifezi-dagtu 1 before the lower: Court as the said defendants 1 to 'I in "I-111:1: 911:; other in order to avoid to v._»_1'i'i'1Ar.roir1 without their knowledge had affoc.-1':-ad partition in the suit property between thomanlvaa as per rogiatatad partition dead dated 20!06/2003. '1'ho.t]_ _tho reputed demand $%r made ':33; 'ﬁhi iilﬁiﬁfiffi 'ta eﬁfeai: ﬁartiti-a did not: yield ury fruit. Hence, they filed the instant suit to: revocation oi.' pant:_J,.t'i;er§eI"wg§ie.ed dated 20/612003 and £01:

groperty. The mother tin 'txbho'j' pendent.-y or the §pge1ﬁJé.e;t1i:a'V§ 1 and 2 herein who wan 1103.2 and :3 hetor.-e to heve tamed layout revenue land and ate.:téﬂ- I 1: else started conet afu_ci: 1. iciing . Therefore. We app_1idé'i:inonsV tiled by 1" and 2"

:'}"n';':s1%zA<>:ns'1Ign1:V'"1:'a'¢i;t':r:iV::va the trial court: seeking to V not to alienate or tenure: the ."g;'i:1'itv_'ga"v§.?:§;ei:1u1e property and elao not to put up N--t--cti.-:3: in the suit .-. -her..'."l.a V._§"::apenty. after canaiciering the ahjectiona and oral arguments or both the sides, the court helm: count! that there is a prime teale- clue and balance of congrgyance in favour of .'l>,E/.

I.na. grunting ternpozuy injunction as ;p1b:aycd for by the plaintifta. thanqgpﬁﬁff ago appellants luvs come up with umlor order: 43 Rule 1 1- the gr 11 .4 :11;

prrép-in fly appiiéf:

|-lb rnapondont Nos. n§ég~'1gﬁt, 1;;1t1,.. or interest to They were nova: 11;.» ":g§aa§§u;§§i2 I suit schedule pzoperiég? Vintezrim undo: of i*~jV°::h"é';-i;.§3:~ enpellemts-1 .41.. .2 fzotii-A transferring the nuii: a¢h9d1;;I'eV_'p::¢3>§x:i':jz"»LVar1d ulna tram putting up '§é$n#:uqt1¢ﬁ"'ﬁv6r their respective shun. 'rho V :.§a:;1:antion or the leurud counsel tor '§ﬁn gﬁ§§11anta that the trial Court has a':e-,-,~-';1-'A intemzeted the pzevisier. at Se-'..':.-..§ B of the iiindu Suecoaaicm fiat. ﬁccording to $uc.6{5] of thus Hindu succession Act, if the partition is oﬂlactod prior to 20f12;"2004 that the marriages of _ the daughters were / ' R performed prior to amendment and therefore the plaintiffs-respondents 1 E 2 are not entitled for any chance. while arguing learned counaol £o1::- the nppe1le;;'t§'a::. ;1_:t.:e;1;i.c,::_1 oz 1_:1;1.:,-.3 Gaunt §a~::_a"4._5ga.jf V at the aaia Act. '1'he,:=£sr;s,"--._r=span:'4ent '=}:"¢5.'1 ma 2 are net coparceiaejra to'*'¢1a_'i'm share in the suit want not self acquired prope$':AV;Vtﬁf'_':'§i{iE' _.!.§i*$§.»yJ_$ev1ndu Roddy. The propertf' ' the share or n..g:l.f'.' 9.15 the pggtition tar' ' ' ., bn::c>1v$'i1.1Vsr'x:n§ the Court: below ought net: hnife §ram;~te£.iVi;iVxjux1ation by allowing I.Au.1 A av.¢_g7ai1:Lef.:"""i:1iom. It is further argued that 1 and 2 have raied huge amount {for ¢ai.';9.r:r:T:1 et:i...z:. at cm .__¢!'~ .I .'.__l_..___...__n._l on _;.n.;]u.m;:t:J. ' v _;_§§zraitted, they would complete the construction of the building. Eurthon it is argued that they undertake, not to alienate the suit schedule property 1:11]. the diagonal «g, \ aﬁ the snit. I': is alas: s"hr:1i'tﬁid i*:'n'f: "hi"

will not claim any uquity over ths proparty, even it plaintiffs-respondents 1 in the suit. TIIUIQEQIU; it in appoal be allowed by aa1:f1:iVng« AV :"

S d' 3' O M, :3- G I'! ﬁ,"£¥.* »n3"

iann C I-' H! 0 I1 _ 3 ii" f-:_fj:v_r;-'s'.V<_'i. -- "ﬁeiﬁ. arnﬁ 2. The 2 measuring 2 Hindu Joint:

f __appal1unt and respondents. It 15 gggnéd Egan §ﬁ§y have already filed I.A. ____ _ _n __ _ .. .....A...-.. nﬁfziaiary p.i'u'pi3:"'E'y 13a.::1:y. ._ the question of non-joindor of nacennaiy party does not arise as they huvo 'A filed application for bringing an "rico,rd an the mcouaaxy parties. While lean"-d cm:-.391 For the II raapondunta aubtnittaci that 6ec.8 of the \ Succession Act in aqua:-n/:iI.§> applicable to the #~.L A --m. «I. ||..-.l fax: 5 of the éﬁi. -mi 'partitioﬁ, t 't HIE} tukan place between the appellants 1 anc1"*2 and other sisters is incorrect and 111ag§3§V:§"':"tI'ﬂfI:apn the other aiatexzu are entitled why raapondonts Noa.1 an.'c1W'2"'enA::§3 '4eJw::1_t:(.1::Vi'ua¢!.'j'. for any Ah:-r-L Ev e;.i.9t:_e3.r.2_ t ,ei:"».mam.1Lti_.a_§~9 daughters are Véxgtittiétthnj';t$'--.. sut:?¢é'uei"V§ to the autumn of theiéit with their brothers «i[.;;*s: that it tho am: 0.1 " V .9l'.n ting const met ion """ H .. _ 3. at I5.iE'ﬁ"rE?-Elilllﬁv8|-.it#§'A ;~¢}f'«..V§'iE%}5On<i.OntBu 'I"na1:er':'o1:e, it in a:q_nad "~f:ha.tV trial court in right in tiie"""'a.;ép11cationu. Hence. he prays V at the appeals.

._t§_~.«--"/mails arguing the case, the loaumnd * Vqguiihscl for the respondent relied on several "d'6ciaiorm viz . , :

Is-

a.

hoax: held thus: 4%,' E5 'HA1 .ea.1.t.b.m-t=;t_!: (Z7 91 1.9.5?) 8.3 Hindu succession heat (30 at _ 1956:, Pro. and 3.8 - 1'a:titioz;.'i'._:""'i._V of joint family huaineaa beta;-.§g;'V':"~'iI"~V:.

father and his only sari"

Buainean continued_;15¥.,.Ea1:11'6r" . son by foaming fixriiil 4' .:'7I....'.'g ..

gr 3 .it' hr'.

in In G?!

1. 1+... .

3"

'A Amount s1_:nnding..VV'jA'~t_o~~_»_V C!.'l'i'.l'If3i.:t_ deceased V A---.'._."&1'.'_11t§:'.* V _' » .§:ic:¢_ount of firm dwolvag his ingi§iduaimﬂ'ing@ﬁ¢sx'13:8 has ¢::_1»¢3...V Law -

be included 41139:' ﬁat Eiaaiﬁh of an-1' . .. Hoia"'aJ:;aa.'I--r6'J.ié}fi on tho decision reported i""~¢ ii 1;L;a,19§5"xu:.1561 tcnmnmauum vs. nnaanaaa been held thus:

"Disputes relating to agricultural lands and disputes relating to joint family properties are quite cannon in hue:-.6. gzi..cigJ.e:I. ---et.*I;I'e zs-.gI.-c.r boeomo almost wall defined. While dealing with dispute: oﬁ this type which principally into account the fact V' litigation. taken amt' _ that if cortainﬂ ﬁlaraa in th' i%r:aﬁta" aﬁtth' 9:9-aezty -.::~....=.-r disgizte would on13,r_"'j%git§§ ,_.-:is.apv._At:a_ tuacthnr litigation. roman thy . f H mi .._ Vihﬂtvhctuoua . E»:-:r__ L: .;iu.;p0s§;_ titre as an imgiahteiiii caution and lagu 63I3'H(ii§T1 " | iihi uuumzu _."¢£:t certain 9.-ell t_4iI;::'.Ei.i.i:t'.aé.';*V.'. A p;i__c_:_p1.ea which drdihhriiyi ought not to he jaigpartédiv from. one of this ivﬁttiincipla is that when; there is aputo ' -immovoohla relation to property which happens to he vacant that if the in pa-apa=t3~ were t he eneiawered, e.1i:-.r.e..--..-é,- 'built 1.11.192 9.1: it third party rights are permitted to he created during the interim period that the situation might E;

J' \ ﬂ totally irreversible by the time __ the ceurt pal.-sees final orderly 11: is a well defined princi_g.];g;;VV':"-3;. ' of law that a. court is reqt; £::ec«1:VV:

to be equally feix e¢ei£ns=e defendant: as ii-31ev;>..4e .fj+E':>p safety p;:ecnuti.t§i1a_ 'Vin .'rel::lAti¢_€i§n to the w.j._ﬁt':"e;~eet: are also at same This 1;, 'i;:}:1e.: 'eeeeheeVV'V at the :p£igéig1et;§e§in&f the" eras: of V'

-hand' counsel for the decision. decinion IV w------ . ----- .----------_.--._.._..-__.-- ......_..._. ;;_-;;g"t_a*;.; . .' ._f_-121 rnmmmm GANG_A_1l_A_Jt_I 3. 9115. vs. uh ein it «-

. e.nham th.t, "(iii Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 6 (en amended by .n.A..n.--

Act 3'? of awe w.e.:':'. §.§.2n'.'r_ﬁ5i By virtue of amendment of section 6 of Act." irrespective ;% \ at ..._..,._..

daughters, they were to be _ treated an caparceneza entitles: to equal shares - only nxcopt,i..o}f.-;VV":"--"j"~;. is partition should not taken place before_J2.0.(_12J'_2'O't3I-{;'_f'. "

5. I have hoax.-:1 the "'*.;r§¥ijm%en£a 5 11 gal fez: the agnpellgiitg :a_I_i,t,s:9j:-.§1;i;i:;l:iI,

-u----- --

The point: cofaeiderntion M1 7 .l;I.I=;._ t: 9 passed the reiatiqnahig' =n5':' fine 'parﬁiea. Iii is 6.15:':

in diia-gums that the father of the and respondentu «me late 5311 got the suit schedule property u£xder;_ eogiatexed pnxztitican deed dated 8/6.4'19T2 said Gwidzu' ruddy died living behind 1'.

1:!' E?

Q.' :3.

I! I-

:5'.

ii I! [ma P1! 'E I U

1...

II t!' 9'! 13 I1' I!' II I'! II I 1:' II I l'f II P 'I Q_ appellants, reapormdenta and their mother. That their mother had 0.136 died subsequent to f \ F in diipuﬁé hatwum 'ﬁhi puruinu cast in partition had taken place on 20f6f2003' h§'i:§iaQn raapondenta and their late mother-'.4':_§'1uV::«:l:.::1';§' life time. excluding -th:AB V_.i§;"LVVe'n4._'.L.i'x'i:4;'i;'If;=..sA-V' ; roapcmdonta 1 and V2 etitien ef t...-2 plaié;1%.i'££: '1a-... i_=h suit Bchiduii v1i«::'opéfz"f:j,*i.. _j.i.'ﬁ-» 'ﬁhéii:-. V.a{ﬁﬁaa"'ﬁra1 joint family -.__a1I.-no entitled to oqua1 ,.s-'ﬁ§.xo afﬁéadula property along and roapondanta 3 to

6. %"I.':j.'., 'iﬁ-\a ;Jiifiiurtiﬂﬁ' at tbd §1ain1:i1'.'1.'- aiatarf. w9V1:e._ ..gLi1i31:toci ahaxo in the acid ;;:%a'¢;:1:;Ljus,%on 20:'6!2003, the appellant: and ' ;z~a.~::1s:.>:_miV"ar:1:ta. 3 ta us should not have excluded a1J.ott:Lnq- any share and that g,;a;a1;;L~;1 _ __.tg I__ll_:L.£._I1.1I_!.t'.1 not have denied their valid

8. The cantontian or the appellants is 1:31;, zines the respondents 1 and 2 are not in uh HI sinae a partiticn at the suit 5 he -.'|.e pzop-erty had alzeaciy been alienated i:<'> --.i':'ni' paxty, they are not entitled to any inj unct ion .

9. The copy or the dead dated ZOIGIZDO3 prodiiz:p;2A_Vi$o£6:.A§ taken piano batjiliﬂn." iij:1a""'-«.'§vift6;"*-A Eohs am daughters of latzé 5:1.' excluding' thé ma.x:1:.:i.e-SQ ﬁg Gavin!-'ll! Roddy who am liteélf-are the Gouxt below ii-'* & "'2~~"i::nrain. It is also fvrarthcca:-ui'ru§' '£'::"'a._1:ha._.aaid ﬁartitisn dead that on: otf "t:.ho c1e;ug!!;i:'e:& of late G-ovinda Roddy io., pf ﬁlaintiffu was also allotted 4!. share partition cutaa zotarzoos. who have not made it clear: as to why i.=1*;e "';..r:c.I.I;r_:;I:_m-.e_.*1_: 1 l'_- 2*pLl_intiffl have bun " ,é:'m.~.1iix:iid fi:'«1:"1'.i ti" said partitian 4..-ted ZOIGIQOO3 and why no share has helm aiiottcci to them, when they have got share in the emit achadule property. Therefore. whnn the ;Q,,, iii-ﬁiannahip batwain tha parties is ad»-.i'.:t=:i their shaman cannot: be denied. The xospagtiva ¢~.-anon at the parties is yet: to bafora the Court helm by both Tlrmratora, at this atagcimbfé. tin , bl'

10. nowavax: c:9naidhV§&'i:§$;;ii»i;;.o ':..man.: the appellants have constructing tho is at in finiahii ~ . :~{j--..: Aﬁhﬁ ;§i::a't ogtnpha produced ma-:rs:.~e' 'Ame "L-gangs'.-'w.':'a'_-"'--""1_:;:.n_n_: it 1; iilgg gn apaitmeﬁnm. Va'a*.ie;:'iViz1_'i'*sr.:i;gtw of i: 6 iumissirvﬁi ﬁuui by the appellant that 1: may thuy would complatzu "tho at the building, and will not 9:01: loans out the same to any third V' .V_éqfuity_ovar the propdrty. ﬁance, in via»: an':

the facts and circumstances of the cane and tho submissions made by the counsel for the 3,--llants trase .1-.pea1= are liable ta he nilowuci with cartel directic-nu. £3

11. Accordingly, both the allowed. The impugned order paﬂéitd Court below is hereb5r"'"'ise«t'_ '.I;hO f' appellants are per.-raittead__ property, hnwi eve; t1:2e3€i_:'aiio;;id 'that-ii put up further new ceimt the suit pr:ope::t:y..:, or the said conot:u.'¢ti'wi"" «suit property. the §'::'§:*;"t_1ii_.1.V,":i§;t may with ownership ' 1". UL. 'lg-_£ 1,6 E"""'I' tﬁ 'Cue. u. §u|..:..I.-165. Th-_e_ a.p§'e.i1vaxit._ f'-egittiier should also not alienate ,'..fu:=the1:AAVﬁoa1--ti'on of the suit property. In V the trial Court: is directed ta it *:i'iep§§e:'I.V_e}f the unit eszyeditioualy on or before .4 .. ;. -. --'I; 1 'J T pIi.1.1a.:I.I..=I nnﬁuid. .a..a..Lﬁ G33. affidavit before thin Court and before the court below within 3 week: £1.-ecu today undertaking to the effiﬂt that they will nut ﬁx?' v" \

1.! part may with the ownership :31: poauaaion of curry portion of the suit achodulo pxoparty to the l:hi1:d parties and will not furthor new cvanntructionu 1_:;__"1"-..j;h§j nrannrtv.

S""""-l"""""""J ' equity war the pzopettiﬁ» Both tho pa'§:t;1.a:§" §_j:§é'j¢._éii-:r;§¢t:§d" Eb appear.- hafora Court balcag co-dperutn with the A2».-.:.t%':.a at the unit sdl-'L_ " ..... 14 « yudge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court