Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. The undisputed facts are that the husband of deceased Siddawwa and father of deceased Mutheppa i.e., Yellappa Pandappa Huligannavar and accused No.1 are real brothers. Yellappa died about 20 years prior to the date of incident and at that time deceased Mutheppa was one year old child. During the lifetime of Yellappa, his share was given to him. However, Khata was not bifurcated by metes and bounds and Phodi was not made out in the name of either Yellappa or after his death in the name of deceased Siddawwa or Mutheppa. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the deceased Siddawwa and Mutheppa were insisting upon the accused persons whose land was situated adjacent to the land of Yellappa to give application to the Revenue Authorities to effect Phodi and make Khata in their name so that they will be able to raise loan on the said land and cultivate it in a better way and in this regard there used to be frequent quarrel between them. It is also the case of the prosecution that accused persons, deceased as well as their neighbours who are all related to them were having common right over the well water and there used to be frequent quarrel regarding sharing of the water also and this was the motive for the accused persons to eliminate the deceased.

16. PWs-1 to 5 have also spoken to about the strained relationship between the accused persons and deceased on account of not making phodi and separate Khata in the name of deceased in respect of the property fallen to the share of Yellappa, the brother of accused No.1. PW-6 Revanna Ramappa Pujeri is the brother of deceased Siddawwa and son of complainant (PW-1). PW-8 Arjun Dundappa Pujeri is the brother-in-law of the complainant. In addition to PWs-1 to 4, these two witnesses have also spoken to about the insistence of deceased persons to the accused persons to get the phodi of land which was fallen to the share of Yellappa be done and separate Khata made out in the name of deceased so that they can raise loan from the PLD Banks and enjoy the said property in a beneficial manner. The accused have taken up a defence that already Khata of the said properties made out in the name of the husband of complainant and consequently, there was no impediment for the deceased persons to enjoy the property. In fact a suggestion is made to PW-2 that for making phodi all the concerned should give application together and if any of them raises objection, it is not possible to get the phodi done. A suggestion is also made to PW-4 by the defence that phodi is not done.

17. The case of the prosecution that phodi of the said property was not done and the Khata of the property continued in the name of father of accused No.1 is supported by the evidence of PW-19 Subhas Nagappa Ugalat who was working as village accountant and PW-32 Krishna Bhimappa Pattar who is also a village accountant. The evidence of PW-19 who has issued certificate at Ex.P24 is to the effect that deceased were living in Sy.No.50 by constructing a tiled root house and the Khata of the said property is standing in the name of Pandappa, the father-in-law of deceased Siddawwa and father of accused No.1 and there is no phodi in respect of the said property. The evidence of PW-32 also establish the fact that the Extract of Sy.No.310/1 is in the name of Pandappa Basappa Huligannavar and deceased Siddawwa and Mutheppa as per Ex.P60. During his re-examination, PW-32 has specifically deposed that in order to get the phodi of respective shares, all the sharers are required to give a joint application with Bond consenting for the same after which Phodi will be done and sketch will be prepared and accordingly separate Khata will be made. In fact during his cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that if one sharer gives application, after receipt of notice the other sharers would appear and give their consent. If common application is not given for the phodi, then the case would be registered as dispute and enquiry would be conducted. With the rampant corruption in getting the revenue disputes settled the predicament of the deceased would be understandable. For this reason, deceased Siddawwa was insisting on the accused persons to give consent for making the phodi and when they were not aggreable for the same, there used to frequent quarrel.

18. In fact the evidence of PWs.7, 8 and 13 establish that at the instance of the deceased persons, they held Panchayaths and advised the accused persons to get the phodi done in the name of the deceased and accused were not aggreable and this used to result in quarrel between the accused persons and the deceased and that was the motive for accused persons to attack the deceased resulting in their death. Thus, through the evidence of PWs-1 to 8, 13 coupled with the testimony of PWs-19 and 32, the prosecution has proved that even though the share of Yellappa the brother of accused No.1 who was the husband of deceased Siddawwa and father of deceased Mutheppa was given about 20 years prior to the date of incident, phodi was not done and consequently, separate Khata was not made out in the name of the deceased as a result of which they were not able to enjoy the said property to the fullest by securing loan. There also used to be frequent quarrel in respect of sharing the water from the common well and that build up the ill will between the accused persons as well as the deceased.