Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (2.94 seconds)
Smt.Gangamma vs Sri K.M.Basvaradhya on 3 November, 2020 cites

B. Manjunatha Prabhu And Ors. vs C.G. Srinivas And Ors. on 18 December, 2004

75. The defendants having failed to establish the Will, the question of this Court comparing signatures of R.N.Mallikarjunaiah with other documents will not arise as no admitted documents produced in evidence to enable this court to compare his signature under Section 158 OS.3151/2004 73 of Evidence Act. Moreover, it is well settled that, the Court should be slow to base its finding solely on comparison made by it. The decision in B.Manjunatha Prabhu's case (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the defendants, is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand since the defendants failed to establish that Ex.D.5 - Will is in the handwriting of R.N.Mallikarjunaiah.
Karnataka High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 7 - P V Shetty - Full Document

Vadde Sanna Hulugappa And Others vs Vadde Sanna Hulufappa (Deceased) By ... on 18 February, 1998

The defendant No.1 has not entered the witness box to explain as to his own source of income to purchase Schedule 'A' property , out of his own income. In this suit, the 1 st defendant though on record, has failed to enter witness box to substantiate that 'A' Schedule property is his self acquired property. The fact whether the said property is self acquired property or purchased by R.N.Mallikarjunaiah in the name of 1st defendant was within his special knowledge and had the 1st defendant entered witness box, the plaintiff would have elicited whether suit 'A' Schedule property was purchased out of his own income. 95 OS.3151/2004 Consequently, the suit being one for partition, the plaintiff need not seek any relief to set aside the sale deed as seeking partition of the property is sufficient as per judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in ILR 1998 KAR 2127 (Vadde Sanna Hulugappa and others v. Vadde Sanna Hulugappa, deceased), wherein, it is held that, 'it has been laid down by this Court in Ganapathi Santharam Bosle and another v. Ramachandra Subba Rao Kulkarni and others, that, in a suit for partition by Hindu Coparcener, it is not necessary to seek setting aside of alienation and it is sufficient to seek his share and possession with declaration that he is not bound by the alienations.'
Karnataka High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 13 - M B Vishwanath - Full Document

Pushpalatha N V vs V Padma on 19 March, 2010

Thus, the concept of survivorship having given go­bye as per the Hindu Succession Act, 2005, as per the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2010(2) KCCR 1249 (DB) (Pushpalatha.N.V. v. V.Padma and others), the plaintiff though born prior to coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and though married prior to 1956 (1952), her status of coparcener would not change. In 107 OS.3151/2004 this regard, the argument of learned counsel for the defendants that the properties were acquired subsequent to marriage of the plaintiff and therefore, she has no right in the property, cannot be accepted. The properties fallen to the share of 1st defendant and his father R.N.Mallikarjunaiah were ancestral properties and before partition in the year 1964, the plaintiff was very much available in the joint family of R.N.Mallikarjunaiah and his brothers and when she has acquired her right in the property by birth, her marriage in the year 1952 or her birth prior to 1956 would not change her status as coparcener of the family with respect to properties acquired by her father in a partition.
Karnataka High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 66 - Full Document

V.K. Thimmaiah And Ors. vs Smt. V.K. Parvathi And Ors. on 20 January, 2003

This goes to show that the defendants have not complied the requirements of Section 69 of Evidence Act. The evidence of DW5 will not help the defendants to comply the requirements of Section 69 of Evidence Act. 72. Consequently, the defendant No.3, 4 and 6 have not acquired any valid title in the respective properties mentioned in the Will. Moreover, as I already stated that as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Lakshmanan's case (supra), the Will shall satisfy the conscience of the Court regarding its execution and in this case, there is no satisfactory evidence to show as to why the parents of plaintiff shall disinherit their own daughter from getting any property though they had good number of properties. Moreover, the defendants 153 OS.3151/2004 have not clarified as to when the attesting witnesses to both the Will expired and no death certificates produced to establish that the attesting witnesses and scribe of Ex.D.5 have died. Though there is no cross­examination in this regard by the counsel for the plaintiff, but it being incumbent upon the defendants to prove both the Wills by examining atleast one attesting witness as required under Section 68 of Evidence Act and said requirement has not been complied to the satisfaction of this Court.
Karnataka High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1