Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.24 seconds)
Rama Nagappa Mahar @ Kamble vs Nagappa Mallappa Mahar @ Kamble And Ors. on 2 September, 2005 cites

Ramappa Basappa Palled vs Smt. Basava on 7 April, 1993

In view of the findings on substantial question of law No. 1 and having regard to the contentions taken by the first defendant and in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, it is clear that the burden is upon the plaintiffs to prove the initial burden that the consideration amount for purchase of the land comprised in Sy. No. 113/2 measuring 5 acres and 9 guntas situate at Bambarge village which constitutes item No. 1 in Schedule 1A of the Schedule to the plaint was paid out of the income from the joint family properties and it is only after the discharge of the said burden, the onus would shift on the first defendant to show that the property was acquired out of his own income. The plaintiffs have specifically averred in the plaint that three properties which admittedly belonged to the family viz., Sy. Nos. 513/18, 113/19 and 192 were sold between 1966 to 1970 and the proceeds received from the said sale was utilised for the purchase of the land comprised in Sy. No. 113/2 which was in the name of the first defendant, who is the eldest member in the family. On the other hand, it is the contention of the first defendant that the said property was purchased by him out of his own income and the contribution made by his son. It is to be noted here also that the first defendant has not examined himself. On behalf of the plaintiffs, P.W. 1 has been examined and he has stated about the sale of the three joint family properties as per exhibits P17 and 18 and he has stated that the property bearing R.S. No. 113/2 was purchased on behalf of the family, out of the amount realised by the said sales. The first defendant apart from averring in the written statement that he has his own properties and other income did not substantiate the said contention by examining himself, and the evidence of his son who is examined as D. W. 1 is also not helpful to substantiate the contention of the first defendant that there was no sufficient nucleus as the facts elicited in the cross-examination of D.W.1 would clearly show that his evidence is not helpful in substantiating the contention of the first defendant and on the other hand, it corroborates the evidence of the plaintiffs as he has admitted in his cross-examination that since it was inconvenient to cultivate the lands situate at different places, the said properties were disposed off in order to purchase the land bearing R.S. No. 113/2 situate at Bambarge village. D.W.1 has admitted in his cross-examination as follows:
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1