Back
Karnataka High Court
S.A.Quddus - Appellant
Versus
S.Veerappa - Respondent
Decided On : 03-30-93
R.F.A. : 320 of 1992
CPC - Appeal against judgment and decree for declaration of title and injunction - Issues: self-acquired property, joint family property, will execution, non-joinder of parties - Summary: The suit involved a dispute over the ownership of a property claimed to be self-acquired by Nanjappa and bequeathed to the plaintiffs by Rudramma. The court found in favor of the plaintiffs, holding the property to be self-acquired and the will duly executed. The appellant's challenge to the will's validity was rejected, and the non-joinder of parties contention was dismissed. The appeal was ultimately dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The suit involved a dispute over the ownership of a property claimed to be self-acquired by Nanjappa and bequeathed to the plaintiffs by Rudramma. The court found in favor of the plaintiffs, holding the property to be self-acquired and the will duly executed. The appellant's challenge to the will's validity was rejected, and the non-joinder of parties contention was dismissed. The appeal was ultimately dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the plaintiffs, holding the property to be self-acquired and the will duly executed. The appellant's challenge to the will's validity was rejected, and the non-joinder of parties contention was dismissed. The appeal was ultimately dismissed.
Issues: The issues included whether the property was self-acquired, the validity of the will, and the non-joinder of parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the property was self-acquired, the will was duly executed, and the non-joinder of parties contention was dismissed.
Final Decision: The appeal was ultimately dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed by the first defendant under Section 96 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 31-3-92 passed in O. S. 326/83 by the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City decreeing the suit for declaration of title and injunction.
( 2 ) THE suit was filed by respondent -1 Veerappa and his wife respondent-2 Smt. Bhagirathamma who died during the pendency of the suit and her legal representatives are brought on record. According to respondents 1 and 2 and as per the findings of the trial Court, Shri. Gurunanajaiah and his wife Rudramma had two sons name Anubasappa and Nanjappa, Anubasappa being the older son. They had also two more daughters named Bhagirathamma (plaintiff No. 2) and Gangamma. According to plaint averments, Nanjappa was an Ayurvedic Pundit and he was having ayurvedic practice both at Tumkur and Bangalore. He also owned a cycle shop at Tumkur. He had earned enough to acquire properties and plaint schedule property was one of his self acquired properties. Nanjappa had a wife and she predeceased him without issues. Nanjappa died in the year 1965. On his death, his properties were inherited by his mother Rudramma as his sole heir. Rudramma in turn left a will dated 29-3-70 bequeathing the plaint schedule property on the plaintiffs viz. , Bhagirathamma and her husband Veerappa. It appears subsequent to the death of Rudramma, Anupassappa's wife Ramma sold the plaint scheduled property in favour of defendant-1 under sale deed dated 16-1-1975. On interference by purchaser Quddus, Veerappa and his wife filed a suit for injunction in O. S. 106/75. In that suit they were unsuccessful in the trial Court as also in the First Appellate Court. In the second appeal, this Court permitted them to withdraw their suit and to file a comprehensive suit for declaration of title and other reliefs. In pursuance of that, Veerappa and his wife Bhagirathamma filed the suit out of which the present appeal arises for the reliefs of declaration of title and injunction.
( 3 ) THE present appellant as defendant-1 filed contesting written statement urging that he had become absolute owner of the property having purchased the same from Anubasappa's wife Ramma and her son as heirs of Rudramma. He defended the suit on the basis of sale deed dated 16-1-75 and he contended that he was in possession of the property eversince he purchased it. He denied the will dated 29-3-70 under which the rights were claimed by Veerappa and his wife. According to him Rudramma had no disposing capacity and the will pleaded by Veerappa and his wife was contended to be a got-up document. Though Eramma was impleaded as defendant No. 2, she did not appear and contest the suit by filing written statement. He also contended that the suit property was not the self acquired property of Nanjappa and according to him it was the property earned by the joint family of Nanjappa and his brother; and that family possessed sufficient nucleus to acquire properties.
( 4 ) ON the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues - 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit property was the self acquired property of Dr. Nanjappa? or 2. Whether the defendants prove that the suit property was the joint family property of Dr. Nanjappa and his brothers ? 3. Whether Rudramma became the absolute owner of the suit property after the death of Dr. Nanjappa? 4. Whether Rudramma had bequeathed the suit property in favour of plaintiffs under a will dated 29-3-1970 when she was in a sound disposing state of mind ? 5. Whether the plaintiffs have become the absolute owners of the suit property under the said will ? 6. Whether the first defendant has become the absolute owner of the suit property under the sale deed dated 16-1-75 executed in his favour by the 2nd defendant ? 7. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of Smt. Gangamma and Channabavaraju as defendants as contended by first defendant ? 8. Whether the plaintiffs are entitle
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
