( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 11-1-1993 passed by the learned IX Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in O. S. No. 1138/85, wherein the suit of the plaintiff for partition and separate possession came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved, this appeal is filed.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to this appeal are stated thus :the plaintiff claimed to be the daughter of one late Mallappa, born through one Nanjamma the first wife of late Mallappa. The first defendant is said to be the second wife of late Mallappa. Out of the wedlock with the first defendant, Mallappa did not have any issues. The second defendant is the sister of the plaintiff. Mallappa died on 21-1-1985. Defendants 3 to 10 are the tenants in the property beloning to the deceased Mallappa. The plaintiff claiming to be the daughter of late Sri. Mallappa, filed the suit claiming 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. The first defendant has seriously contested the suit in the written statement, denied the relationship of the plaintiff and the second defendant as the daughters of Late Mallappa. It is also contended that,the immovable properties shown in the plaint schedule at Serial Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 are the self acquired properties of the first defendant, as such, the plaintiff is not entitled to any share.

( 3 ) THE trial Court on the facts and disputed contentions, formulated the following issues for consideration : (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that Nanjamma was the legally wedded wife of late Mallaiah and the plaintiff and the second defendant are their children ? (2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit properties are the properties of late Mallaiah and are in joint possession of plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 ? (3) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit properties including rents and entitled to partition and separate possession of them ? (4) Whether the first dependant proves that items 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 and fixed Deposit amount are herself acquired properties ? (5) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is entitled for mesne profits ? (6) What relief or order ?

( 4 ) IN evidence, the plaintiff has examined herself and examined three witnesses. The first defendant has examined herself and examined two witnesses. The trial Court has held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that she is the daughter of Mallappa and failed to prove the marriage of her mother Nanjamma with Mallappa and thus, answered Issue No. 1 in negative and held that, consideration of other issues would not arise for consideration and thus dismissed the Suit. Being aggrieved, this appeal is filed.

( 5 ) THE trial Court, for the following reasons, answered Issue No. 1 in the negative; (I) that the oral evidence with regard to marriage of Nanjamma is discrepant. Date of marriage is not established. Marriage Invitation Card not produced. Witnesses do not speak about the performance of customary rituals for valid marriage. (II) On Ex. P. 1, the death Certificate of Nanjamma, it is held that the name of the deceased and her husband cannot be considered as the one pertaining to Nanjamma, the mother of the plaintiff. In Ex. P. 1, the name of the deceased is described as Chinnananjamma and the name of the husband is described as Mallaiah. Whereas, the plaintiff, in her pleadings, describes her father as Mallappa.

( 6 ) IN view of the said discripancies, the trial Court comes to the conclusion that the said document cannot be related with the parents of the plaintiffs.

( 7 ) AFTER carefully going through the oral and documentary evidence, relied on by the parties, it appears that the trial Court has committed grave error in not properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence. The perceptions and the view of the trial Court regarding the requisite proof of marriage, evidence with regard to observance of the rituals, supposition of the printing of invitation cards, exact date of marriage, appears to be a perv

Click Here to Read the rest of this document