Back
High Court of Karnataka
K.L. MANJUNATH, A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA, JJ.
D. Jagadesha & Others
Versus
A.L. Ramachandra & Others
R.F.A.No.635 of 2011
Decided On: 14-10-2014
Section 96 of CPC - Appeal against judgment and decree for partition and separate possession - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the authenticity of power of attorneys and the alleged relationship between the parties, relying on Evidence Act, Section 85, and Section 90. The court also considered the genealogical tree and various documents to establish the relationship between the parties. The court emphasized the presumption of genuineness of documents and the burden of proof on the parties. The judgment was based on the assessment of evidence and intrinsic probabilities.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was filed for partition and separate possession of properties. The defendants denied the relationship and claimed the properties as self-acquired. The court examined the authenticity of power of attorneys and the relationship between the parties, and assessed the evidence on the touchstone of intrinsic probabilities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs had proved the relationship and entitlement to the properties, and that the properties were not self-acquired by the defendants. The court emphasized the presumption of genuineness of documents and the burden of proof on the parties.
Issues: The issues included proving the relationship, establishing the properties as joint family properties, entitlement for shares, and valuation of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment was based on the assessment of evidence, the presumption of genuineness of documents, and the burden of proof on the parties.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
1. This appeal filed by the defendants 1 to 3 under Section 96 of CPC is directed against the judgment and decree passed on 03.11.2010 in O.S.No.91/2004 pending on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge at Shimoga. Suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents herein for partition and separate possession has been decreed as prayed for. Several grounds have been urged in the appeal memo. Parties will be referred to as plaintiffs 1 to 14 and defendants 1 to 3 as per their ranking in the Trial Court.
2. Facts leading to the filing of the suit for partition and separate possession of two items of immovable properties and machines as described in schedule 'C' of the plaint are as follows:
One person by name A.N.Loganatha Mudaliar had four sons
1) A.L.Nithyanandam
2) A.L.Purushothama
3) A.L.Dasharatha and
4) A.L.Ramachandra (1st plaintiff) and three daughters
1) Smt.Shivabhushanam
2) Smt. Pushpammal @ Pushpavathy and
3) Smt.Mahalakshmi i.e., 14th plaintiff. Among the children of Loganatha Mudaliar all are dead except the 1st and 14th plaintiffs. Second son A.L.Purushothama Mudaliar is stated to be unheard and unseen since 1958 inspite of best efforts made by the family members. Hence, he is stated to be civilly dead. 12th plaintiff Smt.M.Saraswathi, is the wife of A.L.Purushothama. Deceased first son Nithyanandham has two wives
1) Late Malarveni and
2) Smt.Kokilammal (2nd plaintiff). 3rd Plaintiff Shanthakumari is the daughter of Nithyanandham through his first wife and plaintiffs 4 to 7 are the children of Nithyanandham through his second wife Kokilammal.
A.L.Dasharatha has three sons
1) D.Sreedara
2) D.Jagadesha (1st defendant) and
3) D.Manohara (2nd defendant) and one daughter by name Smt.M.Nalini (3rd defendant). Sri.D.Sreedara the first son of A.L.Dasharatha is stated to be missing since 1993 and as such, his whereabouts are not known till now. 8th and 9th plaintiffs are the two daughters of Smt.Shivabhushanam D/o A.N.Loganatha Mudaliar. 9th plaintiff is the wife of 1st plaintiff and has no issues. Plaintiffs 10 to 13 are the children of S.Pushpammal D/o Late Loganatha Mudaliar.
According to the plaintiffs, the suit schedule properties were the self-acquired properties of the deceased Loganatha Mudaliar and since he died interstate, all his sons and daughters are entitled for equal shares. Suit item No.1 was allotted to deceased Loganatha Mudaliar by TMC Shimoga and then registered in his favour on 17.10.1941 and later on Loganatha and his second son Purushothama built a Mangalore Tiled House thereon. Similarly, suit item No.2 was also allotted in favour of Loganatha Mudaliar and after his death, Khatha was changed in the name of his wife Smt.Bhagyammal and she died during 1987.
The Engineering works at Shimoga was jointly started by Loganatha and his second son Purushothama under the name and style of "H.K.S. Engineering Works" in suit 'A' property. After the death of Loganatha, Purushothama looked after suit item No.1 for a year and later on, he is not to be seen or heard till now. It is averred that Loganatha Mudaliar was working as foreman in the Department of Industries and Commerce at Shimoga and the retirement benefits were utilized by him to set up H.K.S Engineering Works. A.L.Dasharatha was working in Silver Jubilee Polytechnic at Bhadravathy and he quit his job within two years and joined his father in starting the Engineering works at Shimoga. 1st Plaintiff was working in V.I.S.L at Bhadravathy as a Chemist and retired in 1981-82 and invested all his retirement benefits in H.K.S. Engineering Works. After the death of Dasharatha, his two sons i.e., defendants 1 and 2 were looking after the Engineering works. They did not manage the unit properly and resultantly suffered loss. RCC house was put up by all the members of the joint family during the year 1984-85 and defendants are collecting rent from the RCC house and Mangalore tiled house. They have even gone to the extent of getting the Khatha changed into the
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
