Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 325
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY, J.
Vasantha - Appellant
Versus
R. Kalidas - Respondent
Regular First Appeal No. 1988 of 2018
Decided on : 31-05-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Bhanu Prakash H V, Adv., H. Ramachandra, Adv.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of providing fair opportunities to both parties to lead evidence and the violation of natural justice resulting from hasty proceedings.
Headnote:
Fair Opportunity - Partition Suit - Nil
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking partition of the suit schedule property, alleging that the defendant deprived him of his legitimate share by practicing fraud and undue influence. The trial Court decreed the suit, which was challenged by the defendant in this appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the trial Court's hasty proceedings and denial of fair opportunity to the defendant to lead evidence resulted in a violation of natural justice. The impugned judgment was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the trial Court for further adjudication.
Issues: The main issue was the denial of fair opportunity to the defendant to lead evidence, leading to a violation of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the winding up of the entire process of adjudication within nine days, without giving sufficient opportunity for the defendant to lead evidence, resulted in a violation of natural justice.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part, with a cost payable by the defendant to compensate the inconvenience caused to the plaintiff. The impugned judgment was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the trial Court for further adjudication.
H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, J.
The present appellant was the defendant in O.S.No.2049/2015, in the Court of learned V. Addl.City Civil Judge, (CCH-13), Bengaluru City, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'trial Court'), which suit was filed by the present respondent in his capacity as a plaintiff seeking for partition in the suit schedule property.
2. The contention of the plaintiff in the trial Court was that the suit schedule property was belonging to his father- M.Rajappa, who was the head of Hindu Undivided joint family and during his life time, he was managing the entire family as a Karta. The plaintiff and the defendant are the children of said Rajappa. The plaintiff is the brother of the defendant. The plaintiff's father had married to one Smt.Lalithamma, who is the natural mother of the parties in the suit. After the death of said Smt.Lalithamma, plaintiff's father i.e., Rajappa, married to one Smt.Indira Bai as his second wife. The site was allotted to their father by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). After the death of said Rajappa, his father, his second wife Smt.Indira Bai was residing in the schedule property. However, she was under the care of the plaintiff. Said Indira Bai also passed away on 17.1.2015. However, during her life time, BBMP had executed an absolute Sale Deed with respect to the said property in favour of said Smt.Indira Bai. Taking the benefit of ill-health of said Smt.Indira Bai, the defendant got a Gift Deed executed by her by practicing fraud and undue influence upon her. As such, in the property in which the plaintiff has got a legitimate share, was deprived by the clandestine act of the defendant. Challenging which and claiming his share, the plaintiff had instituted a suit.
3. The defendant in the Court below entered appearance and contested the matter by filing the written statement. In her written statement, she has denied all plaint averments, except the blood relationship with the plaintiff and their parents. She specifically contended that by virtue of the Gift Deed dated 6.6.2013, she has become the absolute owner of the property.
4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule property is the joint family property of the plaintiff and defendant?
(2) Whether the plaintiff further proves that the suit schedule property was allotted to his father late M.Rajappa?
(3) Whether the plaintiff further proves that the sale deed executed in favour of Smt.Indira Bai as a senior member of the family?
(4) Whether the plaintiff proves that the gift deed dated 06/06/2013 is a created document by the defendant?
(5) Whether the defendant proves that on 08/09/2004 partition is effected and the suit property was allotted to this defendant and two sites were allotted to the plaintiff?
(6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for?
(7) What decree or order?
The plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked documents from Exs.P-1 to P-8. The defendant neither led any evidence nor marked any documents as exhibits. By its impugned judgment dated 28.6.2018, the trial Court decreed the suit with cost. Challenging which, the defendant has preferred this appeal.
5. The main contention of the appellant/defendant in her memorandum of appeal is that the defendant was not given a fair opportunity to cross-examine PW-1 and also to lead evidence from her side.
6. Though this matter has come up for admission, however, with the consent from both side, the matter is taken up for its final disposal.
7. Heard the learned counsel from both side and perused the memorandum of appeal and impugned judgment.
8. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant in his arguments while drawing the attention of this Court to Paragraph-10 of memorandum of appeal contended that the suit was posted for further eviden
