Documentary evidence takes precedence over oral testimony in determining kinship, especially in partition cases involving joint family property.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. Sandesh, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for caveator-respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. This regular second appeal is filed challenging the concurrent judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.92/2003 and R.A.No.89/2017 in coming to the conclusion that Narayanappa R.M., who is the husband of plaintiff No.1 is the son of Doddamarappa.

3. The factual matrix of the case of plaintiff No.1 Smt. Muniyamma is that she is the wife of deceased Narayanappa R.M. and plaintiff No.2 is the daughter of plaintiff No.1 and Narayanappa R.M. and claimed the relief of partition of half share in respect of the suit schedule properties. The case of the plaintiffs is that deceased Narayanappa R.M. is brother of defendant No.1. The suit schedule properties also belong to Narayanappa R.M. and hence, they are having share in the suit schedule properties and the properties are joint family properties of Narayanappa R.M. and defendant No.1 and also the mother of defendant No.2-Smt. Muniyamma.

4. The defendant No.1 appeared and filed the written statement denying the contention of the plaintiffs and contend that Narayanappa R.M. is not the brother and himself and one Smt. Muniyamma are the only son and daughter of deceased Doddamarappa. The said Smt. Muniyamma got married 40 years ago and she is living with her husband and his father died in the year 1976 and plaintiffs are nowhere related with the defendant and his family.

5. The Trial Court taking note of pleading of both the parties, framed the following issues and additional issues:

“ISSUES

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of her deceased husband and defendant?

2. Whether the defendant prove that the deceased R.M. Narayanappa, who is the husband of plaintiff, is not his own brother?

3. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties?

4. Whether the defendant further proves that this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled her half share in the suit schedule properties?

6. What order of decree?

ADDITIONAL ISSUE

1. Whether plaintiff proves that she is the daughter-in-law of deceased Doddamarappa, who is the father of defendant, further proves that she is the legally wedded wife of deceased Narayanappa?”

6. The plaintiffs in order to prove their case, they examined the witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P7. On the other hand, the defendant No.1 examined himself as D.W.1 and examined other two witnesses as D.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked the document of certified copy of partition dated 30.08.1971 as Ex.D1, certified copy of registered sale deed dated 20.05.1963 as Ex.D2 and certified copy of RTC Extracts as Exs.D3 and D4.

7. The Trial Court having analyzed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, particularly considered the evidence of P.W.4, who is the sister of defendant No.1, who comes and deposes before the Court that Narayanappa R.M. is her brother along with defendant No.1. The Trial Court accepted the her case and answered issue No.1 and additional No.1 as ‘affirmative’ and issue No.2 as ‘negative and comes to the conclusion that suit schedule properties are joint family properties of her husband and defendants and the contention of the plaintif