Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 2548
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA, J
Savakka W/o. Madivalappa Appannavar – Appellant
Versus
Mahadevi W/o. Basavantappa Appannavar – Respondent
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100284 OF 2016 (PAR/POS) C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100193 OF 2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI. SANTOSH B. MALLIGAWAD, ADV. FOR SRI. B. K. MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SRI. SABEEL AHMAD ADV. FOR SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADV. FOR SOLE RESPONDENT
The necessity of proving marriage through credible evidence and rituals is essential for claiming rights in property, rejecting mere presumptions.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XX Rule 18 - Partition suit - The plaintiff, claiming to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased, sought partition of ancestral property. The trial court decreed the suit, but the appellate court found the plaintiff failed to prove her marriage, leading to dismissal of the suit. (Paras 1, 4, 28)
(B) Legal Marriage - The court emphasized the necessity of proving marriage through rituals and credible evidence, rejecting the presumption of marital status based solely on claims. (Paras 25, 27)
(C) Burden of Proof - The plaintiff bears the burden to establish her marital relationship to claim rights in the property, which she failed to do. (Paras 22, 30)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claimed half share in the joint family property as the widow of Basavantheppa, while defendants contended she was not legally married to him and sought to dismiss the suit.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court found the plaintiff did not prove her marriage to Basavantheppa, leading to the conclusion that she had no rights to the property.
Issues: The main issues included whether the plaintiff proved her marriage to Basavantheppa and her entitlement to a share in the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiff's failure to provide credible evidence of her marriage and the reliance on presumptions were insufficient to establish her claim.
Result: Appeals allowed; the trial court's judgment set aside.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)
1. These appeals are filed by defendants No.1 to 3 against the Judgment and decree, dated 01.09.2016 passed in O.S.No.375/2014 by III-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi. The respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit for partition and separate possession of her share in suit property, against the appellants herein. The trial Court decreed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendants have filed this appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are ` referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.
3. Facts of these cases are as follows:
It is the case of plaintiff that, she is a legally wedded wife of Basavantheppa S/o Ningappa Appannavar. The propositus of the family of her husband was one Ningappa and the said Ningappa had two sons namely Madivalappa and Basavantheppa. Both of them are no more at the time of filing of the suit. Madivalappa was married to one Smt.Savakka (defendant No.1). From the said wedlock they have two sons by name Siddappa (defendant No.2) and Kallappa (defendant No.3). Another son of Ningappa by name Basavantheppa married to the plaintiff and they have no issue from the said wedlock. Basavantheppa is also dead.
4. The suit properties in question are ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiff’s and defendants’. As she being a widow of Basavantheppa, the plaintiff claims half share in the suit property. She demanded for partition of the joint family property and defendants refused to effecte the partition. Hence she filed the suit.
5. The contentions of the defendants are that, the plaintiff is not a member of the family of the defendant. Basavantheppa did not marry her and he died unmarried. They claim that the plaintiff filed the suit only to grab the property belonging to the defendants. The defendants further stated that the plaintiff is not the legally weeded wife of Basavantheppa. Therefore she has no rights to demand for partition in the joint family property. It is also contended that plaintiff was married to one Shivappa Shirsangi and from said wedlock plaintiff has a daughter by name Shilpa and a son by name Shivappa. Therefore, plaintiff is not at all related to the family of the defendants. On these reasons prayed to dismiss the suit.
6. The trail Court framed the following issues based on the rival contentions of the parties:
1. Whether plaintiff proves that she is the legally wedded wife of deceased Basavantheppa?
2. Whether plaintiff proves that she is having ½ share in the schedule property?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs claimed in the suit?
4. What order or decree?
7. The plaintiff to prove her case examined herself as PW-1 and two other witnesses as PW-2 and PW-3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P11. Defendants examined three witnesses as DW-1 to DW-3 and they got marked 14 documents as Ex.D1 to D14 and closed their evidence.
8. The trial Court after hearing of the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, answered issues No.1 to 3 in the affirmative and issue No.4 as per final order. Accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suit, awarding half share in the property.
9. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for both the parties.
10. Learned counsel for appellants-defendants submits that respondent-plaintiff failed to prove that she is legally weeded wife of deceased Basavantheppa. She examined PW-2 and PW-3 to prove her marriage with Basavantheppa. In the cross-examination of PW-2 and PW-3 it was brought out that they know nothing about the marriage of plaintiff with Basavantheppa. The documents produced by the plaintiff do not help the plaintiff to prove her case. In the cross-examination of PW-2, he has stated about marriage of plaintiff with Shivappa and she is residing with Shivappa Shirasangi are different facts. He pleads ignorance of the fact that plaintiff married to Shivappa and from the said relationship she has two children. Learned counsel for appellan
