&

DECREE

DTD

7.9.2013

PASSED

IN

R.A.NO.1/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT &

SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, SIT AT

ANEKAL, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE

JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 22.10.2008 PASSED IN

OS.NO.162/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE

(JR.DN) & JMFC., ANEKAL AND ETC.

IN RSA CROB NO.9/2015

SRI VENKATSWAMY REDDY

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

RESIDENT AT SARJAPURA HOBLI

- 3 -

BANGALORE DISTRICT – 562 125

…CROSS OBJECTOR

(BY SRI. B SHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

SMT MANJULA

D/O RAMA REDDY @ RAMAIAH

RESIDENT OF SARJAPURA HOBLI

BANGALORE DISTRICT – 562 125

SRI RAMA REDDY @ RAMAIAH

AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

RESIDENT OF SARJAPURA HOBLI,

BANGALORE DISTRICT – 562 125

D/O RAMA REDDY @ RAMAIAH

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

RESIDENT OF NALLUR KRISHNAGIRI

HOSUR DISTRICT (TN) – 635 109

SRI.VISWANATH SETTY V, ADVOCATE FOR R.1;

R.2 - SERVED)

- 4 -

THIS RSA CROB IN RSA 1943/2013 IS FILED UNDER

ORDER 41 RULE 22 R/W SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE

JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 7.9.2013 PASSED IN

RA NO.1/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND

SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT SIT AT

ANEKAL, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE

JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.10.2008 PASSED IN OS

NO.162/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN)

JMFC, ANEKAL AND ETC.

THESE RSA AND RSA CROB, COMING ON FOR FINAL

HEARING,

THIS

DAY,

THE

COURT

DELIVERED

THE

FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The

captioned

second

appeal

bearing

RSA

No.1943/2013 is filed by plaintiff, who is a daughter born

through second wife and partition suit filed by her is

dismissed by both Courts by holding that she being an

illegitimate child cannot enforce partition during lifetime of

her father i.e., defendant No.1.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred as

they are ranked before the Trial Court.

- 5 -

3. The genealogical tree of the family is as under;

Budaiah

|

Lingamma

______________________________|______________________________

| | | |

Muniyappa Ramareddy Chowdareddy Venkataramanappa

|

|

Thimmakka

|

________|_______________________

|

|

Chikka Venkatamma Shanthamma

___________|_________ |

| | Manjula

Shantamma Venkatashamireddy

4. The plaintiff – Smt.Manjula has filed the present

suit by contending that she constitutes an undivided Hindu

Joint Family along with defendants. She claims to be the

daughter of second wife – Shanthamma and defendant

No.1. The plaintiff has also specifically pleaded that

defendant No.2 is the son born through 1^st wife of

defendant No.1. The present suit is filed alleging that

defendants are misusing the joint family properties and

funds and hence, the present suit.

5. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 contested the proceedings

and stoutly denied entire averments made in the plaint.

- 6 -

The other daughter born through 1^st wife filed an

impleading application and she was arrayed as defendant

No.3. She filed a counter claim claiming 1/3^rd share in the

suit schedule properties.

6. The plaintiff and defendants to substantiate their

respective claims have led in oral and documentary

evidence. The Trial Court having examined pleadings of

the parties and having assessed oral and documentary

evidence let in by the parties proceeded to hold that the

plaintiff being a daughter born out of a void marriage

cannot enforce partition during the lifetime of her father

i.e, defendant No.1. Therefore, Trial Court held that the

plaintiff cannot maintain the present suit. While allowing

the counter claim filed by the defendant No.3, the Trial

Court held that she being a daughter born through 1^st wife

is entitled for share. Consequently, the counter claim is

allowed granting