AND

DECREE

DATED

14.09.2017

PASSED

IN

R.A.NO.78/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARAM, DISMISSING THE APPEAL

AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.09.2014

PASSED IN O.S.NO.102/2014 (OLD NO.613/2007) ON THE FILE OF

THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT MAGADI AND ETC.,

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

JUDGMENT ON 27.09.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF

JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The captioned second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful

plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the concurrent judgments of the

Courts

below

wherein

plaintiffs

suit

seeking

relief

of

declaration that he has half share in the properties and for

partition and separate possession is dismissed by both the

Courts below.

2.

For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to

as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3.

The family tree of the parties is as under:

±ÉõÀ¥Àà (¥ÀªÀw)

¸Á«vÀæªÀÄä (¥ÀªÀw)

3

|

------------------------------------------------------

|

|

|

|

PÉ.J¸ï.£ÀgÀ¹AºÀAiÀÄå(¥ÀªÀw) £ÁUÀ¥Àà ¸ÀĨÁâgÁªï PÉ.J¸ï.gÁªÀÄgÁªï

gÀAUÀªÀÄä(¥ÀªÀw)

5/6/16 13/8/04

Pltff

30/12/2003

|

¸Àħâ®Qëöä

D1

4.

The plaintiff herein claims that he is the younger

brother of one K.S.Narasimaiah. It is the specific case of the

plaintiff that he along with his elder brother Narasimaiah

migrated to Magadi and were working as a server and a

washer in hotels and later both the brothers started their own

hotel business. Plaintiff claims that out of the income

generated from the hotel business, plaintiff along with his

elder brother Narasimaiah got the suit property registered in

the name of his elder brother9s wife namely Rangamma.

Plaintiff specifically contends that the property purchased in

the name of his sister-in-law Rangamma is in fact joint

property purchased by both the brothers. Plaintiff also

4

claimed that he is in joint possession over the suit schedule

property. In the alternate, the plaintiff also contended that his

brother

acknowledging

his

contribution

towards

sale

consideration, has made a bequeath under Will dated

10.01.2003 and therefore, claimed that he is entitled to have

half share in the suit schedule property and therefore, prayed

to grant his legitimate half share in the suit schedule property

by effecting partition by metes and bounds.

5.

On receipt of summons, the defendant herein who

is the daughter of K.S.Narasimaiah and Rangamma contested

the proceedings and stoutly denied the entire averments made

in the plaint. The defendant seriously disputed the averments

made in the plaint in regard to joint acquisition of suit

schedule property by plaintiff and her father K.S.Narasimaiah.

On the contrary, defendant claimed that her father along with

her mother shifted to Magadi and started his own hotel

business. Therefore, defendant claimed that plaintiff had no

connection with the hotel business which was started by her

5

father K.S.Narasimaiah. She also contended that her mother

pursuant to registered sale deed acquired absolute right over

the property and after her death, she being the sole legal heir,

is entitled to inherit the suit schedule property. Defendant

also contended that her mother has bequeathed the suit

schedule property in her favour and therefore, claimed

absolute title and sought for dismissal of the suit.

6.

Plaintiff

and

defendant

to

substantiate

their

respective claim let in oral and documentary evidence.

7.

Trial

Court

after

having

assessed

oral

and

documentary evidence did not accept the contention that suit

property was jointly acquired by plaintiff and his elder brother

K.S.Narasimaiah. Trial Court while taking cognizance of title

documents vide Exs.D-1 to D-4 coupled with other supporting

documents, was of the view that the suit schedule property is

self acquired property of Rangamma. Referring to the recitals,

Trial Court found that there is no mention in regard to the

6

joint earning of plaintiff