SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 32258

RSA 236/2012

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

R.S.A.No.236/2012

BETWEEN:

1.

Smt. Maramma,

Since deceased by her LRs,

1(a)

Gurubasavegowda

S/o late Smt. Maramma,

Aged about 52 years,

1(b)

Doddabasavegowda

S/o late Smt. Maramma,

Aged about 48 years,

1(c)

Mahadevamma

D/o late Smt. Maramma,

Aged about 55 years,

1(a) to 1(c) are R/at Tagadooru village,

Biligere Hobli, Nanjangud Taluk,

Mysore District.

2.

Smt. Mahadevamma,

Since deceased by her LRs,

2(a)

Rachegowda

S/o Late Basavegowda,

Aged about 75 years,

R/at Hadinarugrama,

Chikkayana Choultry Hobli,

Nanjangud Taluk.

2(b)

Rajamma

D/o Late Mahadevamma,

Aged about 45 years,

RSA 236/2012

2

R/at Bhogapura,

Chamarajanagar Taluk & District.

2(c)

Jayamma

D/o Late Mahadevamma,

Aged about 40 years,

R/at Doddakaanyagrama,

Varuna hobli,

Mysore district.

2(d)

Rajegowda

S/o Late Mahadevamma,

Aged about 35 years,

2(e)

Ravi

S/o Late Mahadevamma,

Aged about 30 years,

2(d) & 2(e) are R/at Hadinaru grama,

Chikkayanachoultry Hobli,

Nanjangud Taluk.

3.

Smt. Sannamma

D/o Late Madegowda,

Aged about 47 years,

R/at Kadavekatti Hundi grama,

Siddaramayana hundi post,

Varuna hobli,

Mysore Taluk.

& APPELLANTS

(By Smt. Vanitha.K.R., Adv.)

AND:

Sri Mallegowda

S/o Late Madegowda,

Aged about 62 years,

R/at Hadinaru grama,

Chikkayanachoultry Hobli,

Nanjangud Taluk.

& RESPONDENT

(By Sri T.N.Raghupathy, Adv.)

RSA 236/2012

3

This Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of

CPC against the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2011 passed

in RA.No.377/2011 on the file of the IV Addl. District Judge,

Mysore, allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and

decree dated 16.06.2011 passed in OS.No.17/2009 on the file

of the Senior Civil Judge, Nanjangud.

This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment

on 01.12.2021, coming on for 8pronouncement of judgment', this

day, the court delivered the following:

The plaintiff and defendants 2 & 3 have filed this

regular second appeal challenging the judgment and

decree dated 17.12.2011 passed by the IV Addl. District

Judge,

Mysuru,

in

R.A.No.377/2011

reversing

the

judgment and decree dated 16.06.2011 passed by the Civil

Judge (Sr.Dn.), Nanjangud, in O.S.No.17/2009.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred

to by the rank assigned to them in the court at first

instance.

Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for the

purpose of disposal of this appeal are, the plaintiff had

filed O.S.No.17/2009 before the Trial Court seeking

partition and separate possession of the suit schedule

4

properties and she claimed 1/4th share in the suit

schedule properties. It is the case of the plaintiff that

plaintiff

and

defendants

are

the

children

of

one

Madegowda and their mother was Madamma. Madegowda

and Madamma had another son by name Moogegowda

who had expired unmarried prior to the filing of the suit.

The suit schedule properties are their ancestral joint

family properties and after the death of Madegowda and

his wife Madamma, the khatha in respect of the suit

schedule properties were got transferred in the name of

defendant

no.1.

However,

the

plaintiff

and

other

defendants continued to be in joint possession of the suit

schedule properties along with defendant no.1. No

partition was effected in the family after the death of

Madegowda, and therefore, the plaintiff had requested the

defendants to effect partition on 12.12.2008 and since the

defendants kept on postponing the same, the plaintiff was

constrained to file O.S.No.17/2009 seeking 1/4th share in

the ancestral joint family properties left behind by their

father.

5

4.

Defendants 2 & 3 who are the sisters of the plaintiff

had filed written statement admitting the case of the

plaintiff and they had claimed their share in the suit

schedule properties and they also admitted that the suit

schedule properties were the joint family properties.

5.

Defendant no.1 who is the brother of the plaintiff and

defendants 2 & 3 had filed written statement contending

that the plaintiff and the other defendants are not entitled

for a share in the suit schedule properties. It is his case

that the plaintiff and defendants 2 & 3 were married

daughters of late Madegowda and they are residing

separately with their respective husband. It was further

contended by defendant no.1 that at the time of marriage

of the plaintiff and defendants 2 & 3, huge amount was

spent for the purpose of marriage and also for giving gold

and other articles to them at the time of marriage. He had

further contended that he had improved the suit schedule

properties by investing huge amount and the suit schedule

properties have been partitioned between himself and his

6

children, and therefore, there is no scope for further

partition.

6.

On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court

had framed the following issues:

Issues

ªÁ¢ zÁªÁ D¹ÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÁ¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ

MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ dAn ¦vÁæfðvÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀÄvÀÛªÉ

JAzÀÄ gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ¼ÉÃ?

ºÁVzÀÝ°è ªÁ¢ zÁªÁ D¹ÛUÀ¼À°è 1/4 »¸Áì

ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀævÀåPÀë ¸Áé¢üãÀ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä CºÀð¼ÁVgÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ

gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ¼ÉÃ?

3.

¥ÀæwªÁ¢ 1, zÁªÁ D¹ÛUÀ¼ÀÄ F »AzÉAiÉÄÃ

«¨sÁUÀªÁVzÀÄÝ CªÀgÀªÀgÀ D¹ÛAiÀİè CªÀgÉà SÁvÉ

ºÉÆA¢

¸Áé¢üãÀ

ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ

JAzÀÄ

gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ£ÉÃ?

4.

ªÁ¢ vÀ£Àß ªÁzÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è «£ÀAw¹zÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ

¥ÀjºÁgÀ

ºÉÆAzÀ®Ä

CºÀð¼ÁVgÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ

gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ¼ÉÃ?

7

5.

AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉñÀ CxÀªÁ rQæ?

7.

During the course of trial, the plaintiff in support of

her case, got examined her son who was also her general

power of attorney holder as PW-1 and two other witnesses

were examined as PWs-2 & 3. In support of the plaintiff's

case, 12 documents were produced and marked as Exs.P-1

to P-12. On behalf of the defendants, five witnesses were

examined as DWs-1 to 5 and 11 documents were produced

and marked as Exs.D-1 to D-11. After completion of

recording the evidence, the Trial Court heard the

arguments of the contesting parties and b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top