IN THE HIGH COURT OFAAKARNATAi€3§~..
..0'os.__" »
PRETSHEN3' . % .V
THE HONBLE MR JUS'1*£¢E1V.G;s.«j$HAHi3'
THE. HOIWBLE MR'q't;sT2(;I:§s.:§;éATY.aNARAYANA
REGULAR F112s';'..»§PPaA.L. 1§"c;_.2'0<)3
_..R::«fA.5gj1::_0ss Q.:3 .JE§:'.rf:or~: $46.34»/2004
In ' '
8ETwEEVN;' . ' "
1 ..E~IAJAR.ABI..I- .
.. W] O.GAF1....IRKHAN SOUDAGAR
' EX"GE'D.82, GCCEQHOUSEHOLD WORK
_R,'. _0,B;~<::.N0. 1 13, CAMPBELGAUM
~. V'Si§{;*\_N'f;.§:'§iRKHAN
S;'.O;£§AFURKHAN SOUDAGAR
z'-£633.62, OCC.BUSINESS
'~ vR{iO.BC.NO.113, CAMP
BELGAUM. . .APPELLAN'I'S
M *. (Ey' Sri ; G BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY )
* !'sE\I§3 :
: ' JAZNABBI
W]O.GAFURKI-{AN SOUIIAGAR
AGED/72, OCC.H€)USEHOLD wom:
R/0.82, MARKET STREET
CAMP, BELGAUM
FAIZA
W/QMUSTAKHMEED HONGAL
AGE1150, OCC..i~+IOUSEHOLD WORK
H.NO.23, KHANAPUR R0AD,..eAM§=
BELGAUM
'BiLK§S _
W/CLABDUL SAMAD Ki~1.AN.APUR-I
AGED.-48, JO.§32,._. MARKET
CAM33', SELGA!.}M"~ff-- M.
QEAB-BEN' ' %
W}O.'MOHA£V1_1y€EDR?s«Fi'Q MULLA
AGE:D_.42, CiC(lH'QU;SEHOLD wow;
V _ 3/ 0. };8,V_1m:3f1----MA. MANz:L,
P 3 RCAD,._NEAR SUXT PROPERTY
" B;LIN»agaLow,"';8--ELGAuM
" V . I}»2j*I?z*2a;%;K}§AN
. , 3'/c;~.,<3m?URKHAN soumem
' AG_EI3t_-€~{), OCC.'I'RADE,
R-]O.'S2, MARKET STREET
~~f;?A'MP, BELGAUM
" SHAKEELA
D/O.-GAFURKHAN SOUDAGAR
37 YEARS, OCC.§~IOUSEHGi..D WORK
R/0.82, MARKET STREET
CAMP, BELGAUM
ILYAZ
S] O.GAFURKHAN SOU DAGAR
MAJOR, OCC.SI'UDEN'I'
10
11
12
R/0.82, MARKET STREET
CAMP, BELGAUM
BiBIZOHRA .--
D/{).GAFUi?I{I~~IAN SOUDAGAR
AGED33, OCC.HQUS;?3_H{}LIL} wmex
R/0.82, MARKET s1'REE'r"
CAMP, BELGAUM
KADARKHAN yr," C
S/QGAFURKHAN
AGED.32,V_OCC.S'w.E1ENT, .
R/O.82.,M_ARKET %
CAMf?,j._nBE:L{}_£';L.II%'!
AY1i13,1<1i-$25,151 GA.F:_fiéKHAri"' SC?13 [)AGAR
.AGE.}3;30, 'é::2:gc.&;w_9ENTVV...
<R/0f8'2v;'..1MAF%KET£*?REET
TBEL{}A!J_M.: -~.., M=.
AH'AMi&:i,)ALI " '
-- . s/o.§«;QHAMM13m%iUss1AN SHAIKH
MAJOR, '{;)CC. SERVICE
R;<)';§;.No.6'i,"Ixz:AR1<E:T STREET
15
.,C1*.MP,"~--B_ELGAUM
AޤDULSAT?AR BUDANSAB BISTI
MAJQR, 0630. BUSINESS
E?/()'.§~I.NO.61, MARKET S'I'REE'}'
" CAMP, BELGAUM
Q J SUMIT
MAJOR, OCQSERVECE
R]0.HC}U No.23,
KHANAPUR ROAD,
CAMP, BELGAUM
MUSHATAQ A HANAGAL
MAJOR, OCQSERVICE3
H.NO.23, KHANAPUR ROAD
16
17
18
19
29 .
KARNATAKA BANK
23
CAMP, BELGAUM
BABUSAHEI3 M NADA?'
MIKJOR, OCQSERVICE
GROUND FLOOR, H.NO.48
MARKET STREET, CAMP V
BELGAUM
MOHAN G GODLUR
MAJOR, R/0.133' FLOORV ~
H.NO.48, MARKET' S'FREE'§'~.__
CAMP, BELGAUEV1 _ " ' .' V
ABDULLATIF AB9U:}A:«:j'2;':EsAN<§Ai2;::i;'_'_.
MAJOR, C{":c.Bu.s;reEss'- % A
R/o.H.:N0,5;3., MAR;__<:E.'.i"
CAME.
mg MAf¢A%}ER~- %
SYf§_{)IQA'F»E i3A--N_K'-- " *
CAME, BELG§A{3_M=.,
THE MAINAQER .
SYNIBECATE BANK
* 1. MAINBIEANCH, BELGAUM
'fi§§3'."M;'{i\Ej5sGEI?
STATE: BANK OF INDIA
N£AINBRANCH, KHANAPUR ROAD
BEILGAUM
THE MANAGER
KAUOLKAR GALLI
BELGAUM
SHAME}?!
W] QHASANSAB SOUDAGAR
67' YEARS, OCC.HQUSE§~IOLD WORK
R] C}.MARKET STREET
EN RFA.CR€)B N0 34 OF' 2004
BETWEEN
1
JAINABBI '
W/O GAFURKHAN SQUDAGAR-._ "
72 YRS, occ: HOUSEHQ_L1'3_WORE{__ ' .
No.82, MARKET STREET;£I'._AM P
BELGAUM. _
FAEZA
W/O MUSTAKHMED V ;A
50 YRS, occ; HG'US'EH¥OLD_'WO§<'K:. *
2~1.N.23,' E{IjIANAPUR'wROADV VA
CAMP:
kw; O"A.I%3DULi"fS'AMAD KHANAPUR¥
'43 Y:2s,'c;».cLD:'WQRK'ww.
32, MARKET STR.EE"_I;.CAM,P ' " '
BELGAUM I
KAQARKHAMQ - ,* ' '[.g
S/O' (}Ai§'URKIr'i}'i1§I SOUQAGAR
32..Y_Rs,_ 0E;g::,.Bi£s;m::ss...,,.,..
R10 82; MA§?1<m".<:¥r;2EET, CAMP
'13E1.,GAUM'j~-_,_' ~ -
AYUBKHAN C;z3;FLr§;2;HAN SOUDAGAR
_ 30 YRS, 00¢' BUSINESS
i we N<:}';a2, MAEfKE'I' S'I'RE}3'I' CAMP
" ' ..... ..
AND ':
1,,
ACROSS OBJECTORS
T' sgfsfy' 314%-v::_:R}XV§K'l.IMAR.DGOKAKAKAR )
.}%;%JARABAi GAFURKE-IAN SOUDAGAR
3:2. YRS, occ: HOUSEHOLD WORK
B.C,NO. 3. 13, CAMP BELGAUM
H SIKHANDARKHAN GAFURKHAN S€)i}DAGrAR
62 YRS, GCC BUSINESS
B.C.NO. 1 13,
CAMP, BELGAUM. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri: G. BALAKRISH NA SHASTRY, ADV. )
‘
THIS RFACROB IS FILED [V0 41 R 2:3.’ R/wi’ 4_
151 OF eve AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND’–DESERVE .131′. ” .,
16.6.08 PASSED IN o.s.Nc;.65/92-:0’N~–T1»~m FILE’-.01? *i’HEN.), BELG;\U–M”, P.txI§§_T1..Y. I
DECREEING THE SUIT ma PAR’I’I”{*IOF£ AND’PQes§:ss_I~a.N’–..
AND RENEITION OF THE V.AC.-COUNTS ONL’;~’u’I”O we _
EXTENT I’I’ AFFECTS AIBVERSLYVTHE”E1’sI’1’ERES’F..:’O’FV THE *
CROSS-OBJECTORS HEREXN, IN’ f1f:+iE_ sure .9m-‘PERTIES.
The RFA and ._(1ro_;€:. s.s j. on for
hearing ans} reserved for’j1ie¥;g::;e3;it,} .day’_ SABHAHIT, J.,
pronounced the followingg” V 1
e 3 £2.96 ;hrEz§é* e L
This eejecfion arise out of the
judgmeViif”jjas5.§e§1 flPr1.Civfl Judge (Sr.DI1.)
eelgauniix:.o’.s.§:§’.’es}9V§e’-Lriaxed 15.5.2003. The appeen is
filed piaietifis being aggrieved by the judgment
” passed ‘b3?–the {Tia} court in so far as it dismissed
Tst1it'<;:_f"fl:1e jaaainufl partiy and cross objecfion 34/2004 is
1 to E 1 in the suit being aggrieved by the
Vfinding 91; issue Nos.1 by"the trial court.
' H 2. The essential facts of the case leading upto this
u and the cross objecfion with reference to the rank of
the palties before the triai court are as follows:
W3
().S.No.65/91 was filed on the fiie
Belgaum by piaintiffs 1 to 5 defengiéiiiiie' 'te' b
During the pendency of the suit Ne.'3, diedA. ..
LRS were brought on plvdef d__ate<j.1l1 '}'he
suit was filed seeking for a ~agai_nst f}ie«defefidants for
awarding plamfifi No. 1/15¢»-
2 and 3’s;
14/1609′ share each 5’s sham of
?/160*’1 ‘jfifcpeefies A to E and a
separate A’ ‘equ:itable partition in
metes ‘teiéiéiitjeet.-‘defndant No.6 to furnish the
accounte the from the accounts of
Gafu{z;i<i3.a,31 arid fer mense profits and costs.
' :isT'aven*ec¥ in the plaint that the propositus~–
Soudagar had two wives by name
V «V (PIa_i11tifi' No.1) and Smtdainabbi (Defendant
H " iggrzégé plaintifie 2 and 3 are the sons am pxamries 4 and
.' daughters born to the fixst wife of Gafinkhan
Soudagar. Defendaxats 6, 8, I0 and 11 are the
: sons and defendants 2, 3, 5, '7 and 9 are the daughters born
to Gafurkhan Kadarkhan Soudagar through second wife-
I0
Jajnabbi(defe13da.nt No.1). Defendants 12 andgzhe
tenants in occupation of the property bi":aI'i31g "'.§O11:S€:x
situated at Market Street,
and 15 are the tenants in occupatien__ E16
No.23, Khanapur Road, Be1gV:a'131:ii:..VI)efe"nc1a:1ts: V
the tenants in difiefenf, <§f»_ siiuated at
Market Street, camp§eé1gaum§'§-»%,V No.18 is the
tenant in the sues: camp
Belgaunx they descxtibed in
schedigle '«'_C'1 lying with defendants 19 to 22–
the all of them are arrayeci as
neecfséaly fo the suit. S(':hedu1e«A Comprises of the
'V :V%:ii;3movab1e properties. Schedu}e«B discloses
purchased in the name of second
deiL<nda_i1'L-.LA«j"'E§cheduIe–C discloses bank deyosits, fixed
iiepoeiitsi deczeetal amount of Gefiukhan Kadarkhan
" Schedule~D consists of descxiption of the
VM Kadarkhan Soudagafis share in the firm Noble
Shoe Mart and seI’g;m_1t;”Vfeithe§r.
Out of the said ancestral prepertiee
Soudagar sold the property hheuse at
Market Street, Belgaumend zeeeived-fey him on
seiling the said fixed deposit as
described 2’11 s¢:;ee3Tu1e–e’ ‘to :the_::p3;§i1’;tt. ‘ ezfittt er the remaining
two No.82 is being
mad’? residence and the
house:’-.§\Io.23Axvitésflteetgt’iet:but defendants 14 and 15 am}
Gaf!Jrk}1e;r_: inherited at large extent of
pmpiertiets ffom.. fat”::he:r. Gafurkhan commenced a shoe
the name and style of ‘Nobie Shoe Mart’ in the
Belgaum and he took the
CTS.No.1961 and 1962 situated at Ramdeo
Betgaum on lease from one Sripaudit Bhimaji Potdar
his shoe mart by eenverting into a partnership
V’ l’ consisting of himseifi Sheik Yakub Shaikh Ibrahim and
plaizatiif No.2 in the newly acquired building in the name anti
style of ‘Noble Slaw Mart’. In the saici partnership fixm
E,
Gafurkhan Kadarkhan Souciagar had 25%
profits and losses, which is descritjeii at fito–7the’g
piaint. The said firm was looked ._
Sheik ibrahim and the firm V:is–.fic:it33er.v.ciis.s;c*}Ji:ti:§1 the ‘ A
lifetime of Gafilrkhanv ‘I;-or_. his
death. Therefore, the to exist
and ihe p1ainti.fl-‘stand mg being the heirs
of the share in the said
firm. _ are not yet settled.
No.2 share in both p rofits and
iosses. that. property described in A
schepfilile. of fhenialaifxt are the ancestral properties of
iiadarkhan Soueiagar, which were inherites by
of his father, being the son of his father.
Uni” of .tI:1eT”‘ ancestral 13I’0P€I’1:ies Gafurkhan Kadarkhan
soid the pmgeerfies beaming house Nos.48 and 63
name of the seeoad w’1fe-firs£ defendant axzé the sale
~-consideration received by him has been kegt in Fixed deposit
which is disclosed in C schedule of the plaiat and ancestra}
pzoperty bearing house No.23 has been lei; out by Gafurkhan
3.3
Kaciarkhan Soudagar to defendants 14 and
and Gafarkhan Kadarkhan Souti.éiga1’« Qiit of
derived from the ancestral propertieeiiagid outthe
derived from the shoe aisedhi fort of
maintaining the family,’ He wee.” sorizeameunt after
meeting the expenses “said savings were
utilised for the vv’V1i’:i’o1::e:’ties bearing
house Noe}: §i’r;t__ bearing Nos.48
anci of .éeco;;idfwife–eiefeI;dant No.1 and
the “By Gafurkhan Kaciarkhan
Soudagai’*Q_utt of and also with the assistance of
the ,3;-tea-.stra1 have been described in scheduie-B
it (if though the properties bearing house N0s.48
in the name of the first ctefendant, the
seme have’ tieen purchased by Gafurkhan Kadarkhan
out of his own money. At the relevant time,
No.1 had no income to acquire the pmperties and
_,,_’i7F~;aS incapable of purchasing any of the properties as he bag.
:10 independent eeurce of income. It is further averrecl that
after ptirchase of the properties Gafurkhan Kadarkhan. let
5;’,/3
EL,
14
out house No.61 to diffexexzt tenants and at pliesenis
is in the occupation «sf defenciantsw1:’.2. b j
Rs.?’O/~ and Rs.3S/- per naonth
out property bearifig house’Ne’;*é8 £oAdifl’eren%v-Vteiiekiite at V
present the same is the of .tlefet:td:;3,?;1ts 15 and
16 respeetiveiy. house No.61 to
different tenants. and of defendant
No.18. was recovering the
rent fimtn properties as we}! as
the the tenants. The rent
received’ the utilised for the purpose of
ttte’ also to acquixe the properties.
Theeefeie, tlzetttietiebers of the family used. to enjoy the
‘ It is f11rther averted that Gafurkhan
i{a¢}’erk12.3iit:’E’.VSeudagar had fiied O.S.No.159/1977 against
Mohairgrtied Yusuf Makmmsaheb soudagar for the relief of
A “re performance and in the alternative for the refilnd of
t the adva;:1ee’money’. The said suit was partlyu decreed on
u 26.9.84 and enter was passed for refund of money of
Rs.14~,OG(}/- with appropriate costs and interest at 6% per
i,~5>.
15
annum. Gafurkhan Kadarkhan Soudagar fxlfiii
Petition No.2(}8/198′? for Iecovery»A0f._the éL14:’1_QjuI3f£ V
against the judgment debtors m’:
considcratioxl in the said exécfifion pefjtian. céieathv . L’
of the decree ho1fie;’»Gafi1r}{;ii;§”§z§__ VAvVv§3uda,gar,
piamtiifs and defend&1v1it..§”bci;%1g cjatitied to receive
the decmetal ‘Vstheir legitimate
sham. it is defendants 1 to
11 used tc; house: bearing No.82
at Mai§;ct._ Thereafter due to quaxtrels
bemeefi’ t.1§_e defendant No.1, Gafurkhan
.askcd pia1’11tifl’ No.1 to reside along
to avoid any further bikering in the famiiy
I for the convenience, of the family
staIite€i.__vi’é:$ui€iiixg in H.No.}}3, camp-Bclgaum, Whereas the
dgfetzéafits 1 to 11 am useci to visit the house wherein his
was residing along with he}: chikiren. In trhe: month
July, 1989 Gaflzrkhan Soudagar lost his sense due to
brain tumor ané was advised to visit Bombay Hospital for
the purpose of hcaith check-up. Accordingly, he was taken to
‘~\;;..i_,,,%’é ,
Bombay hospitai in the month of October,
was detected that he was sufi’ering”frem V’ ‘
Juiy 1989 onwards Gafurkhan
sense due to brain tumor he ¥A:5’1″eaL13e<fib,
expired on 22.12.1989, The r;1ece%§iseci'V£12as Haiizy will, as
such succession cafie' 'Ab? 22.12.89 when
Gafurkhan s0gd.agar ieyjely onwards, late
coma and had lest
his 'i 'aking undue advantage
of Kadarkhan Soudagar, it is
revea}ee1"V.}::3:ye~ §he= the recoxds that the sixth
defexidant 1ias "\'vit}:v1'drawn amount from the accoums
' uaeee of Gafurkhan Kaclarkhan soudagar for
1sV.T'Vlj.e¢b1e for the accounts. Gafurkhan iiadarkhan
Seucie13gar :iever executed any power of attrorney in favour of
.A e1efeed.a:nt No.6 for the purpose of Withdrawing any money to
" Ierge extent from his accounts. Qefendant No.6 has illegaly
and "zmlawfuliy withdrawn his amount {mm the accounts of
the deceased by misrepresenting the facts and therey
misappmprmted ihe amount. Defendants 19 to 22 failed to
g;,\,9g.
eonsifier the paxfieulars of w the money’7«.i_.1lega113% and
unlawfully Withdrawn by the-‘ eixthfl ‘
Kasmataka Bank, Kadoikar
further averned that de;fen.daz3.;Es”v_:1 T], ‘ have
succeeded to the propefiy of Soddagrax-giescfibed
in Schedu1e~A to E and entif_1ed&,vto as prayed in the
piaint refersred toetxove,-“” e
4. included by way of
amendmeiifie f1iataV.”‘Gafe:’*1&}i2;.1n Soudagar purchased
the pmfirerties 38 and 63 in the name of
his sister lbrahxm saheb Bombewale of
and tI 1e”-‘said properties were in posseseion anti
‘Venjo’3}e2e_et;e.eef Gafixrkhan Kadarkhan Soudagaz: and he
said properties held by the tenants even
% _ though em
seine were purchased in the name of his sister.
Later Sitxaeifohaxabi expired leaving behind her legal heirs
heirs entered azi agreement on 7.5.1952 admitting
even though said properties were standing in the name
.4 their mother-»Johezabi the same were heid and managed
by Gafurkhan Kadarkhan Soudagar so as to confirm the pre-
\,t-J’~
existing right over the said property. It is aiso :a’ve;j1fe_§1
likewise the property bearing house No.48 of.’
was owned by Szti.Naraya11a Bhofeanoaaew
imie an advance agreement sa1e”W:if.h sm;;.;q1:a:abi;« ‘*rhe–.,
said sale consideration paid No;=1 ‘fine said V’
property was purchased t1qe”‘i1aii;je of._§’.>mt.JoI3ai*abi under
mgisterefi deed of sale the said sale
c:::)I1si;:1eI’at:ioI1_..:-*;=i1¥o:s.1:z1’i: iiéae ‘ No. 1. Therefore,-
after ,tl1e~ 1;§:.*f legal heirs executed
agree1:ee.n*c of “””/”.’_2″.i32_ in the name of the first
plaintifl’ the sale consideration amount
Waeifiaiii byV.’I1erVv__ve1;ile purchasing the pmperty hearing
»A l::V1’c”2.xz_V$e.VbvAI’i;o.~’~!¢:&:V3:~–.Therefore, ai} along the said propeI1.y &&
eoéeession and enjoyment of the plaintiff No.1
an§i”her:I1’1;”e.band. After the death of Joharabi, Gafurkhan
V. got transferred properties bearing house Nos.3′?’,
63 and 48 of camp~Beigaum to the extent of 5/731
endivided share in the name of his second wife~S1:nt.Jajnabi
for a sum of Rs.3,00{)/- under a registred deed dated
29.11.1955. The balance saie eonsicleratien amount of
\3,\j.?s .
19
Rs.3,00(}/- was paid by plaintifi’ No.1 in the preseneefsf _
sub–~Registra:r at Belgaum to the sellers.
partition amongst the legal heirs Hglteszfialfii»
new beaflng house Nes.3′?’ and caAt1:<1_e"to be
share of Ismailshaikh the bearing
house Nos.48 and 68. Abdul
Gafurkhan Soudagar eveatnté sale in respect
of the aforesaid in the name of
the first was got executeé. in
the Raise detefidatnt but the considerafioa was
paid by uthe said pmpertzies were under
the tltaixagetfieflt. V"Ga;ffi=.1rkhan Kadarkhan Souéagar. Thus,
bearing house Nos.48 and 63 are the
1 and not the exclusive properties of first
def€i1d9I§t.' – A
2 .. AA fiefcndanm 1 and 6 filed written statement averting
— suit of the galainfifis is faisc and vexatious, contmxy trc
” and éenied the averments maiie in the plaint. It was
« aveireti that scheduiefi properties bearing house N0s.48
and 63 ncxmtioned and schedule B annexed to the plaint are
\§~/3
20
purchased by the first defendant and plainfifi
ciaim to scheduled?» properties on the grouné 1 V’
deed in favour of defendant No.1 is henemi 4.’reaI, Vt
owner of the pmperty was Gafixrkhaiix its
averreci that under Section %~»§t._v”<')'f..VtheA'£1enam§Lbv.ft'ts§11eacfion " L'
(Pm}1ibi.t:ion} Act, 1988 119 suit, ela§;'n.oi*..acfiei1' 'tO,.'CI1Af;}ICC any
tight in respect of suit is
not maintainable invzespeet'»of'fi:V1e He {ienied
the aV€'iZ§€Ii'§£$':: "pa1*a¥7'V'V*ti:1at after meeting the
expenseéi ofttze "ufae keeping some amount in
deposit. "§'1ViVefg_ alsoV' defiieclflghe averments made that house
_. Nos34Q "situated in Market Street, Belgamzn was
Soudagar from the savings and
Vaheeistance of the ancestral properties. it is
V . fiuther that at the time of marriage of defendant
Gafurkhan Soudagar she was given substantial
g¢td"ofnamant$ and also other jewellery. Defendant No.1 fer
Vt " plitehase of preperties mentioned in scheduie-B to the plaint
" s0l(i_ti1e golé ornaments threugh her husband and
purchased schedule-B properties. it is false ; that
gm, 9:
“‘x}”;”\.»;§ .
22
cc3I3.strt1ct first 1100:’ over the ground floor and
fixed deposit mentioned at Sy.No.:3″Ais”t:rA_b’e ifozél
construction of first floor over
the amount of fixed depflsit fi2€%.3i3.!i€>ne£i “‘(3; was
utihzed by the sixth defe;1da1:;t”fee;_ediist;”uct}id1:-of~£i:r’st floor.
It is further averreci entitled to any
share in the 4, 6 and 8
mentioned i”(3__’V same is utilised for
payme;:te…of” V jihe deceased-Gufarkhan.
and for family property and the suit
of the ‘ifi the said items of property at
S1. 4, 6 ere liable te be dismissed as the same
is.;;§oz Law. it is further averred that in View of the
defendants 3 to 11 have spent
Rs’.25,0__€){);.–:”‘fo1* funerai expenses of the deceased and also
f0rs_1ast*ri.tes and rituals. The pigmy amount at S1.No.1 and 2
” amount stanziing in the name of Gufarkhan
….;£1enti0ned at S.Nc.:.’7 of schedule ‘£1’ annexeé to the plaint,
first defendant is entitles to 1/ 16¢ shale and the defendants
2 to 11 are joinfiy entitled to 49/ 30 sham. It is further
\9Ǥ*-
23
averted that it is true that Gufarkhan izlherried properties
bearing H.Nos.6l and 82 both situated in MarketV–‘sueet,
Camp Belgaum and i~I.No.23 situated in
camp, Beigaum. Gufarkhan had a brothgég VV
Mohazrzmed Khan and Gufarkhan
separate possession of his share
High Court. During the ;§em1_ene}?”‘ 91″‘
Mohammad Khan died.__ G11farl;héi;’1.go’t_Vho:1.$e’i\Fos.H€§:} and 32
and both situated at and H.No.25
Madxaeg Gufarkhan had taken
premises’ eituated in High street camp.
Belga§i:m~.and A shop subsequently under the name
ei’««._Roya1 Shoe Mart. Subsecfuenfly, for better
to Grampatgalli and to Ramdevgajli,
}3elgaum”W}::e’re he started a shop under the name and style
‘cf fNo§1e–~Shoe Mart’. it is further averred that on the expiry
period of ten years menztioned in partnership deed,
VA .,pz:–;rtnersi1i;9 should disselve. It is filrther averted that
VV defendant N06 had came of age and Gufarkhan Wanteé {(3
settle defendant No.6 in his life and therefore Gufarkhaxz
\;;n».£
25
Soudagar succession opened in respect of the said
Defendants 1 to 11 011 the death of .
and ate entitled to 59/80 the “‘ ‘V
preperties and sought for said shfixje 1733: ‘bV{:j’E.1_IIK’3.3”
by paying court fee.
3″. Having regard zit; theeabueie’}§iIeadinfiS;”?he”Vfol1owing
issues were framed:
1. Wheflfler the properties
shoWnVvdaf’t£)”‘E«VVare deceased Gafurkhan as
alleged’? : d V . ‘ V
2. u’d’W11e1;1.;1e;~ prove that the suit
v”II1CIL’1’fi'(3I3i_3(1′.vi11 scl1ed1}Je–B of the plaint were
«deceased Gafinkhan Soudagar in the name of
.?l3.”.§t; from his savings and also with the income
j 5:” properties?
AA Whether the first defendant proves that the
d ciaim of plainfifis in respect of B schedule properties is
‘4 under Secfi of the Benami Transacfions (Prohibition
Act 1988 as contended?
26
4. Whether the defendants 1 and 6 pI’Q$.?f3_’ ‘
amount shown at S.No. 1 of ‘C’ schedule has
improvement of H.Ne:>.82 as contenc2éd”‘?”‘ « ¢_
5. Whether the deferici-ants V6 flfic
amounts shown at S}.No.3,4,6’vL4a.#§é 8 of ‘(3._vv$(:i1cc¥§;11e have
been utilised towards late Gafizrkhan’?
6. Whegiicr pi”os.r’F.,:’ ‘that they have
spent “‘tLii3;*2§rcis expenses of late
Gafurklzian: are liable to coxttxibutc to
the extent <V3 f=1:11cirV éontcnded?
., defendant No.6 pmve that late
the entire shop including his tenancy
his favour as contended?
Whsther the plaintiffs plmve that late
-‘ had 25% share in profit anti iosses in the firm
j ‘IsfibWn at schedu1c–D as aiieged?
9. Whether the defendant N<:;s.1 and 6 are liable for
account?
\v;.,}
27
10. Whether the court fee paid ” V
correct?
11. Whether the entitléfl
respective share in suit pmpertieef’ _
12. To What ordei”oi”dee§ee’?’ V
8. On behalf of No.2 was
examined P33. On behalf
of the Soudagar defendant
No.8 2 and Jafa1’beig.:::. Inamdar was
exaeainec1A’osp4DWto D18 Wen: got marked. The
trial com”; eoéieidexing the contention of the ieamed
fovz’:””‘{A11e parties and appreciating the oral
adduced by the pa.rt1e’ 5 before it,
by 16.6.2003 anewered the above issues as
‘««___foHoWs: ” 3
‘._p_’fA’;€;s11e No.1: The plaintiffs have proved that the
deceased has left behind the pmperfies mentioned in
A, I) and E schedule properties and properties
mentioned at S1.Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 8 in C seheéule.
Issue No.2: In the negative.
\:–~9>
28
issue N03: In the negafive.
issue NO.4 : Does not survive for consideration.
issue No.5: in the negative. t
Issue No.6: In the negative.
Issue No.7: In the negative.
Issue No.8: In the aflirmafive.
Issue No.9:fn the afirmative.
Issue No. 10: In the affixmatjve. «
issue No.1 1: As per .
Issue No.12: As per the
and accordingly decreedtne’ ‘siiit in part by
declaring .1 and defendant No.1 are
enfifled At’o__ 41,! 16¢?’ and piaintifiis prayer for
pmfifien cf tne eemperties is rejected. Defendants
. t 1 iiie éiitjected Vtettxender the accounts for the amounts
account of the deceased menionted at
1:116 suit C schedule and both the parties are
‘.._'”d.i1″ected’ render the accounts of rents and profits if any
by them from the above mentioned pmpertiestfor
…” “”adjfa2stment of the rents and profits in accordance with their
fl’vsha1’e and partition of the immovable properties shall be
efleeted by the Court Commissioner to be appointed as per
M
29
the provisions contained in Section 54 of
aggrieved by the above said judg*mez:t«d;_ate&1.,
16.6.2003 passed by the trial
this appeal and cmss objecti0i:_:is~…fi1edAb;: _defeiiidAat”1if£’s?”‘1V 3:6 1} ” L’
in the suit.
9. We have 11ea1vwdu
30
‘,%:.._eé’ ‘ $9.1″ “- ‘
.’u
a
share £11 the said properties is }{1S’£LOI’. jcallsé
interference in this appeai?’ A
2. Whethtar the the
on issue Nos. .{,4,5,6 “and 31” is or cafls
for interferencé
3. Whe§11€fm £.he court that the
Iififusé No§.63 and 48 item
M ‘..iVIV1VVVI§?~’v4schcdu}e property is the
and plaintiffs are not
_ eiiifitltgd in the schedule property is
3 _:]T.17ii’§)1?i.f.i¢fC3 ;{V)’I”‘a’£.*c”.i1lVS for interference in this appeal?
V the finding of the tI’ia£ court wgaxfling
V___vs1;3£i*eAéaflotted to the plaintififi and the defendants is
z jiistififitti or calls far iI1tCI’f€3I’C}1CC in this appealfi
t
V’ * ._ What Qrcler?
we answer the above wants as foliowsz
Point No.1: The finding of the trial court is justified
and daes not cal} for interferezzce in this appeal.
._\-A ;:-3’_,\5’_:M_H_\L M , \’\a:-uF;;’*.
31
mm No.2; The finding of the ma; cour_t:”i:3:
and d{)t’:2S not cal} for intetfetttnce in this V
Point No.3: The finding of gig: %:9111v.*t* is
and does not caii for i11teIfere1:+ce in 1
Point No.4: The f1I1ding”‘cffi.i;11e jttstified
and class not call . in appeal.
Point No.5: in_vievt% 1, is 4, the
of the g;r;a1_ VVf<tt:fittterfcmnce in this
appeal for the V
1}; '~.}%:()IN;FS J:Thcsc yoints are consiséered
tog¢t§1er itztemonnected and to avoid
V. is; clettttttxtnm the perusa} of the pleadings ans}
by the parfias before the trial court
coA1x.sz.g,)x'§.s;E3:1g_Vt' evidence of PW1-fomth plainfiff, SW. 1-
No.8 that there is no dispute among the gaarties
Vt tha fact that Gafurkhan Kadarkhan Souciagar was
__t1:§c pmpasitus and he died due to ailmexxt on 22.11.99 afier
tn'-zatmcnt. It is Well settled that in Mohammedan law the
parties wouid be entitietd to Share only after the death of the
\9J\
32
propositus and the question of ancestral and 1 ”
pmperty or joint family properties de”i}ot.a:.§:lt3ly_.vl.tc:$ lauci,
the parties have a fixed share
the deceased in accordance With_?.t.’1e Mt:$h.amI1;1etlai:;Vl;aw.”:it is ” V
the contention of the pla5.t_1.tift’s’V.tt1;tt”_§:el:erlu1eé4A,B,C:D and E
properties are the ll _ by Gafurkhan
S-audagar 11 are entitled
to their law in the said
properties. eeggltetntion of defendants tl1at
pmpefty H.Ns.63 anti 48 and
item No.C3e..ef tlte are in the name of
S€ivC(lt.1’dx”é’*?if€ ef Kadarkhan Sotzdagar and the
» “net entitled to shame in the said properties. It is
of the defendants that Gafurkhan
not have 25% share it} the Show mart as
‘;;1v.r_e;’z*etl” ‘by the plaintiffs and the said pmperty has been
oraliy along with stock and trade in favour of sixth
l V’ ” “defendant and wherefore, the plaintiffs are not emitted to
share in the said property also.
\9J>
33
13. In order to substantiate the conterxigioniid ~
panics, p1aintifi’ No.2-Sikandarkhan u”
and he has got marked docuineidis
substantiate the contention defendaniisd; f;ie.fenri{ant -. V L’
No.8 has been examined as fie lies
DW2 reganding the man; who is not
a party to the suitand $11) 18. It is clear
fxom the reiterated the
avexmente stated that plainfiffs
are enfidiedv .s{d:;edu1e properties described
in A to ‘ofdfhe Iias got marked the documents
Exs.I§1″to Véoszipgoertdtdof his contention. It is eiicited in
‘med. of PW. 3. that his grandfather’s name
e’2×2*e.s~ Kadarkhan Soudagar. He had two wives and
one’–..__€1s1_13.gt:1;£e1*§ Mohammedkhan was his eidest son.
was his second son and Zoharabi was his
and his grandfather had held house properties
I\Eos.6, 82, 60 and 84 at Marketstreet camp, Bvelgaum
and house properties at No.23 Khanapur Road and his
grandfather was tanning the busifless of Royal Shoe Mart
‘\9~o5’>
34
and his gransrather died somewhere in 1948 to 19;:ébzane
thereafter in the partition his une1e~Mo11am1ne;i~~–K};s__i_1’Weiss
given. to his share house Nos.6O and 62
Camp Belgaum and his father ..3:éas
Nos.82, 84 of Marketstzeet and
‘mad and also shoe business”v;s1:;d hjs”‘fs_the§i= 1«ié;d’VV started V’
residing separately ,3 eéiutheféiepesed that
she was assisting his He was also
doing shoe buses;-ess ‘at; ‘He was alone in
eanyiiieg en …_1__1s3der the name and style ‘Rpyal
Shoe M:;.11::%’a:. It is further elicited in para-21
of his *c;oss;exa1 I1i’1§ati£>n ‘that it is not true to suggest that
heviise of marketstreet are standing in the
:’fi fsf.cI,efendant. He has verified the GLR extract of
these Even now, these houses are standing in the
nanae .’£?.e}1a1’abi. Zoharabi is his father’s younger sister. He
fjmuduced GLR extract of those houses. It is true that the
deeds in respect of houses 48 and 63 are sfanding in
the name of fins: defendant. it is hue that Exfietition 35/95
is stiii pending. The said execution petition was for recovery
\3~\}>-
35
of Rs.14,000/- by defendants 1 to 11 and
recovered under the said executzicung ‘
his cross-exam1n’ ation that it is fie; tie_iie'[vtoTT’sn_A g’g.est,
brother–I1iyas was with hisV»{f£ fi:her aii” sjiiiyas” V
was knowing about tee vhexyas eftendiné more on
his father and since V Ifigres, his father in
Mumbai also a.i;nv th¢..vvj;e1iS§fi; iixiet attend to his
college. it eeféfidants 1 to 11 have
met an father; It is further
eficiteti that he was not personaliy
presen_t w1_1en 22 executed. It is not true to
suggcet ‘father teas looking afler entire transaction
«. flf to note the same in the notebook.
_Ii: to _ieuggest that he house Nos.48 and 63 were
ekclesive of fust defendant.
‘A 1934} DW.1-Ilyas Gafixrkhan Soudagar ‘is defendant
the suit and he has reiterated the avennents made in
“the _w:€it%:e13t statement in his exaztnination in chief. He has
stated in para-6 of the examination in chief that house No.63
aué 48 described in Schedule-B are standing in the name of
\);J*
36
his mother. His grandfather i.e. mothefs father had given
goid ornaments to his mother and by selling T1101?-‘_> gold
omaments his mother purchaseci those two l10i1»§3e–sf.’._ His
name was Abduirehman Shaikh. He had
position. House No.63 consists of t
is in possession of a tenant and
chilciren of pmmee No.3«Hasa_Vint”keahafi is neiv.: His”?
mother alloed them tofstay ivithotlt payment
0f rent. House No.48 céaeiste In the ground
floor there firs’: floor his elder sister–F’ajza
Mustaqezhzeerl (dare;-1fda§i1:– term; is residing. His mother is
collectiilg ffifif tlitaf: tenants of H.No.48. it is not true-to
” father had purchased these two houses
A fx’am’tOt1tf<}f income in the name of his mother and it
is met t;:ue.vtAteAtsuggest that his father had incudcted tenants
these: houses. He has further eieposed in his cross-
V 'x,exa.%§ination that so far as A schednie pmperty, they have
__;rfever xefused the plamfifis to give their share. The house
groperty situated at Bhaékalgalli was purchased by his
father in the name of p]aintifi' No.3-Hasankahan. At that
\§»\.3\
37
time Hasankahan was studying in 8* or 93*
income from any source. Pie hadeenaté aftag xiniiiéetiit. ‘ j
the time when the said house
marked documents Exs.{)1 Ifis elieikgi ‘§.:ross–* V
examination that his da:e%_’§ifA-»,:t;im; fig “«2Q,1251954. He
compietcd his eduesficifiz His marriage took
place on 26.10.. 1 997. io 11 have given
instructions statement. The
geneologr vcorrect. Gafurkhan was
dealing’ He sag rich by birth. He had
ea1’i1ecizA”gp<i<1 business also. It is further
elicited cities iiotvknow as to whether his father was
.- «. 011 iee-itiziier business. It is true that Kadarkhan
iheii had a shop in martket street,
It is business dealing with ieather articries. it
is true ,t1iat during 195869 Gafurkhan had started a shop in
":i:V'_Grsis[s_patga}fi, carrying on business in ieather arficies. It
vééas a rented premises and the business was run by
Gafurkhan in the said premises for 15 t9 18 years. It was his
proprietary concern. Later, he shifted his business ta
\9Ǥ*
40
gandfather had advanced money to Jainabi. it is not true to
suggest that his maternal gra11dfathe1* had no capaei§y*e’.f’;§je;9ay
such amount during 1955 and the
stantiing the name of Jainabi were ‘4 u
and he was collecting rent from
eiicited in his cr0ss~exami;1atim; thafit is notefiige itoz s’1i’g5g”e~.=;f’p
that his mother never freated pmpefiies be; separate
properties from the V fiate date of
depesition, He did nofg about non–
payment __of; AV de»f£:n_(1a11’ts 12 to 18. He had made
enquiry?’ shown in C schedule. These
depgjsitg weeee-iyitlgx name of his father-Gafurkhan and
., is of these deposits. He has denieé
:t1<:e V$ufg{ge$i§_C§I;V'.:~fi1at p1aiz1tifi's are requesting them ta effect
1:A)a-3.ftitig;:I;~ the family properties and to filmish accounts.
DW.2-Jafarbeg Yusuf Beg inamdar has deposed
evidence that he knows defendant No.{S–imi:i;azkhan
u wazad piaintifl' No.3–Hasar2kha11. He started his business
during F973, since 1975 he has got aequaintence with said
Hasankhan and imtiazkhan. During 1995 they entered into
WV?»
4i
comyromise. The fanlily has get presgaerty at
Camp. 111 the eomymmise it was agreed that };£a1a'iu
to vacate the tenants of -oieft
possessien 01' the same to
agreed that the property given to
themother of in his
pzesence. At that time eee' Shaikh, Waheed
Mtsnrafiabatii, :were also present.
After ‘2J\
42
Hasankban. Hasankhan died about five years–‘..e;’go
examined on 27.3.2003). He was aisO’–ea11j{‘iz1g;”1fi33 aleil’? *<"?°.I[VI1""v=-T for"?
settlement for a peri0<;1.of 18. He
cannot remember the ()_f_fi u given by given
by Hasankhan I decision as
to how the per the agreement,
crs.No_.4§ev~;eVe- V: fiom the tenants.
Likewiée, vacated by Hasankhan and as
per the ='£e rx2:s' tifl dézte they have not
iIl113]'!i§$t23.1tCd'V as .,1;eVlV§owv't1ze properties are to be shared.
' " _1"54.:l't eiear from the above said evicience adduced by
the the 'trial court that evidence of DW2 is
not heipfdié' :0 the parties as §3}x.D18 has not been
»iiI1pie;3:1e%1ted even as per the fact elicited in the Crass;
— e;§ei1;einafion of DW, 1 and further, legal heirs of plaintiff No.3
defendant No,6 have not been examined to Show that
there was a compramise as per Ex.}Z)}.8. it is clear fmm the
facts eliciteci in the emss-examhiafion of I)W.2 that he was
\%,9*
43
not aware of the afiairs of the famfly during the lifefime of
Gafurkhan. He knows littie about the partition suit between
the children of Gafurkhan through first wife and chfldxfen of
second wife. He has no knawiedge about the “igfft
behind by Gafurkhan and Ex.{)18 has
and wherefore, evidence af DW.2:’i駻ii6’€« b T
in the present case anti therefo1’e,.__ ‘left.
evidence of P°W.1-piaintifi; e:1efex;§ci:_~;1i”£;vV4I’ii'(;’.t§:–DW.’7tV
and the documents got _to éahvefmifiate their
ccmtentionf ‘
is Ve£eé£r._én::_’;*ipprcciation 0f the evidcnee of PX’-V.1
{JV-1.1 a$ contents of the documentary evidence
‘ parties that the evidence of DWK1 and the
” ‘– fifoduced by him would clearly Show that
has left behind the preperties Comprised in
V ” ;3.§hedu1e~A, D and E and S1.Nos.1, 2, 4 to 8 in C schedule.
‘Eiewever, his evidence is not hlepful in proving the
T contention of the plaintiffs that properfics ‘bearing heuse
i’~E0s.63 ané 48 in E3 scheduie which is standing in the name
cf the first defendant was pmchased by Gafurkhan out of his
\9»\/3
44
own income benami in the namt: of his wife. of
the document Ex.P23 Wouid cieariy show; ”
property comprised in B SCh13C§§L’lé”iS’pi1i’Qh£;§f3E§CiV:v3:}}’ d€’ff€1ii3.{~i;fij
No. 1. The evidence of Dw.
defendant No.1–Jainabi ‘n1g)t}i§ér the
suit property by sellipg gQ:1d—-;iif.’3.:§in.§§11t.’¥’.’ i£?hi<:hA..*:=a'as given to
her by her father. shows that father
of Jah1abiǤijm dr::iEii1ߎ 1:11; sound. The
contenf;§0ni'~..9f _ :(f$<":}¥1sici-.=:rati{:I1 amount for
by, Gafurkhan in respect of
the the name of first defendant in
I'F'Spt§Ct {Sf prepertiés is not substanfiated by
. «V z3§:$:tEé1*3'aI' an the contention of the plainfifls that
puzchased benami in the name of first
Qkautd E
A »..g1efend£iifi,'is also not 135%» as it is clear fiom the material
<:13:1"r§£:-orci that the contents of the saint: deed does not Show
V. amount was paid by Gafilrkhan. The evidsncc of DW.1
is not at ali helpful to substantiate the said contention of me
piaixztiffs. The stock account in Ex.P3 that Rs.3,0()(}/- was
paid by Hasankhan is also not helpful to the plaintifis to
\9\,.% .
45
contend that the saint pmpeety was purchasged
pIa1;:1′ tifi” as it is not the avennent .ma§1e L.
behalf and Iiasankhan is not.
Evidence of PW. 1 is also n§>t4–..I;qe1pfi:; in .the:tV”r;s;:1a.1f and
has admitted that sale (:Zee_(_1: the the fimt
ciefendant. It is receipts Show that
tent was being collecteet and the same
wezxld not that the property
pu1’chasett._.wV jgsvecond wife-Jainabi-first
defe1;jt§ttéttt’A ieffjne wherefore, rent receipts.
Exs.P;1–. heipful to substantiate the
c:oI;tentioxti”~0:fV t.h_éj– The tria} court has righly held
tespect pmpert:€es aiieged to have been purchaeed
V ‘ttame ofwife and unmarried eiaughter, there is
.22 that the property belongs to the wife or
datightegr imless it is shown that it is for the benefit of Wife
2 V. xai1d._cla;..1ghter unless contrary is proved and in the present
Ateabtse, no contxaxy evidence is iead to prevent the said
Vt ” “presumption under Section 4 at the said Act as rightly held
by the trial court and Wherefore, the finding of the ma} court
\3-J»
46
that the plaintifib have proved that
behind the pang:-eny comprised in sciheétdejfl, Bi
schedule is justified and aceo1di1iA§1y,::’–ie*iiediiig’bf.the” ._
court on issues 1 and 2 is It Was the ”
defendants and to thatvexjrent me aof”%:h.e.vv:=j1ppella11t
negativing the claim 01; of house
5103.63 and “defendant No.1
éieseribed So far as item
N{).3 ciear from the Inaterial
on Whatever is produced to Show
that the Jamomxt was kept in Syndicate
‘VB”e1gau1:fi” and in the absence of producfion of
» that behalf, question of ailotting any share
” would not arise and therefore, rejection of
iiithe suit for share in item No.3 of (3 schedule is
V rig1}t1yV71iega{ived by the tzial court.
18. Issues 5 and 6 relatefi to the questi-en as to
us
Whether defenéants 1 and 6 have emved that the amount
shown at S1.Nos.3, 4, 6 and 8 in the suit C sclzledule were
utiliseé towards the mefiical expenses of iate Gafurkhan and
\P-.e (
47
\fiu\\”*
whether defendantipmved that they have spent .
towards funera} expenses of Gafurkhaa and ” ”
are liable to contribute to that eictentef
contended.
19. issue No.7 u:Vé:,
48
person is examined to preve the said oral gift even the
donee-defemtiant No.6 is also not examined in case.
Under the cimumsiances, the trial court
answered the said issue agaifiet the em’ [1 defe192f:£a1;~te,:V” ” H
20. issue NO.8 pertains to:;bf£}1e:(;41ic:.sf:ip1ii’,3-ans: to.
the plaintifl” prove that Gafusrighazrfhed 25%%s1;g~;:~e’ i:3:;1.)’.r0f3t»e.
and lees in the firm. Issue 3″€.V:.x.A9 ‘pew; question
about the accountabifity._ of to in View of
the ;5fd{%e’d I and 6 withdrawn the
amouiat of Gafurkhan after his death
UK’
the _ “ar;:et211_ righfly answered the said
(the eifilmafive and directed that defendants 1 and
V E0-.aceou:1t for the same anti the said finding is
pa1s¢ guszgiede;
” So far as 25% share of Gafurkhan Soudagar and
in the firm shown in sczhefiule-D as aiieged, having
regard to the evidezme of PW.1 as also the facts eiiciied in
{he erss~–exam;inatien of DW.j{ that he éoes not knew as to
whether his father had 25% share in the said firm and he
VJ .
49
does no: lmow the nature of business his father vefase
and he does not know whether the said _
converteé. into partnership business, it is c1e~a;=.. u ..
court has rightly held that the
Gafurkhax; iiadarkhagn Soudagar haei’ e
schedule-D to: the piaint. §ssuex’N e’. 11 pe’r§.a»’ifiuné;sv’:to “€;he share
to which £116: parties areenfifieili of ebove said
finding of the trial c:01z;’§ by us
having regard;’t{5 Irfiateriai 611 «it is clear that the
finding of the coniemion of the
defendaiitséand’11d1diizg i.i;Ieit’ fa1aintifl’s am entitled to share in
schexi:1¥e–A, “E jemieerfies and item Nos.1, 2, 4 to 8 of
. {EV end that the plaintifie ave entitied to
i§g§»1;g®;saV:’:~:os.43 and 63 of 8 schedule properties azué
iteg NQ;3′ c$f schedule properties is justified. The next
quesficxfwould be as to the vaiidity of the finding given by
court regaxding the share which the parfies are
ejéltifled to in answer to question No.1.
22. It is clear from the finding given by the trial court
if
that parées does not dispute the relationship intersQa”§
-50
Gafurkhan Kadarkhan Soudagar had two _1
and defendant No.1. Plaintiffs 2 to 5 are the
first wife and defendants 2 to 1 2-‘:;=;i%e’–m¢ b
second Wife. Wherefore, Gafiirkhaeie u
how through the first bore V
to the second Wife-firs?’ eiefenai:a&ij;.– ‘H-ep hast «also page behind
be? ‘. M
two daughters ale; to ‘the- :=wifev.a11d seven daughters
born to the ser.§d11d as the principles of
$uccessio_n«”;§e:jtééJ.1i31g..1:o__:’inhereteLnee of the propefigy, two
WiveS; 1n*oe1’é” :.;6:fi¥:’_’shaIeVeach. Sons took double the
share ‘efVVd’a.11ghtei’e[ each son of the deceased cf
iiaearkhei; Seuéagar burn through the first and
seee-incl’-ew1fe axeflegitifled to 14116031 shale each ané each
deceased through the first and second wife
get””::”i..,Vq”i:t;’)(}*h shape in. the above said properties i.e. in
sceeefilea, :3 and E: pmpelfies and s1.Nos.1,2, 4 to 8
A “ii” eiefitioned in suit C scheduie. Whezefore, the finding of the
court regarding share to which the parties are entifleé.
to is aiso justified and does not suffer from any error or
iiiegality as to call for infierferenee in this appeal.
‘\,9-J».
Accereiingiy, We hofi that the judgment and ~
by the trial court is justified
interference in this aypeal.
23. POINT No.5; In viewjjjefjaalr answje::r’v.:«$.:ai5i;;{éés”points V
for determination, we aeswer by that the
judgment and decree is justified
and does next’ appeal and the
cmss o13jecfibe1_s; the following order:
and Cross Objection
No.34/QGQ4 judgment and decree passed
by ftizejj AA Cf’: Pflcjvfl Judge (Sr.Dn.), Belgaum, in
j ‘A Q.V’S.jN<$';'€§5]j'1991 dgiéé 16.6.2003 is confirmed.
Sd/-»
Iudge
Sd/-~
Judge
l::sv**