5%"
ifi THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN
QATEE) Tms THE 27m DAY OF MAY 2{,~v\3s3s: "
BEFORE %V_. i %
THE HONBLE Mr. JUSTI%§f$3N :1 X
wR;:T PEFYPEQN N0~5O6»A:O_Fi "~?~.%j'i&>\<)'7(V1'§.~%"A-,:'; §3A)= "
BETWEEN: A A
Sri Kempaiah, 510 !<emf=0»50~h:.V-****
Since decsased by '
K.Devaraju, '
Aged about j
S/0 late ,
'i'.Ma]1iger€MVi11agé',__ 9 x "
Kothathi I~E.b~1i,:'}__ ' V. .. A
Mandya'Tq,;i:Teg§'.%:.i1i Past. " ...PETI'I'IONER
(Amégided ViV€i€:V{}1"(iVfé',E" 23.03. 2009)
(Sri I}.R.§'$und3r¢s1ia# Aév.)
A. .....
~T%5éial1J'g¢re 'Jfilage,
z<:gtha:hi'£:ob1:,
Memdya Tézluk,
Dead his LRS.
'a.)_' Era:ama,
W/0 Kempa @ M0016,
Aged abcut 45 years,
b) Raja, S/0 Kempa @ M0116,
Aged about 35 years,
(:3 Basavaraiu,
S / 0 Kempa @ M9116,
Aged about 38 years.
d) Devaiah,
Aged about 33 years,
S / 0 Kempa @ MORE.
6) Chikkakempaiah,
S / 0 Kempa @ M0116,
Aged about 30 years.
1') Pankaja,
D] 0 Kempa @, M0116,..V_
Aged about 22 years..%"
(a) to (1) are residing at . V
'I'.MaI1iger¢ Vi.l}age,=:_ __ . '
i{othat11i..Hob;fi, [2
Ta1uk--5"71{?0_1I'
g) Ch?g1(kakeI;:;{)a111;:;.a, '».V.é_' _
Aged a-E)out"3 1- ._ ' ~
D/0 'i{empa--@ M0113-.,._ ~ .
Residiilg za.f;vI{i:ethz31:i1i Vfllage,
Mandya"Ta1uk-.57 40 1.
.....
~ $fiflmwaTdflk,
g (ammacdfié/o dated 20.10.2008)
” __Iv1Va.**1§:I:yéa’. ”
.. .RESPONDE)N’i’S
–« {Sri Nfifiarflcaranarayana Bhat, Adv. for
‘ .. >C}fii€.1 (a) to (g); Sri H.K.Basavara_.ju, HCEGP for R2)
& This W.P is fiied under Articles 225 and 227 of the
V% …_Consfitufion of India ‘praying to quash the impugned
order of Principal District Judga, Mandya, in MA V053
16/06 16/05 dated 9.10.2006, A1IH(3XUI”C*~J, confirming
the order of the Tahsildar 1 HOA 18/8’?–2{)0O–2(‘}01
dated 11.04.2001 vide A.::mexure–H.
as the respenéent for Consideration and
order dated 11.04200 1 dismissed the appiicaiiofi _
respondent and accepted the
petitioner. Thus, the lands
the petitioner. Aggievedi’ v
respondents filed an eppeal .,
Judge, Mandya in The said
appeal was presented the Act. The
learned to the material
the evidence
which {was accepted the appeal and
has set éit passed by the second
reseegideat. ‘Effie. order is at Annexure-J which is
~.:;:ieetio$ieri’t1fii.e writ petition.
2.V”‘VAI:sIIi:*.Sunda:esh, lmmed counsel appearing fer
0’ ‘v.j0f»tIE1e”p.etjt:1’o:1ez* submits that the entire evidence on record
‘ ‘men misread by the iearned appellate Judge. He
04 iuxther submits that the respondents had not filed any
appficaizien fer regent He further submits that after
the death of the erignal hoider, the petitioner is thy;
32
disclose thai Kempa @ M0116 izldead had mad€_:__ an
applicafion under Section 5 of the Act. A
said application would dis-C3956 that V’
sought for regant of the iancis-Jii1′–qu§,駣§fi%(i§:VV.’V:v
doubt: true that
submitted that there is fioV’a};§j3Licafibn,..’b1ji§v_:tH駻”Vfec;)rds ‘V
would disclose otherwisg. Itvis be iéO’£ice€i that in
the earlier proceeding; was taken by
the petitionegt @ M0116: had
net madcé »-Indeed the earlier
pmceéfiings ._t:hé footing that there was an
app]iCat’1’o”:1_’f’i§a¢dVV”}:)_jg.f M0316. indeed, this fact is
_ suhs:3;an ti.ated” mg j;1;¢ records disctlosing that indeed he
“2 2 ‘ 1’1};-1dL_Vmads ‘application.
S,” Efxsiwfar 93 the next questian whether
“‘”–. VL”‘resp0§1d{§nts 1(a) to Hg) are the children of the 0rig1n’ al
ajypiibant i.e., Kempa @ M0116 is concamed, thare
-~zq:3pear*s to be a serieus dispute. Indeed a perusal of the
V C)I’€1€:I’ passed by the appellate authority wouid disclose
that there is enough evidence on recard to substantiate
A)/’ if
that there is aiways a presumption in favour ‘ofothe
marriage if two persons ape iiving toget.h§S1f__o’
comsidembie period. The evidence on 1’ecou1fd.VVis.g::’to my .. 2
mind, not sufficient enough to i3o1d.,.fi1jat’oi::§}
not the second wife of Kempa @ zit
be noticed that the oonsisto’iit.V’yVovi§1eoCe orignai
applicant with that of _Kem£>o mma i.e.,
the daughter of the can be safely
said that. are the legal
Indeed, it is
also ‘.t.11{: -‘said Kompamma had very
o1eariy, no 4t£.i;r1ns, stated in her evidence
thgifiihezir fa.£iie§if,V’th
material which was requirec_1__ to b~e_» looked has not
been iookeé into, tI3ie”*;fZ{{>L1r:Lce,13rief.je1fe;} in area. interfere
with the orders; V ”
._I- -the order passed by the
e..ppel1a’te~ appellate autherity, to my
1I1i,r:s_§cA¥.,” has t’a}«:ef1 into cotzsideratioxz all the materiai
before the second respondent and has
seine fe””the’V~eo’ee}usion. Having regard to the fact that
V -V fa1et-fméing authority has recerded :3, finding
K t1″1et;A the order passed by the second respondent wouid
‘AAtver%ant interference, that being a question of fact, I am
“ef the View that the order passed by the appellate
authority earmot be disturbed. It: is to be noticed that
the application appears to have been filed on behalf of
11
the entire famiiy, applicant being the eldest. VTQ my
mind, the regrant would be for the benefit Qf jéigfirg
family and it is open for the petitioner ts
remedies.
With this observation,’ petitiQij:”is:h’re_§z€:ptVe”d.
Rule discharged.’ «_ V.
AI/–