1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 28"' DAY OF JANUARY 201%:-.__
BEFORE "
THE HONBLE EVERJUSTICE }AWAD
R.S.A. NO. 128.5/ZQO8_"w "E.~VIy %
BETWEEN: A -1% '
1. KALAVATHI BA1 _
W/O.LATE.GANESH SI'i\i_G*H..
AGED ABOUT 44 \/EARs',"~-,_
{VJ
KAVITHA BAI ._ _ _
D/O.LATE.GANES"i---!~ SIN.C3F%j ;
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS} : " "
3. MALA 3A1'g 1'--
1:)/6. . ESH;:'SI N
AGED AB'G'gf_f'22"YEARS,-
4. KRI'S4_HNA S.T.I\'iG I-£»-- 4'
V 1 S/0.LA.1jE.=r3A--..N E'S|-'YSINGH
AGED AESOUT 20 YEARS,
A §H*.<;E5HA BAI
~ KCILAR "row:\s~5E3 191
__ EA\f\f,5Q.~vKP'IS.HNA SING}-i
* ._ AE3E~v;:1A_B
ANUSH BAYAMMA
D/O LATE RAMA SINGH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
BOTH R/O HA\/ELI MDHALLA,
KOLAR TOWN--S63 1010
RSA IS FILED U/S OF CPC,_AGi':,INST THE
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DA'I'EvD-j_.1.02'.2..OO8 PASSED IN
RA.NO.172/2007 ON, T~}:jE FTEE' OFj4TVHE_ PRL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR, '-.D:S'Tsz;1SSm'G--., THE APPEAL AND
UPHELDING THE JUDGE_M'ENT' DECREE DATED
09.04.2007 PASSEDA1N"0.S mj..100/0.5'»'0N THE FILE OF
THE ADDL.C;IVIi;...3UDGE :'JR.D"N.) ':%:'0!..A.TR.
IThi_s. Ei'pEp'0aV_!':'com.i.A'g.,..for{admission this day, the court
de|ive"red the forI0wjng_. A
{7§uD0MENT
sec0V'hdv---aphpeal is by the unsuccessfui defendants
??Vi'$SE'l_E|'§fiQgA'A§;4T"¥fE:V_f'L{(?fgfT"E€fTt in R.A.172/D7 dated 11.2.2008 on
.th'é'AAfile;'.'0§f__f5rin<::ipal District and Sessions Judge, Koiar,
c0nfr~T;T1E;.h0 the judgment and decree in 0.5.100/O5 on the
A A:fj§V§ié"~0f Civifi Eafige, (§urTé0r Bévrafig Ksiai'.
' B
, s
.1 5
K";
T<ES'E0s\:0EiNTAS Si»
3
2. The appeal is posted for admission after notice to the
respondents who are served out unrepresented.
3. From what is urged by the learned
appellants and also from the records,
respondents herein namely, Néela1’_i:3a’yari*i_m~a_:”arid”ii’—Ariiiush
Bayamrria field a suit seei{i_ng.i..partitiori.of”,tiie._:ri~m..m’ovab§el’
properties described thevAy_S_otire_dulue for”a.sVsAigAn§ment unto
them 1/3″‘ share -schedule property
was purchasedfby ,i;§s.hoA..die:d:’»’intestate 15 years
prior to surviving him
his :v»i.ii’fe¥i\*iuiij71vnaV’::3:’3aya’rtj”i’na,éu_”s’oii»~«Ganesh Singh and two
daugnteVrs«’. and Anush Bayamma
(plaintiffsfwto su,ecee_dV’t’oV his estate.
if'”or”ten year’s’;”the surviving heirs of Ram Singh lived
aund:v}e;.njoyed the property in common. However,
‘ti:=_.eV%2″”i’. gfilajgitiff married Molnar: Singh and per force shifted
to ifieerr matrimonial home. The other f3lalHfCif’f”‘i3\FlUS§”§
Bafyamma continued to be a spiraster. Garzesn Sirigii aiso
it ___3:iied Eeavirig behind his wife and ciziidrewdefendaots Er: the
2
;s
M W ,_,,,,w-..»
M} E’
M
:’ l
xv
4
suit. Dispute arose as defendants did not aiiow them to
utilize the property for their benefit. It led to a for
partition of the properties. Defendant deei.ined”tp~«..etfe£;t
partition and to give them their Eegiti_r_riate’ ‘-
5. . In the suit, defendants en’teredi
the ciairni inter alia makin§,,..,,3 Stia-te:rn.e_ntt.:vizirh’i’e~h.. fact
Supports the plaintiffs’ The..W’ritt_en_.r§statement
reveals defendants herein, did not
dispute RamVSiA’r’ig_h wiaetiiei oig.i§i:i’i’e.r of the property
in questidn’ by wife, son-
GaneSh”VSi’itgih_V :’j<:i~Va.pac;htAé_iF%s';"";As his wife also died, the
propertvi Singh. Ganesh Singh died
ieaying be'i1ir§'dth=e A'p_lai'ntiffs and defendants, There is no
0th;er:,.Ad.isppte raii'Se'd'Vby the defendants, but they tried to
of the piaintiffs en the piea that they
'fe.neun.c.ed:-.V.iiVinduisrn and embraced Isiam which disentities
them seeking a share in the property
An issue was raised in thie regard, burden of which
___ia:ae Cast en the defendants. Defendants had faiied ice
f'x
5
ax}
6
division of share in the property acquired by succession
and not by virtue of coparcenery right. Since no
materiai propositions in the pleading contrarfiiitoéfl”v;§’f’ia.t *’;:.:_:9as,»
urged by the plaintiffs, the learned,.tr_ial j_ud’g’e.i:ih:ad”‘to’
issues based on facts pleaded 7:the{r’ein, i..e;’~ _in:het:h’~er’i’i1ithe
schedule properties were ‘owynedA’~~ by . arid
whether plaintiffs had sucpcexe’dedi»_._Vto ha’-sh_arei after his
. ” ” ‘ V “2 V’ {V}/E
demise, by intestate”–successii.,on. issue material
proof has beeni’ahswere”d–i.fi the_’:a.f§”iri’:iati.x:e.
9. In the”s4eClon;d app_e1a.l., a.:’riew issue is canvassed which
is wholly “untena.ijlVVe._:”Ei..:’find _no”Vmerit in the appeal as no
substantial ques’iti’jonl’of:”laW arises for consideration. It is
dismivssed} V.
xV;gh*’~ ‘:.