-1-
.IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT N
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY 01? MARe:§I?fi é "
PRESE.N'F~ A x 2 4'
THE HON'BLE MR. .1Us*r1dI-:k_s:;1§."
THE 1-IOPPBLE M . ,;.vN."'!F.-..UG0P.-A-La. .:..'.1!DA
E
1 KAI£?Tt_IR1:jBU_LLI RAJU
s/::'o BRAH'1ViANNAjj'---,D _
AGED "ABOUT 57.YE'ARS'"
~ 0cc:'AGRI{3U.L'ItJRE ' V
12/ 0 JALIHAL CAMP AT AND POST
N-ow.cALjL-ED ASQANDHINAGAR
=SINDHANURf'!_'ALUK«.
RAICHUR' DISTRICT -- 584 128
APPELLANT
~ ..':('}§3.Y 3$RI..,_PADm:IAB~HA MAHALE, ADV. FOR
' 'SR1'; 1cvAIgApRAsAD,ADv.;
;;nD:A "
" .;<;A§eTi;R1 SUBBARAO
sjd BRAHMANNA
~~ "AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
occ BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE
RIO ADARSI-1A COLONY
OPP: KSRTC BUS STAND
SINDHANUR
SINDHANUR TALUK
RAICHUR DISTRICT -- .534 121.2
N)
KAR'i"u'Ri RAMARAO
s/o BRAHMANNA
AGED ABOUT so YEARS
OCC AGRICULTURE, .
rm 3
SiND}-iAN'U1'-'< TALUK _
RAICHUR DISTRICT - 'saw .128
KARTURI VENKATARATHNVEM
AGED ABOUT YEAF7_S A V " fl
OCC AGRICULTRURE '
R /o JALIHAL CAMP AT PCS'I'57.i'V_~A ._
NOW CALLED A.s"CA:~1DHi2§A.CAR _
SINDHANUR TALUK 'V ..
RA:Cu.uR';j1?I_s'rR;IC1'=.5 585! 128
KARTIE-Ri;sA'fvANAi12A¥A1iA I; V
~ " S10 BRAi4Ii':éANl'<!A'----.
AGEIJAB_QUT :51 YEARS-
CCC AGR:C.UL'1U:2_E"---- '
FERTILIZER' DEALER
R~;QADAI2sHAA COLONY
opp: KSRTC BUS' STAND
4; ' " A. s1NDHA1~1U'R, SFNDHANUR TALUK
, __%'RA1CHUR~n1sTR1cT -- 584 128
KARTFURI GOPAL KRISHNA
* ._ x_'~'_,,l'Q BRAHMANNA
'A'GEI3tABOUT 51 YEARS
. CCC '_A.(Z1RIC_1LJL.'I"LJRP_3,
A Rio JALIHAL CAMP AT AND POST,
~ New CALLED As CANDHINACAR
" SINDHANUR TALUK
R.A.!C-I-EUR DISTR!C'I' -- 584 128
K] O JALEHAL CAMP AT ANCVPCST ' 1.
NCWCALLED As GANDHINAGAR A
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
RIO ADARSHA COLONY
OPP: KSRTC BUS STAND
SINDHANJR, SENDHANFJR 'TALUK
RAICHUR DISTRICT -- 584 123""
(8')? SEE. hi V HIREMAT ,AD's_v'.)
THIS RFA IS FILED U13 9:"; OF"CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT AND -.11s'--.s1.os.2eoe. .-masses IN
O.S.NO.26/2006 (oLD..No.9e'/2ooo;~«QN_ THE FILE 01:' THE CIVIL
JUDGE (SP.f)N.'] LiNGAsUGU§,";--.raisiviissifis S'u'i"i" FOR A
DEGREE OF PARTITION AND SEPARHTEPOSSESSION.
THIs:.v;2.F.A'.* CDMING': O!sf"';}'T{_3R,.l{jE')l'\IIiSSION, THIS DAY,
BANNURMATH pE.uvE3ED__T1;.E FOLLOWiNG:
for the appellant.
2.L= _:'1'hi$- appeal. Being aggrieved
the decree dated 31.8.2006 passed by
_;'.t'11e Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Lingasugur,
00
'c'
1'
5
E
I'
E
C
-5:
F
§
I
:
E
E
:
E
U
1':
to 5 are brothers and ma" t defendant No.6 is the wife
We
-4-
of defendant No.1 is not in dispute. Acoordiiiigjéétitoafthe
plaintifi", the plaintiff and defendaihitfli..i§Ios,=ix
of the joint family. It is Valiegedtiiat thcfirs' éie1"'e"""aVntp
being the eldest, was
According to the ranimyitowned and
possessed awculturalii two rice
mm mu" .9. D promrtiw.
2 the plaintiff and the
K happily, recently there was
disagreement'. brothers and as such, the
'H3
i.m:a'_st_V_Vforoe§i to seek partition, but as partition
an-uni-mniranfl Inn 1:: fhn
nu man
3...:
5
L'-
05
E
E
E
E
E
E
I-
» _s.1Aii't'V'i'or partition and separate 1/'6fi1 possession.
i"'4I'!r1e'*--V itiefendants contraverting these contentions inter
if " * eaiiavoontendcd that-though initially the family was joint,
the year 1970, there was a partition amongst the co-
f)&I'C€_f:TS 'f tn' j"int f'"""i1" and *" witness the --"ac, a
-5-
mutation entry came to be made. It is
that after the partition in the year
separately. It is also contended that the
utilized his shave and the Court
in order to grab the of the
plaintiff is liable to
4.2:' the joint status of the
two rehnquiahment
the deed' of 'acl{no\%.fledlxg1nent' of retirement of some of the
_ oft' KI'ioe"IVnfl1, which was one of the subject
V the suit. On the other hand, the defendants
uno ce in .s;nsa_/r._i_ns and all Ba.
, 1 , . .
T------- -- . --.-- --+-- --l_-- ------ -- ---------- ---- ---- ---- -- --- V----.-- ---
3" v been fallen to the share of the plaintiff himself.
fix'
-5-
5. Considering the entire
court found that the case of the
age: table rather than the of the' T.
1-3.... 3" :--'A 1-nan til!!!' 'I'\ ' '
1.
au1tJ.u .lU. an a uh, y d%
“CI
Hence the present appeal.’
appearing for”the contended that
the rmaa1go1~tim,tonor tr.ejt-M family by the trial
.wonjtthe iibasisfiof mutation entry which
-.as’~no’ 3: It is also contended that the
«se, itself was sufiicient to hold that
i disruption of the joint family and as such,
_oon.eiueion arfived at by the trial court was
the pleadings of the parties
set we ind that the
~ ..– -…-5
,–J-J
-7-
conclusion arrived at by the trial Court to
be either illegal or perverse. It is to _ it
up.-
case of the plaint.:.. is j..mt.n.ess f t: e,-a…r.rs..§_,r
other hand, it is a caseppofa disruption
status by the defendantsi.”e»..lllceo1’dii1g,f
portion of the in properties”, especially,
agricultural lands share of the
plaintiff. ‘the of” the p….’° afi. W *-“‘1 as
been qliilotedi itself in the impugned
j is an admission by the
1970 (the alleged date of
it as ‘defendants’ case), the plaintiff not
nu-I–In nl-‘ -I-‘I-nn ‘Inru-is I-u-if Han ninn rriurnrl
._ land to his da ‘ ter as if it was his
property.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant
‘ ” “vehemently contended that it is the case of the plaintiff
6′”
H-7
._pi_1Ifci’tase_ci iands in his own name. As ute
-3-
that it was at the instance of defendant No. 1,” of
the family, that the plaintiif no doubt
.. ..1..; ….},….. .. i .u….V* ~’.nV’V’T-.
cuu iucu LI]. t l..I.1 am 1, ccuax. It. f 1 Eh V-tju’.-fit
family consisting of the would
have accepted this admitted fact
that portion oi’ this in the name
of d.a_I_Ig}1t..r_f” not have a
has treated the alienated
to his share as his individual
lanftis, the defendants have led material
iiiii he I–‘~3.Lr1t.iLf ha
.1550
4.1..
aifipellantnfeoupled with the documentaiy evidence indicate
at that after 1970, the plaintifl’ has been enjoying and
the agricultural lands (which is said to have
“ibecn -“ll tn
1.5. J.\.J us: 1;; st’ and. sun.-u.-an-.
is sh… i the . flier pa. ‘
respect of __ it
-9-
‘I’ 11-nllv fhg nlainfifih run man has nin figgtigg
oonfinued. the subsequent
of any explanation and wit11out:’»puttiI1:g *1
hotehpotch of the joint the ioeiiauci tog5i.nct
as noted by the trial ” A T.
9. in A so ii;:on Ex.P-29 is
ooncerned, this is only an
.|U.Iu1q_u1u1.wI_,IU1;I..:uUUu 4,1 u;.u’.| fifliclit U1 U111: U1
U1 “GEE! ll?!
from by itself, would not show
that fliezjewas status. More damaglngly, the
partition : relied upon by the plaintlfi’ also
. was earlier
.V–a.e..t….Ls4’s’~i. 1…’.-‘i~
P .
.. .44…. .I…J’………l……4…. 1…… 4. _ –__…, inrln __.I
lE1.E.1..’l|.l1J.”‘Iv@I.l’+..I ~’l-IIC LIC.I.UI.ll.lfll.I.% III LI ycau 1′.7I’U uuu
the year 2001, the other mmtibers i.e,
defendant Nos. 1 to 5 have further partzltioned the
h’ amongst themselves. This deed and the earlier
‘”*t_t’a_11sae_fi;ons m respect of t1e_fent_ltl..n,t1_I s.h_.e.I’es right hem
,_,/
£2
-10..
1970 almost for a period of 30 years not questid;idédd:”«thc
plajntjfi including the mutation entfiegfi. WV
CGn..:d..I.:..i…. A1} +I..m.._ nnn+.:ml.:1s, an 9111* *(_w_”u_ A.
was justificd in holding t’.hat:__(a)
out his case (b) that he has with
clean hands and as he is not
dc:1f_i.d.cd _-r ‘r.__e_::<:1icf idjtifif and needs
0 lI1l£':1'1c1'_3V1.!.Uc-ydT _. ,
– J. 111. t_EH_é~r¢§g;11t arid-foi* the reasons stated above,
W6 d’~v”id “f merit and hcnm, tue
sam_c_ is réjected,
UL
Ul