IN THE HIGH COURT 0;? KARNATAKA AT BANGAL'O}§ E
DATED '1';-us 'rm: 22:10 my 09 JuLY%2§90§:'T"'v "
- BE§'GRE V
THE I-ION'BLE MR JUSTICE K KL§SHjAVA§:gR:AYA§'A T
i'?.S.A. No.v*229? aféiwéay
BETWEEN: %
1 BGRANGAZDHAMV .
AGED 30 YEARS, ;
S/O GOPALAKRISHNA__"~. _ '-
N010, CH.ANI5--RAi\§EOUL;1«:RQAI};_VV % "
K.R.NAGA?R, MYSQRE "D1S'IfRECj'};'.
" '- APPELLANT
(BY SRI '. ' wk
smi. B PRp;MQ;.>,A¢r}vQcA'rE 1
1 Ba 3EE'f:--LARAMAFRéxsAB
ago, LATE 3.3; .RA.£'€iGA IYENGAR,
% é AGE)? 68~YEARS,
A _V"Rj€}._NO'.'3,0'?}_' 3, 30 FT. ROAB,
.;I 1\Jz'1.If{...v1'IIVA'.(7';1?E(")SS, IBLOCK,
'3 RALJAJEM&(3~AR,
;*3AN{}AL.«::RE~569 010.
X B R {EOPALAKRISHNA
% ' 'A{3E{) 55 YEARS,
% " ago LATE B. s. RANGA. EYENGAR,
No.10, CHANSRAMGULI RGAD,
K.R.NA.GAR, wsong DISTRICT.
'. 73 B R SRINATH
S/O LATE B.S.RANGA EYENGAR
AGED 52 YEARS,
R/AT SRINIVASA KRUPA
LIG 20, III MAIN, NEAR BALAJI
MEDICALS, KHB :1 STAGE,
KUVEMPUNAGAR,
MVSQRE» 570 005. A '
4 ULLAS KUMAR
AGED 35 YEARS,
s/0 V.E.PRI§MKUMAR
BHARGAVA FARM,
JABAGERE ROAD, .
K.R.NAGAR TALUK'-05. AA *
".v..',:'.R_1;;§«PONDENTS
(BY SR; ; S V Egg-%%_;§*;"%g;VV3§):'%:' A
THIS FPSA_.."FiLE'E). U';'-S »%mov.:oF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGEMEIQT BATH» 03.09.2003 PASSED IN
RA.NC).3{)'/2008)".0N'i"fV'1'HE»._F.'£LE_ C31?' THE I AD}i}L.{)ISTRICT
JUDGE, Iv6f'£S{Z)i'%'i':)',._» VDi'SMISEL'»'I;ANG THE A?PEAL AND
CONFSRMENG. 'i'HE'v'j_3J§J}Z3§}'.'331\1iENT AND DEGREE DATED
23.01.2093 PASSED INA0S§'NO.68/2007 0N THE FILE 01:' THE
CIVIL JUDGE}-SR.BN--.) ANEJJMFQ, K.R.NAGAR.
RSA {i C)1\&ii*JG ON FOR ADMISSION THIS my,'
nTHE.Qc3r;1,ai1é .pE.rLwERE9 THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Séfrond 9.139531 by the unsucsessfui plaixitifi in
‘TE*J;;s.6v V8s/2007 on the file of the Civfi Judge ($12311) and
Nagar, Mysore District, is di,I’€’:Ctf3d against the
“”.f§<$iicurTnen£ judments of the Courts below dismissing the
suit filed by him for the relief of partition and separate
(
('B
relief the trial Court dismissed the
T s%e§u;¢ fxlwflby Aggievea by the said judment
plaintifl' filed appeal in RA. No. 30/2008
of I Additional District Judge at Mysore.
t:i1e"evidex1ce concurred with the judgement of the trial Court
5
contended that though he was entitled for more share in the
joint family properties, he did not take the equal
also sought for dismissal of the suit. dd V’ 4′
4) The trial Court on
documentary evidence, held ‘Vito
prove that the suit dd
properties of himself and Defendant
Nos. 1 and 3 have properties
were divided brothers under a
registered 1985 marked as
Ex.D1. In magviewaf the trial Court held that
the suit of fi:heA for oafiifion and separate possession
asked: Iooiotéillehle plainfifi’ is not entitled for any
VT ” The Lower Appellate Court on re~appreeiation of
v
and dismissed the appeal. It is against these eoneuififeeiittvp
judgments of the Courts below, the appellant]: ~
presented this second appeal.
6) I have heard Sri. Veerabhsdrsiah, AV V
Framed, learned esunsel and
perused the judgments ~ ‘
7) Learned, that the
Courts mlow have in dismissing the
suit. of the on record show that
the alleged eerlier ilrlfair and unequal. It is
his furtllezf Lower Appellate Court has
e::;?tti1*:ee:isi’3I xt.he”‘appiication filed by the appeilant
the plain: and the rejection of the
fssid app}iea.tiei1: resulted in miscarriage sf justice. I see
” ~ substanére these eententiens.
it ti.-‘There is no dispute regarding relationship inter
the parties. it is aiso not in dispute that the suit
in properties along with other properties were the
e
joint family properties of B.S. Range iyengar
children. While it is the case of the plainee”
no partition of the joint family prop€I*t.i.eS,._i£ K V’
ease ef Defendants — 1 & 3 that the
have already been parfitioned under
the registered partitiorz deed” da1;ed– mari(ed as
Ex.D1. Though Responc1e:11§§o%e~-ddeledidedd pieeded
about the earlier pe1′?£§tion ‘ emfifion deed
as per Ex.D 1, endeavor before
the trial deed on any
pexmissibie fer re–opeI1i£1g the
partition o:{_1_ the other hand, the plaintiff
d{;’i’i;*1gA ¥1§e:’:’ead<denee eeseategoricaily admitted that there is
no 'joii1t_ 'V "_'_.exi$teI3.ee etmeisting of himseif and
f"'–tiefen.<:i'a;1"::_1:::e. also further admitted that he and his
* " have" residing in the house fallen to the share of
V there are two portions, cut ef which, they are
in (me and the other portion has been 1et–~out to the
On the basis of these admissions, both the Courts
W
beiew have heid that there has already been a pa:1:i_tie:i~1:'e§
the j0ii1t family properties among three
Defendants –~ 1 to 3. It was also bre:_,1ght_ on " V
the evidence that the 15* defendant hes'
properties, which fell te his
parties namely, the purchasers these
properties. In these circu1t1e'retI1ee$,'«ti3e opinion that
both the courts ' have joint family
Comprised of V in existence as
on the date joint family properties
have Defendants –~ 1 to 3 in
the year éfgeelf registered partition deed~
ifigieeefore, tLeVi11g..rega1'd to the fact that the plaintiff
fine joint family properties threugh his
L'-A…§etI1er .i3eJfiiel}.9,. 2361 defendant, he has to werk–out his
– in the preperties that have been alletted te
{~.:ti1e his father namely, the 211% defendant under
. It is not forth»-comi3:’}.g on record Whether the
prtéperties described in the schedule to the pleint were the
W
properties aliotted to the share: of the 2%’ defenéantfi
Ex.D1. Therefore, both the Courts below have .
that the plain1:ifi’ is not entitied for thg ,;:(:_iief of ‘jajs ” ” ‘V
sought in the plaint. With regard t(:’I.&iL11’iA”§i’I:’V{‘3jif§C1iCiOt:1″ oi»
prayer for amendment of _:’made
Appeliate Court is concerned, I _i.h_:=_: the
Lower Appellate Coufi; haia illegality in
rejecting the said the
plaintiff wanted it) to the effect
that the is nuil and void.
The Lower iiiipiptizllaizii “noticed that under the
prc-posed sought only amencimeiit
of sthe ;’)r£i§fer_”.§;i.ri’tvki9uiQéekiiig amendment of the pleading as
to deed could be termed as null
aiibsencti-: ef any such pleading, pemiitting
” finifiiidment only the prayer portion was not of any use.
V cirtmmstances, the Lower Appeilate C{}U.I’t has
“i*ig1it1y__i’ejected the application for amendment.
10
9) Having regard to the facts and €ircumstan¢éf$””‘of
the case and in View of the concurrent findings Qf'”ti3ef_~
that there has already been partitionfimof they ” ~ ..
properties among Defendants — I to 3, »f;he:-
son of Defendant No.2, is n0tV’TV¢z1§ifle d-._ 0.1;
parfition again. I see no grgmnds The
judments of the Courts’ ;%’.19i<'2t': §uft_"er from any
inegafity or involve any
question of 19%;… b'§b1eSti0n of law.
Therefore, the . sal- Judge i<:GR*