1
IN THE HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE %1st DAY OF JULY 2008
PR SENT
THE HON'BLE MR..1Us'rIcE V.GOPALA H f
AND % _ X
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE kk '
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL no. 14931 k %
Between:
Sri.SiddaIi1m.a'i;' L
W/0 Mallanna f€ar.ibel,"«.%V - '
Age? 33 Y33i'S V ' ,
Occ: Agzicultmre, ..
R/o Village "Jewargi,
Dist1ji§§;t:"t'?aulbat*ga_-- 58$ 10} ....Appei1ant
Amaresh S. Roja, Advocate)
I.
W/"o.Iat¢ fslranna Bhandari,
. Age: "years, Occ: Agicultmt,
/0 Marthandappa,
Age: 44 years, Occ: Agicmtmt,
% Vsom are R/0 Village Naribol,
Taluk Jewargi,
District: Gulbarga ---- 585 10 1. ...Respondents
(By Sri RS. Sidhapurkar, Adv. for R- 1)
hm
2
This R.F.A filed under Sec.96 R/W Order 41 Rule
1 of CPC against the Judgement and Decree dated
24.01.2006 passed in O.S.No.393/2003 01:: the file of
the II Add1.Civi1 Judge (Sr.Dn.) Gulbarga. Dismissing
the suit for Beclaratisn and Injunction. ;
This R.F.A coming on for Orders V.
Nagaregi, J, made the following:
The appellant herein who was as
393/03 on the file of the II Judgs
Gulbarga (herein ta gs: V’V”?(3i_v*f:1_.5J11l:.1’g’c*:?’:v1’£1£..f§ short)
has challenged the ll dated
24. 1.20195 L hat suit passed by the said
Court in =
J delay of about 69days in filing
‘l’l1erefarc, the apmmnt»pmnfifi has
I.A.{I/O7 sacking condonafion of the
H V’ .Vsaidl’.”dclajf.”The appcfiant has stated in her afiidavit
H K support of the application for oondonation of
the members of her family ware stfifcring
” Chickoon Gunya cliswse during the month of
l March 2006 and therefore, she could not Contact her
counsel for filing the Accepting the sad
3
cause shown by the appellant in her said afiidavit, we
allow IA 260.1/0’7 filed unda Sec.5 of the L%3:nitation__._Act
condoning the delay of 69 days caused in filing theu
appeal.
4. Though this appeal is
the EA, with the consent of 31_V’i 2 .
learned counsel for the appeflafih on
merits also. The not present.
Ham g regard tethc and Decree
under learned counsel for
R1 are his have also perused the
impugned. LA
filed os No.393/O3 seeking
has been the absolute owner in
_ poseessien property bearing Sy.No.244 measuring-
gmxtas situate at Naribol village of Jcwarg
Gulbarga Dist. The plaintiifi has claimed her title
‘:: “te”ihe said property on the basis of the afiidavit said to
have been executed by the first defendant being the
owner of it. It is not in dispute between the parties to
‘rm//
the said suit that the first defenciant
Smt.N ma suceeeded to the ‘<
became the owner of it on the of
The plaintiff has claimed her a.l)1S0.1ute."..'3*i'gfht' %a m
ownership to the said the she
being the foster daughfiér. of been
looking after hey defendant)
executed that she
has no the said property
1 and 2 filed their
common denymg that the first
derencianr, ever exmed Ex.P1 amdavit and further
th; said document, being only an
"_ registered documexit conveying' the
H 'V title oir i£1ié:x'mt in the said property, does not confer
' W " K or title to the said property in favour of the
6. Based on the rival contentions in the
[pleadings of the parties i.e. the plain: and the written
1.
are of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has
miserably failed to establish her title to the
property and as such, the suit has been ~u
dismissed by the learned Civil Judge.
7. The second defendant contested of K a
plaintiff on the ground that he
son of first defendant. He V. the
adoption deed execute-.z1V. xiililiohehis not
disputed. This value under
Sec. 16 Maintenance Act,
1956 Whenever any document,
registered .siiyAA’3sW”iifor the time being in force is
purporting to record an
is signed by the person g1vm’ ‘ g and
the the child in adoption, the court shall
‘that the adoption has been made in
with the provisions of this Act unless and
’11’ it is disproved.” On this ground also, the piaintifl’
e “does not get any title to the said property. Therefore, the
learned Civil Judge has rightly dismissed the suit of the
plaintiff. Inf,
8. For the reason aforesaid, we are of the
that the learned Civil Judge, on proper
evidence, both oral and documentary, _~ K V’ V
record by both the parties
finding which is quite justifieuifi’-lzierefore, aye
any reasons to interferewith;.tiie’1:–impt1fiiietiiducigment
and Decree in this _’dismiss the
present appeal copy of this
judgment tctlie Court of the
learned 2meA.dg:i§eiv:1e (sr.onj) Gulbarga.
. ._ ‘ _ . Sd/’R
Judge
Sdfw
Judge