against the judgment and decree dated 10.2.2006
passed in R.A.No. 548]2004 an the file of the District Judge,
IN mi; HIGH COURT op' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Bated the 1715 day of June 2008
:BEFORE: ,
'1'1-II§} HOBFBLE'. MR.J{}S'}'ICE : v.JAGANNAT}1A5if'<~«.VT'A'
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No. 7'86 ;1.§;£)0ef-«f _
BETWEEN ; ._
Smt.S;iddamma,
W/0 Halleypa, Age: 57 years,
Qccz Househald 85 Ag1'icu}£11r::,"'--~
12/ 0 Gob-bur, Afzalpilra Taiuk,
?resen,tIy r/0 Kona Sisamgi, K
Jcwargi Taluk, Gu1ba1'g'aV_Dist1*ict-$3.85 391.
( 8y._Sri )
AND: _
1. :Shi"}'8I1'.'3I1{i,:"' M V
S,' 9 Ta'iW"a;1*«,
Age"; .512 yeaiis, 'ace: Agricuiture,
. R/0 C"m¥:;buxv"(B);-Tailuk: Afzaipura,
Distfictz Gaflbarga -~ 585 301.
.BhTcem'zsnna,
T. S}? ~Ra§aa33.na Taiwar,
« Ag-s7:_d. _ahk5i1£ 37 wars, Occ; Agriculture,
_ R].-:3 Gobbur (B), "Paluk: Afzalpura,
E}iSh"iCi; Gulbarga -~ 535 301.
... Respondents
AA Regular Second Appeal filed under Secrtion, 100 of the
Fast Track Co1:rt-VI, Gulibarga, dismissing the appeal and
confirming tim judgment and decree dateci 3.92004 passcci
in £).S.No. 198/1996 on the file of the HE Add}. Civil Judge
(Sr. DIL), Gnibmga.
This appeal coming on for admission this the
court delivereci the foliowing : T' T
J U D G M E N T
Eioantl the learned counse};fer._t;1e
22. The piaintiff before the is 2
herein and foliowing the suigfmed .he;: f¢;r%”<3;§e¢1a£auone
and for permanent Viitajxunetionz éisr1ji'S'se"<rI and the
appeal preferred of the trial
court also met the appellant is
beforefloiiser concurrent findings on
facts of the
3. _ ‘TheL”faocte. ore to the effect that the piaimtifi’
V one Shivappa and, the fatlier of
and 3 is the brother of Shivappa and it is
piaintifl” that her father Shivappa was the
absoizgie owner of the suit property and, as such,
fc;1i§}1&fi:1g his death, she became the absolute owner arid
___§1ence, her prayer for declaration and permanent
injunction against the defendants because, defendants»
and 3 got their names entered in the revenue records.
E7
‘.
3
4. As against the above contention taken by the
plai:1ti;E’f, defe11dat1ts–2 and 3, though entered
appearance, did not file any written statemei§f’e.and
baseti on the stand taken by the plaintiff, _
framed certain issues which fare _:é§t= ,
pazagraphwé: of the judgment of
appreciating the evidence Vjiiaced {lie *
court negafived all the issue§{‘ai1(i.._§1elci plaintiff’
had failed to show? Smvappa was the
absoiute :0§V1*.i_€I;”_ of” “promi*tics and secondly, it
also ifound” ‘*:i3Vaé1;V3Vz;1erei:;___ 0_I1_’ the basis of the revenue
entries,’ file assert her ownership over
t§1(‘.f§’S’L1i?l The said conclusion ieci to the
_ V of.__the sgfii; of the plaintifi”.
‘§;”‘3_.e_ — the learned counsel for the appeilant:
{he C0i”1t6I1ti()I} taken by the appellant before
the cogjits below and the submission made is that the
CQLiftS below did not take into account the revenue
___i’ecords which were produced as per EXS.?-1, P-13 and
P43 which entries Show the name of Shivappa in respect
of the suit property 3116,. therefore, the courts below
iv
‘.2
V. had reigied to base her claim.
4
ought 3:0 have accepted the case of the p1ai§1ti_fi’___ with
regard tie Shiv.-agpa being the abselute ew11erW§:f
I31’0P€I’iY~ ‘ ‘ V A
6. Havting regard tie the abeve”SL:b311issiei1<._111aé1e, "II
have carefuiiy exaxnined the jfidginents[ :Qf. t11e
below and I find that t.11o2.1g'h. plafifigifi' here'
right in respect of s:'1 it_ tpf4(g;':z'eIr{:y o§1 the revenue
ezztries made in the afereh_iiehtiez1"e%j*V d-ecume11ts, yet,
both the feund that the name of
the deieted and the name
of fives entered in Exs. P~–1, P42
a11d_P–4 ef third ciefer1da:m: was entered in
V 'V V" I am'
'~ _ e§_ExeA.P4-vE§——e11d P-6. Thus, far thvejdeletion of the
father in ali the revenue records
the said name with the zaaxnes of
defetzeerles-2 and 3, the courts beiew did net find much
eviiiezltiaxjv value in the revenue entries ugon which the
The said
reasoning of the courts beiow dees not appear to be
erroneous either on facts or in law.
if