IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT eARc;'A'i;gci'RAe
DATED THIS THE 315T DAY OF AUGU§T Azaiid" as A'
THE HON'BLE MRTJLISTICE RAVI cMcA_Li'M'A'T'H'V
REGULAR eT:R:3T APR'5AL~~.tN»0A:;'s25 or 2001
BETWEEN:
K.A.Sathi.sh~ii_K;:ma'r' ..
S/o late _A.'S.Kr'i5hna--.Setty,""~-~--
Age:MajoT';5H.inVd'u, T *
63/1,, Gtound"F:§ootr»,._"-_
Kanakap'ura'RQad.;-
Facing G.ovindap_pa._Roa~d,
Basavana'g'.1dI',~' '-
Ba<nga~:ore -- 5=eo_QQ4. ...APPELLANT
A :=(:By Boralah R., Advocate for
" _Sri R.K:;'SVhashI_vIf;1ran Shetty, Advocates)
AND}.
._--._..»-¢...m-- .
'A KV§Anantha Nagaraja Setty
A j;HIndu, S/o late A.S.KrIshna Setty,
" " Since deceased by his LRs
1(a) Smt.A.N.Shakunthalamma
W/o late K.Ananthanagara3'a Setty,
Hindu, Major,
V/(T
(b)
(C)
(Cl)
Oiympic Toys & Sports Wear,
85/A, First Fioor, K.H.Road,
Bangaiore -- 560 027.
Smt.Nagaratnamma (Maiiried-).aj i' '
Hindu, Major,
D/o iate K.Ananthana.garaJaSetty, H
Olympic Toys & Spoi'i:_sy"'~.,.'\,_/year," .
85/A, First Fioor, K.H.Ro_a'd_._
Bangaiore -- 56.0 027,---~- _
Smt.SunItha (ri".arrse'd_)}. } _
D/o iate K.Anantha_nagaraja'~.Se--t'tf,r._,--~
W/o Srie'-G.R.N,a'ta'raj, Adv'o_cate,~_
HIndu,'M,ajor, _
No.239, 5243" Cross, 15?" fiviain,
2"'? St_&i'ge",' B.anas'i:arii<a,ri,
__ §an'g.a'ioi:e,V_j
Sri' A'. .
'i--1inctu,'M_a3oif, _
S/o,_!ate K,An.an'th"anagaraja Setty,
a » No.23, A"'A'NAN*'"HA",
Rathna'Vr.i,a_s_a.Road,
niaasavanagudi,
B.ar1,g"a!ore " $60 004.
2 Setty
Hinriu',1,MaJor,
S,e*--.o late A.S.Krishna Setty,
_ V Savntce deceased by his LRS
Smt.A.S.Annapurnamma
Hindu, Major,
W/o iate A.S.Narayana Setty,
Mahatma Eiectricai and
Genera! Traders,
Basavanahaiii Mam Road,
(D)
Chickmagalur.
Sri A.S.Prakash Kumar
Hindu, Major .
S/o late A.S.Narayana se y,:... j} '
Since deceased by his LRs;V
Smt. Pushpa A.P.
Age:Major, Hindu, '
W/o late A.S.P_rakash,_Kumar,._,
Mahatma Electrical and ' , ,
General Trader:-.,.i' ._ if;
Basavanahalli Main Road; " "
Chickma9alur.,~~~-
Sri. «Ki'ran7A..';'P." .j
Hindu, E'-lajor,»
S/o"'lat'e ';'%;;._S_. Pita' lzavsh Ku r,
Mla'haf;'ma Electrical and
General~Tra'ders,,,,T*2. ' -
'.Basava.nahall_i'Mam,Road,
iii}" "
C~h,i4cl:_n1a'g all; r. »--
,Smtu.S'i"i.![V[5El'
. ,__,Hir1_du, Majo--r««A'
LA}/o 'late A.S.Prakash Kumar,
' -M,/'vs. .Ma~nnar Textiles,
lVlaVkl<<.€'ji Chowk, S.R.M.P.T.,
V__M*i,r.s.are - 570 001.
?'°7
.S'ri A.S.Ramesh
Hindu, Major,
S/o late A.S.Narayana Setty,
Since deceased by {Rs
A.R.Usha
Hindu, Major,
Ell)
W/o late A.S.Ramesh
M/s. Mahatma Electrical and
General Traders,
Basavanahalli Maln Road," A
Chickmagalur. (Karnataka) . 5'
A.R.Shreyas .»
Hindu, Major
S/o late A.S.Ramesh L' _
M/s. Mahatma,..Electrlc-aland'-._
General Traders}. T
Basavanahalll Nlarn~R~ga'lj,.v - _
Chickmagalur. (lgarnataka)
A.R.Sl1r'u,tlil
Hindu, M5aj_o_r ~ .
D/3) lateA;S=..RarnfieSh=..,.--
Dau'Vgh'teéf;iv_n,~la,w of * 3'
M.l\liRlam_achar=z«dra.,.Setty,
Dealers 'in,' . N ,,P'rc__kel,_s,
Oppo%site.,_to-~..B--:ls"-Stémd,
Shlrala.kop.pa,., (Sljfikaripu ra Taluk)
-- ., fshlmoga' Distrl-ct. (Karnataka)
;,fSrl '"A.S. Nalgeflndra
, H.lli--d,vU',. Major,
"M,ahatn"la Electrical and
""General"Traders,
Basay'anahalli Main Road,
VChic'kmagalur.(Karnataka)
as (ea), "sre A.S.Harish
Hindu, Major
S/o late A.S.Narayan Setty,
Mahatma Electrical and
General Traders,
Basavanahalli Main Road,
Chickmagalur. (Karnataka)
3//«~
(f)
(9)
(b)
Smt.A.S,Sudhaman|
Hindu, Major,
D/0 iate A.S.Narayana Setty,
W/0 Srinath
C/0 Sri M.M.Kodandarama
Old Extension Koiar. (Karnataka)
Smt.Uma
Hindu, Major, ' r
D/o late A.S.N_a rayan,a..S_fet_ty,.,,'
W/o Amarnatn,'*~~._ ,
~C/0 Prasannaifuma-r_ }
Donthi Agencies, -- V '
Gandhinagar, '
Tumm-
Sri
S/o !ate5A. __.i~1.ara.y"a-n_a Sett
Ratfina'TaikiV'e.$,'r» _ "
Ciiriania React", _
Arasikere. (Hassan...-District),
. ' (Karnataka) "
_ Sri" K.AnanthaIaxmana Setty
i~!.iVn"d(i,i. Major,
i'S,/o..,Iatéj'-A--v;'S.Krishna Setty,
Sincéj'jD.éceased by his LRs
Smt.A.L.Saroja
Hindu, Major,
W/0 late K.Anantha!axmana Setty,
Rathna Taikies,
Cinema Road,
Arasikere (Hassan District)
(Karnataka)
A.L.Sathyanagendra
i
Setfvfg ' i
(C)
Hindu, Major
S/o late Ananthalaxmana Setty,
Rathna Talkies,
Cinema Road,
Arasikere (Hassan District
(Karnataka)
Smt.Padmaja
Hindu, Major ' _ ,_
D/0 late K.Ananthalax«ma'iia Betty, "
W/o Radhakrishna Setty, , ,
No. 56/A, Sri Vé~ni<ten:s--i.ori,-
Ramavki'-isima E_xten~s'ion,, ' V.
Ke_moego;vv_da'vl\laga.,r,
Baingalore 4'---56GCQ19'.~
Srnt;'Savra,s'w,ath.jV".___
Hindu, Major'-_
'D/jo l,ate'~.KV.+'\na_rito,aia.xmana Setty,
W/0, H. C. Na ga
' ~ _C/o Si-taiaxlmi Trading,
_Dealers 'lil.N.Qkla Products etc.,
. jlv'iain__Road,
* .(e"i
» _ ( Karnataka)
.VSi*i?'ijt;.l3'nagyalaxmi
_Hi.nd*u, Major
"D/o late K.Ananthaiaxmana Setty,
z aw/o Venkatesh Murthy,
Bhagyalaxmi Agencies,
Dealers in Harlicks Products etc.,
C/o Venkateshwara Medical Stores,
Near Burujinahatti Circle,
. Holaikere Main Road,
Chitradurga. (Karnataka)
like
(f) Smt. Rekha
Hindu, Major
D/o late K.AnanthalaxmanaNSetty,-- =
W/0 Shiva Kumar, A A_
S/0 T.L.Gopalal<rishna Setty,,» ,
C/0 Sri Gurukrupa ProvisionS*tQ.res,i"V_~._L'* . 2 V'
Ameer Ahamad Circle,-..__
l3.H.Road,
Shimoga. (Karnataka) .
5. Smt.M.R.Sumitrarrlma 1{M.;.-.--riei:lj).
Hindu, Major
D/0 late A.S.Krish.n.a Setty, i " V
W/o Sri VM.,:S.'Ran§jan,atii=.-a.Setty, i "
C/0 M/S_§M.3:'inivasai R'ang_aiavh And" Son,
General"'Mér'ch'3nt'9-b.,,
station R.oa;d, ' l 1
Kadu '(gKariiataka.)"--.
6. K.A.Chandraka'n:th'
Hindu, MajorC__ ' , _
S/o late A.S.Kris--hna Set_.ty,,
No.3371/11A,_"RamanVa'shreé"
Near Stj*ai3.ka__ra Leela 'Kav!.x,r.a«na Mantapa,
C.'C.. Black,' iDa_ira{1agere. (Ka rnata ka)
. s ri .A..M}§ V V .
Hindu,' Major, *
S,/o late"-A.S,._l<rish"na Setty,
Rathna Tal$..<ie.=5_,
" " ~ 1;Iiine"ma, Road,'
.A _ '~VAra.€5§kerel-..(Hassan District)
._ (_Karn.ataka)
Q SjrEvvK...A.Surendranath
AHin.du, Major,
"»_S/o late A.S.Krishna Setty,
H_l'No.1742, 9"' Cross,
10.
11
2"" Phase, J.P.Nagar,
Bangalore -- 560 078.
Sri K.A.Prabhakar
Hindu, Major
S/o late A.S.Krishna Setty, A 'it
Door No.4,
Jooganahalli, '
33r Cross, 2"" Block,
Ragajinagar,
Bangalore -- 560" 010. "
P.S.Sathyanarayana'Seth} _ _
S/o P.Sub.r_amanVya~Setty'-- _
B.H.R_oa_d,;5"i' - " _
Arasgikereg, _ *_
(HasS_&.in:,.D.iA_strI<;t')._ ._ " V
Opposite to oysaleshwara'v(;_oIl,eg,é,'
.VS.?ri 'PQS. MaVdjl:.uVsudli'zan'a' '
S/og P.Subrarna-ni/a.,_S'etty,
Opposite to .Hoysai|.e"shwara College,
.B.H.Roa.d,' ~ *
.. Arasi i?l<
possession.
...RESPONDENTS
Senior Counsel for R1(a-b),
~. “R2′(A,’D_’—G)’, R3, R5-11,
iF_Za_2(l3).(.I,I4_i«,III), R2(c)(I,II,III), R4(A,B,C,D,E,F)~Served)
This RFA filed under section 96 CPC against the
ment and Decree dated 18.4.2001
O.S.i\£o.’52/95 by the Civil Judge, (Sr.[3n.) and Addl. CEM,
‘ Arasikere, dismissing the suit for partition and separate
passed in
‘H?
…3_o..
earned huge amounts from his
purchased moveable and immovable properties in the :’:or”rn_
of lands, buildings etc. The p:l?aintiffé..§rvas_.al.s:o e’ng*a,g’e.d: in
the said business. There was a miwsunderst:a’ndin_gmbetween’
the plaintiff and the defendants and of which
the plaintiff approacheti tihef __to effect a partition
in the suit scheduleVAp.ro’pert’ies:.,by?.é”metes;.and bounds. On
being denVied plaintiff filed the
present and separate possession
of schedule properties and
for profi..tVsAtifijefenndfiants 3, 4, 6 and 7 resisted the
suit of,Athe4’Vpl.a”in’ti’ff and denied the plaint averments. While
– Aa’ci’mit’t’i:i1g:’h’rthe relationship, they contend that a partition
between the plaintiff and the defendants
vv’h_ichV___v’vgas–‘Anoticed by virtue of the document dated
,A3,1~3..–;’vl.El81. In terms of the said document the suit
-.,V’sch.edule properties and other properties, were partitioned
.. _..between the plaintiff and the defendants. As a
consequence of the division of the properties, the plaintiff
%~
_11_.
has executed a document in his own hand§tlilri’ti~nVg..__taay’i’ng
received the Pr0Derties as allotted to h_i–i’i’i;~fl1’n»View_of:’t’fie:”–..
acknowledgement of the plaintiff himself’=wlit.h”reg’ardA tt<;sa_the
acceptance of the division»i'o-fg_the 'share
the plea of the plaintiff is is liable to
be rejected. Thesl.ft-h_er«efoVrel'. that a partition
having taken place a.nd.:.th.e acted upon,
the suit rejected. The trial
Court On contest, the
trialwolurt the plaintiff. Aggrieved by
the svame', the present appeal.
VV”~__Sri Karan Boraiah, the learned counsel
the appel.lant–plaintiff contends that the
Air’n_pugvn’e.d.7~”Jludgment & decree is bad in law. He submits
up thatllthie trial Court placed reliance on Exs.D~3 and D4
A’ –.._’while dismissing the suit. He contends that Ex.D–3 does
slnot bear his signature and hence the same cannot be
acted upon. He contends that the partition deed being
flew
….13….
the case of ROSHAN SINGH AND OTHE-Rs.s[;”‘z«:V’i’,:;f:
AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1938 SC 883:
if a document is put into wri:-t_ving,_–Aeffecti,ng “a di:vi.sit:1n, it
requires to be registered.-.._AdmVi”ttedly,
unregistered document, it upon for any
purpose whatsoeve’r1…_..’:’* if if
5. H Senior counsel
appearin.g,,,on’Vblehlalf counsel contends
that.:Vthere”lg.VVgflireri<or"'-Icommiltted by the trial Court that
Callsvlfforl' submits that Ex.D-3 is a
document.' ex,ecu'1tedV' by all the family members excepting
– He contends that as a consequence to Ex.D–3
the plaintiff in his own hand writing has
Aac.kno’wie,c?gAed the receipt of cash in lieu of his share in the
, suitzschedule properties along with other properties. He
.”-.._”th.efrefore contends, that on a reading of Ex.D–3 and
.:§Ex.D~4 the only conclusion that could be drawn is that a
partition has been effected, that there has been a
ir
…..14….
severance of status and that the p_a’rtiti’o~n_13has
consequently been acted upon, not only
but also by the plaintiff. He f’urth.e4rAjj.pl’aces
Exs.D–13 and 14. The: said ‘V”document§3*VVi,’:E’a’re
pertaining to the Wealth Ta’>’t°€..;i;fficer ain-diithye income–Tax
Officer respectively. ‘ onvthe same, he
contends thatA,_Ex.D–3,,..vi)_a«s the concerned
authorities: yvould–‘vindicate that having
received upon the same by
recogjniziynij” offlstatus and properties, since
the y’e’a..ry”1981.._.AV::Hie_”‘fuV’rther contends that in terms of
Exs.’D–3 anti, adjust and equitable division has been
.ijr§’adg3:_..rgnjdaflthatthe plaintiff has received the amount
€;..’C’j__E5h support of his case he relies on the
3udg.rnent in the case of K.G.SHIVALINGAPPA(D) By L.Rs.
OTHERS v. G.S.ESWARAPPA AND omens reported in
“AIR .2004 sc 4130 to contend that even though thezre is a
ii\@,-»—-~—–~
_.15…
partition by way of an unregistered deed,
looked into in order to show severaricefofg”s.ta’tus,_anal
division of properties. He fuittheri-pliacesh’ ‘r’e’i-ianc:e.._éo*n;_the7 ”
Judgment in the case of»’ivi.tiNNiiKe.l_dALi
SURAI BHAN AND OTHERSu:rexportedVin’ 1s’75 sc 1119
to contend that, evenji-f_ti;?_e is not signed by
one of the parties not invalidate
the parties subsequent
to the the arrangement has been
effected. By relying on the said
3udgnnen’the that even though the plaintiff
hasvngot signeci”i’:”x.lV’)-?., in view of Ex.D-4 being written in
. ?.–.fi~anV%d~writing’ tttt of the plaintiff and in view of the
of the plaintiff with reference to the
pr_opevrties~”divided, the document should be read as a
A. document evidencing the partition, severance of status and
-..v”division of properties.
7. Heard counsels and examined the records.
rt
._16._
8. The trial Court while considering.'”thtej—cas.e_”ovf
the parties specifically referredwto
Ex.D-3 is a document evidencing pa.rt1iti4on’.’8t’sevei*aAn’i§e*éof
status. Ex.D–4 is a hand.»wr.i_ttenV”d.ocume;1VtV”o«fthe iplaviintiffi
evidencing receipt of money:’etc.,.VV_in share vide
Ex.D–3. In deterrhiniflnfg the:’suit:’averments, the trial
Court came tothe co.nc.lusio.’n.Athat.”h_.otvryi’thstanding the fact
that Ex.DfV3._’:vdo:es sighatu’te or the plaintiff, the
same purposes. It came to
the jofflthe partition being effected
and tl’ie_fpartie’s it, the plaintiff cannot be
allowed toaresiglefrom the said document. Ex.D~4 has been
the writing of the plaintiff himself. By the
he has evidenced the receipt of cash in his
fax/ou,r;’ fiifthe other immovable property that he has
by recefiviecl is a house at Bangalore. Therefore, Ex.D—4 is a
.”–.,_”d»ocument which has been acted upon by the plaintiff
xghimself in pursuance to the partition effected by virtue of
Ex.D–3. I find no error committed by the trial Court that
rr~
…..1″]…..
calls for any interference. The trial Court has–.ygrightly
rejected the suit by coming to the a
partition has been effected by metes and and”
the plaintiff has received his”‘d’ue’_s.hare:flin_ [the ?said
partition.
9. In the course ,or” ‘d._l’scu’ssing “E)'<';D4Zi, the trial
Court has also taken "meter. the'?.fa.ct*._that it has been
written by theélplaingtiiit there is no reason to
disbzelievex sa3rne.4;:'T.helearned counsel for the plaintiff
however contends'A'th_at.:'Ex'.:D~3 is a sham document having
been executedby the plaintiff for various other reasons
Aqot'hVer*fthan'_ evidencing partition. However, there is no
on record to support his contention. When
lar_geV__exteTnts of property, namely, an extent of more than
_ 40 schedule properties exist, the contention of the learned
–..V”c»ou.’nsel for the appellant that Exs.D-3 and D–4 have come
.:into being for reasons other than partition or severance of
status is hard to accept.
rip
-19..
11. Exs.D-13 and D14 are the acknowledgennents
of the Wealth Tax Officer and the IncomemjfaljlzwiVyltfiéfficery.
They indicate that as a result of the submissli-on»o_f.
to them and the said applicationfhayi’ng,_ been all T
the parties concerned, therelevantI”recordsj;pe’rtain*§.’ng.to
Wealth Tax and the Income~–Ta»x haVe_V_ been
altered. There is my…gl:a;leleti’eh§’hyfl-..the lfiliafhtvfff to the
consequential changes ‘njacl’fe’}in Ex.D–13 and
Ex.D~14 e\{en’5_thouighg tl~1:ey’~ iilvlfe-re_.___Vl’nade in the year
1983}-84. _AllA-iA”elt;..;¢V_ of the change in status of
the farnily.ym’etn’b-ers:’w.o’t2l”d imply the acceptance by the
p|al’rl’tiff. Tlheyychangle of status and the ownership of the
«.propertieTs~.._.have since been altered by the concerned
‘a’tltho.r:i’ti,esfjon*’ the basis of the application made by the
rrlem.b’ers3’of the family. The plaintiff has failed to shake
.. the said evidence on record. Therefore, the evidence
“z:”pertaining to Exs.D~13 and D–14 require to be accepted.
it Hence the suit requires to be dismissed on this reasoning
also.
fff
……2o……
12. On the basis of the suit averme.nts’_;a_nd’,;~the
evidence led-in, it would indicate that the_p_ro_p.ertiA_esl”of ithien’
family have been equitably divid’_ed:,betjvveerl.u»all’fn_Athe
members. However, having rec’e,i_v’ecl his,-“I.share of*the~,
properties, the plaintiff is att”ei<n'pti_ng to~.ta'ke: advantage of
Ex.D-3 having not Itlwas therefore
vehemently contended of the plaintiff
signing vnoiilegal sanctity. The
very been answered by the
_theVVVcase of MUNNA LAL (DEAD)
BY L.5R's._v. suR.A1%31l1.snlAi$i'fgVA:fo OTHERS reported in AIR 1975
S4(§'11._19..' Iytidwas held therein that in a case where the
notusigined by one of the parties, that by itself
'«wo,uidf"n,otV.Aii'nvalidate the partition especially in view of the
fact t'h'at.:the parties by their conduct have shown that the
.. _said"partition has been effected. In the present case also,
i "it~=can be seen that Exs.D–3 and D–4 having been accepted,
if the severance of status having taken place, the properties
being divided into the respective shares by virtue of Ex.D-
re
_22_.
Therefore, when the plaintiff admits his signature arid the
hand writing on Ex.D-4, his contention that it
unconnected with Ex.D-3 or of a partition
remained as a mere contention anti ‘not.s–uppo.rt’eo_’ .by7’any
material or evidence.
14. The trial t:oV_iirt .w’hilei.’j’ei§’aminingV”Ex”.D–3 took
note of the fact with reoalrdlltoli t’he..:v’eAI1;a_ti_on of each and
every property’:asl’_’–noi:Aed.:in.’ contains the
list of%_the_ proipertiesp by the family. It also indicates
the valuation olfieeéaeh a4n”d:every property and based on the
said;’va_iuati.Von__the properties have been fairly divided.
Even the lviaibilitiesulllof the family have been detailed and
dVivstrViybui.te.dV:’_amongst themselves. The share of the plaintiff
was. accepted by him substantially in the form of cash.
The evidence on record would indicate that he intended to
his residence and business from Arasikere, to
….establish himself at Bangalore. None of the defendants
had expressed any desire to shift over to Bangalore. It
fie/<..—–
_23….
would therefore imply that in view of the {he
plaintiff to shift his residence and business..i°’V:’Vo..:fn’:Ara’sii<ereVV'
to Bangalore, his share in the1:Apar:titiovn"«wags
given to him in terms of cagsh.4_
15. The learn;e_cl«. defendants further
contends that the house,:’ptopVeArtTy to the share of
the at” the guit schedule
propertic-:-::s–.,V.V reference to the suit
house plaintiff himself in Ex.D-4.
The “Valued in Ex.D-4. In view of the
express desi..fé””of.’V’the plaintiff to shift his business to
«_VSang”a:’lor%e.and of the existence of the said house at
_*Banga’l’oreV,.ufV-it:”probablises the intention of the parties to
give..__t’he.’«house at Bangalore to the Plaintiff. Ex.D-4 is not
.. ,j_ust”a” list of properties which the plaintiff has accepted.
V”‘E–x”.D-4 is an acknowledging document which is clearly
if written by the plaintiff himself. There has been a
reference to the division of the wealth, shares, properties
Zl{…….
__24…
moveable and immovable, with reference to the plvaV_in..t’ifff_ as
well as other defendants and from certain
amounts have also been quantified. :Ther:e_fora,”.Vit
evident and clear that Ex.D–4 evid:e’n.cinpqreceiptffef”the
share of the plaintiff is in lieu ‘of the ‘divisiionif’rna§de,ViVn
of Ex.D–3. The trial Court____ha.s_ r.i_ghtlv «–af;’:-vprevvcfiated the
evidence and materiai.._”o”n_’record. and :has rightly came to
the conclusion that the “suiit offihiel requires 1:0 be
rejected. .
” It “by the learned counsel for the
plain-t~iff that..:VEx.V|5–4.”-caznnot be relied upon, as the said
docuni’e’rnt”l’i.h_as been prepared for reasons other than
Vev-iden..ci’n%.g hiiseshare. However, it is to be seen that no
referenvce.tfofEx.D~4 was made by the plaintiff in his plaint
iaverrnerits. It was suppressed by the plaintiff. The
-..Vw–ithéAno|ding of Ex.D—4 would lead to an adverse inference
V. ._..against the plaintiff. Assuming that the case of the
plaintiff requires to be accepted, in view of the large
l;9/so
……25……
amounts of property involved and when
submits that a particular document has,lvbeeréflivnéronglyV’l2
prepared which bears his handwiritinpiyéandKsig_nature.i,:yy”wVh_ich
the defendants attemptedkto miilsuse, the”-l.»3a:m«e lshoizildgy
have been pleaded by him.’v’V”AVpparenti”y;ti1*ere.’:’is no such
pleading with regar’::l..y.._”to :«iy_r*..i:t*l<i.e plaintiw It would
therefore neceyssarilyiyimvply, t'he.'cé5n.t'.ention that Ex.i:)-
4 is a hia_s"nece.ssari!y..~to be rejected.
1_7_'.1 the" valuation of the entire suit
schedule "evidenced by Ex.D-3, would
ingjicacte that adjust and equitable division of the family
Theuvaluation made with regard to the entire
"'_"fami'~i~g):"'–«._pro'pe'rties were to the extent of a sum of
F"<s.4l3",2;5,f"7A78.99p/~. The 1/9"' share of the plaintiff would
A. Vctherefiore be valued at Rs.5,46,975.44p/-. The amount in
received by the plaintiff was to the tune of
if Rs.5,02,614.47p, leaving a balance payable to the plaintiff
to a sum of RS.44,360.97p. The said calculation at Ex.D-3
re"
…26…..
would indicate that the balance of Rs.44,360.95?~o.’wo’ul’f:i,:l:~e
payable to the plaintiff within 2 to 3 days.._?jIt_waiuidaiggggii
further indicate that the said b_a|an:cejj,
received and the plaintiff has__ consedeentlvV-‘en.d’orsed”th’a’ta.cg
there are no dues from eithevlrwside and’-thV’atV’the;§document
stands confirmed.
18. n:otwith’sta;’ndVirigthe respective claims,
the properti’e.s;i’;_of’Vthe.V’Vf’a’im:ii’y”l’has?/éi been divided in a fair,
justiand exgmtaolie.An”ia:n~nVer, All the members have received
approiximateleou’al*s:_ha.fesI’ There is no unequal division of
the ‘liroperti-es.”
T’ reasoning of the trial Court while
d~ism.is’si..rig the suit is in tune with the facts 8:
A. , circumstances involved. I find no error that calls for any
“‘in’terfererice. The Judgment & the decree is in consonance
with the pleadings and the material evidence. Even
otherwise, even on equity I’am of the considered view that
if»
._2’7…
the plaintiff has received his due share in the family
properties and that no injustice has occurred to him.
For the aforesaid reasons, the appeai beinigdeni/o*i’d of.
merits, is dismissed.
Rsk/~ H