R.S.A.25 18 g 2007
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DA'rED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF 4'
BEFORE V V _
THE HON"BLE MR.
R.S.A.NO.25_1_8zVi_2;Q;(§_?3j;.' " AA
BETWEEN: V
Smt. Chandu Hengsu
Adult ,
D/0. late Kuppa Poojary _ «
Jadkalvillage '
KundapuraTa1u1g--.«& V
UdupiDistrict--%"376§2'Q1 _ " APPELLANT
{By Sri;:SAV§if1'é.;:aat'V ':'\r»1'2m:V('§ -Sizetiy. Adv.)
AND: ' 4 ' M ' '
1. fiiustu Eieng$'LV1
/0. Iatefiuppa Poojary
Adfilt
V' " * sri Sadhu
= ._ _,Adu1t
VA Smt. Devaki
Adult
« 6. Smt". Jaya
Ad ult.
R.S.A.25l8;f2007
7. Sri Mani
Adult
R-2 to Rm'? are the
Children of R-1 herein
And are r/a. Shelkodu _'
J arnbradimane, Jadkal Vi11age:'&A'Poei'.'
KundapurTaluk 7
Udupi District - 5"?'6 201
8. Sanju
Adult
9. Susheela
Adult.
10. Girija
Adult
1 1. Sgaroja. 1 ll
Adltilil
12. Ravili
Adult".
_ Rm--£iCi:<i "R.-l2 herein are
_ ..the_ehildren_ oi'Chandu Hengsu
i[e»..,l'ap'pell.ar1t herein and all of
A "'Vi:hem-a;-*eA'1='/0. Selkodu Ofdadkal Village
*~.__Ku_ndapjIur Taluk & '
Uxdlupi District -- 576 201 RESPONDENTS
. " ._&[Byl'"lSri. H. Jayakar Sheity. Adv. for R1 to R-7
* ._ Ml.-2-8 to R42 served]
This appeal is filed u/55.100 of CPC against the
0 " jiidgment and decree clt'.d.2.4.2007 passed in RA. No.57/2002
0. ' on the file of the Civil Judge. (Sr. Dn.}, Kundapura. allowing
the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dtd
04.03.2002 passed in C).S.l\i0.i59/I987 on the file of the Pr].
Civil Judge (Jr. Dry}. Kundapura.
R.S.A.2518»/A2007
3
This appeal coming on for Admission, this day-,'--.__the
Court delivered the following: i "
JUDGMENT
This second appeal by themMplaint.iff”=isf_»diieeetedu it
against the judgment and decree vzdatwl
by the Lower Appellate C(3UI’iT:t’V1′”i’¥3.. Courtfiof.’CVi.yi1..J1_13dge L’
(Sr.i)n.), Kundapura, in theApapupeai”.._in i5{.Pi..NA0.f:57/2002
which was filed by defen’d–a.nt_ the impugned
judgment, the 1_._§jw__er reversed the
judgment it in the suit in
“dismissed the suit of the
appeliaiatp1sin¥riff’fi1ed’ for partition claiming 1/15 share
in the pieperties.
heard the learned Counsel for the
_ appe’I’iant”é1nd perused the judgments of the two Courts
k V’ ‘ – loeiow.
‘ The plaintiff and defendant No.1 are sisters. It
it is not in dispute that occupancy right relating to the suit
dd properties granted in their fathermiiuppa Poojary who
\ it,
ii; 3/
R.S.A.251_8g2007
4
died in the year 1985. It is the ease of defendant No.1
that her father had executed a Will–Ex.D.22 dated
12.4.1983 and was registzered in the office of
Registrar. Byndoor; by the said Will his
bequeathed all the suit properties :’;1i”h’er.
4. The Lower Appellate.Courtn.oh–._a rega.ppreeia;t.lo’nd’V’
of the evidence on record has that of
the trial Court. was thlatuvvthe suit
properties jéieduiredldloroperties of the father-
Kuppa Foojary Registered Will~Ex..D.22
executed by him was dulgz proved. In this Context, it is
relexréint to following observations made by
Court at paras 31 81 32 of its
A l .jucigifiner1*:i’
3 H As stated supra, Ex.D.22 is :1 registered
dd No doubt, Will is not compulsorily
registerable. The overleqfqfpage No.1 0fEx.D.22
clearly goes to Show that Kappa Poojary
appeared before the Sub Registrar Office,
I:3_z;r1dorr and I-7u,.=.;’3 arzci lf)u_.=..2 have identified said
E3 /
,
1
R.S.A.2518[20{)7
5
Bgndorr and. Pw.3 and Du»? have identified_said4’i:”‘V;~
Kuppa Poojarg before the Sub Registrar, H
and accordingly, the Sub Registrar
obtained LTM of said Kilppw po£g;:rga:Vz’d___
registered the Will. Therefore, i£A.is’v–clear.tE1avt the’: l
defendant Na} has lesutoblishedhl athe
execution of the Will,
32. According’ to plairttijf. -there is a
suspicious e’ireu:7’Lf;iai’ice, ‘sihce Poqjarg
has disinherited hils iahothjervldauglhter, plaintfi
anri”hi.s’iu§{:;,Fe ‘l3ut in page No.1 of
said Will: 22, Kuppa Poqjary
has lCle_larly his daughter Chandu
Iffoojarg separate house and agricultural
and hefftriancial condition is also good
V-itTaadfltlierefore. he is bequeathing all his
H his another daughter Krishni
‘”f«’o(yari=t’l’ig, Since Krtshni Poojarthg was residing
g wilthdhim and she was looking after him and his
Kappa Pocgjarg has also stated in page
No.2 of Ex.D.22 that he is aged about 80 years
and his wife Sheshi Poojarthi is also aged one
and Krishni Poqiarthi, defendant No.1, should
look after their welfare and health.”
1
gig
/
R.S.A.25 18[2007
6
5. I find no error in the I’€”appF€Ci8J;§0’11′[Qfl
evidence made by the Lower Appellate
opinion, no substantial questian Zoffllawh’ …aris’e’s,_ for.’
determination in this see0r1d<appea1." grer.u'f:{_i,t4_Q aclirnvit
the appeal. The appeal is a1c:<:opd"ip_gly V}
Appeal Sd/_