.. g 0-'
E53 TH? HIEH COURT G? KARNATAKA AT BANGALOQE
§/WE!) "rs-4:5 THE 4?" may or AUGQST, 2909
PQESENT
THE HONBEE MFEJUSTICE
Arsm -
THE H0?i\i'B{.E MRJUSTZCE '}:.§\I:L'af§Ex§JUé(3§ALfi~ (--.@::?:3»«.%
R.F.A.NGv;iSV1/20{§g;{P£R'3.'.=
BhZ"i'w35:B3N: V' V' A' V'
1. "E'.{}.Sui:shakar '
3/ {3;.;£1t€'~rF.-«Ef_{.'VC§T3§':V '{-:;h$'5if§'
'xfi a'-4I'é"a1ikav3} Ext}:
" Eizilgaioré City
Vfvéotxr, at E'\¥o.'.2C¥/ 1, Tank Band Resad
Brindavan Nagar
Sfitiioioxay, Mathikcre
Bangalore .. APP§)I,L}§.§lT§E;' L- V "
{By Sri M.RA/ijayaraghavam, Adv.,)
RNI}:
1. S::I1t.R.E<1I*ii{1fl:a Devi.
Aged 30 years
R/at.§'~¥0.}4
North Veli Strcet,
Madurai»:
(Tamil Nadu) _ % _
11-aw attainéd majoxitff
Elam: to procceci with suit '
Since _
w/o.sri . "
Now. No'.'i7;.}g_3}.?'1'_ V »
RamaJ:a§§a-iificaci ' ._ ', V'
2. VM.?fhj1nn1sg?oti§c3.aA
figed 53$ ye::L?s{'
S/o,?s.5'izi:.ft.}i91:3Vg,oiis:':ia'.. " A _.
Pr:c«p.S1i1'e$h 3:; Réstaumnt
, $0.231, c::1iekpet, Main Road
'-.._Ea13;'ga}i1owing:-- .. I
>V
This is the defendallts'
judgnlent and decree of th<€_'1.' V
suit of the piaimitff and in the
suit scheduie pr€)p&I1:y."= ? _
2. }«'o:r tiéie «:)f--~'t}0i1vé::ien§;§: . the parties are
referred to Iféi%'?}:LI'r'e'x:1..Vt0"';I1"tE"1e originai suit.
'i'h0u:g:i'1i'V-» of the propertias are
£z1enti{3I1€:c£{*-Li: ttgé ~f§ia3ii1E:.:."~~S(:he:duie, the property is only
..,_o:1c:f,_: f£};E1;E:;{'ei1)fé;«V,.i=if:€: subject matter of the suit is
pv:§«§{;3e;*t3s:_"i;~e;a§{~1;;g 9305.289 and 231 {old i\Eos.846 and
at Chickpet, Bangaisrfi City, measuring
"-.~.. *.,,';1'X845 Cc}nsisting of gonna, first and second floors, a
"':V'§:<2fifi:1ercia1 compiex. 'miss prepexty feii to the share sf
.« Kiicgai ijhetty in a famiiy partitian under a reglstereé
sale: deed dated 29.3. 1955. The sa_ic£'£'.1:<.Z..Gopa1
had three sens, vizx, "1'.{_}.£1'; of her_ ifsfii $har6 in {he suit scheduie
_;:»'%_£*%¢L1fiV' sezvi:3<2 -:31' S1iI}C3.IIl{}I1S, the d€f€I}d8_I1'fS
" i;j'~._;én1;;eres:i "2;a.;:atp@arance, fiied a detaiisd wrifgtzen stateinent
A fisntefifiing {ha ciaim of the piairltiff. '1'§'1€y da Hat
'di.$;;ute the reiatioaship between. the partias. it is their
-5-
specific case that Ragliavendra, p1ai:1tiff's I"athé:fA~
avecatiorl. ms heaith was not W633, _ hca;'r'.:__
probiem, He had borrowed Eoaris 1'"rjc§m
inciuding Syndicate i3;a1:1k. ~ _£'-is l"ias"'t:a1<ezj_»,--§;i?3,.c%
from the defenda:1ts. He in
favour Of defendsmts' and
cash from the ;d_efendA8;.{1f$}~.. amount of
i<ls.35,£}0Uj_-V in deposit in the
fiama of as the piaintiffs
fath@;i.;VvV'had.' and refinquished his right
urzdsr the p£ai;I1tifi"s suit is not
Inaj;f1ité.L*1abie§" sxiit is aigo bad for ;:}.0:1-j0i13::i&r of the
3f:e;:_:ess;arj§f . §3.3rtj.€s, as the éianghiers are not 1:13.656
g"=_3f1:ia$;' T§1€§'*é:E7Gre, they have soughi for dismissai of the
3211?;
H * {En the aforasaid pigadings, $113 Trig} éjaurt has
_,_f;flaIned as many 33 ? $332153 and :5 additianai issues,
V' §?§T1iCI'1 are as Ibiiowstw
1. Whether ma piaéntiif proves that 'r1«:::r§_j
father and defendants 1 and 2 we:1p€rtiesV?. . _ ' "
whether m¢%%%<[§¢ur:,fe¢ 'paid not
su1"ficie'11f,? _ A I
3: 4.'i.J:\?J%.'1;eth;_éf't1*1§i.§ proves that
. 2 _if~_1a:=.': p_1it__up_.-Cégrisffiiétions and made
5.. i3';npf:;vsii£ieniS"4' {I16 suit scheduie
" * A. _ ouffif his own funds?
" =._€; . . '3."c:»-. her ciaim, plaintiff was
_§:X"a;11i:}ed"a_$'PW.,'?2E She 3150 examined Sri Sfinivasan,
'A :A«.i1i4é1t; ernai unctie as I:'W.} and produced five
V'"T.-..:V§0};i'sfi;f2.¢I'i§s'V'§.x:hi<:=h are marksd as }$x.P}. :9 Pa. (311 behalf
'fdef*e:';da11ts, first defertzdaxzt was examineci as
n 1 and {hay aim garoéuced six éOC1.1fI.}611tS whiah an':
9' :§:a_,=:*§ E ':9 £36.. PW.1 was not oiferad for CI'€3$S-
€}{a_II(}iI1€:'KE.i{}IL
7C '£'he Trig} iimzrt an appreciatien of the afar-ifgsajd
am} and documentary evidence, held that
has established that she, her father and
ané 2 CO3i"1Siit1l'£€{;i a joint famiijrg' A
is 3 joint fajniiy yroperty, there
joint famiiy during the <::f"' hér VV'V!;1% 3*VVi§;tf1er'VV
had 1 jsrfi share: in fiié sh;§ ' is eiifitied to
1/3rd share in the Trial ()O'£1I'{
cieciined ES injunctian as
there is 13.9 .§3i§d€f£{:6' .ti1eV' ezfect that there is any
aifsniggi by 2 to induct 8113;' person in
{he sc:f1e€'i:._j}*e '_;.'£ia Trial Court f'urt.he:* heici that
thcsuit is r 10*:_bad far non-«joincier of the nszcessary
' ._¥:_1e£d that thfi piaintifi' is entitied to mesne
'1:fi§*<;fi:$.§ ' -:i§§éi"éndants have failed to estabfish me
re1§"1:g:;1§.$iiii}e:1t. by the ;:)1aimiff's fathm and have failed
A if ié 'c:::;stablisE"1 their case of putting up canstiuetiens and
IL/
_ 2; -
making improvemem Gut of their funég. '£'£1ereii§:ie, it
deemed the suit as prayeci for.
8. Sri Vija}-?a1'aghavan, ieamedé
for the appeilants, assaiiing
and decree, contsnded ;:~;3g£;t_fii;c.§:i"'33£<é:aded' ' L'
ijy the defendants:-* ._.is 'Vg$§iid §i1<::c§¢{ -_..§33;'§ Written
documents, the evidT$i'i:1ey in respect of his
(jazlrt has not propezsiy
appre%fiiaf§:edVt£1§:_. recurd and committed arror
in haiidixlig! tjieré was no paxtitifin. Be 3130
s§ibi:1if§ed' gihat suit is bad for 110:1»§0ir1der of
.rz€cefAs'$é;;r'*,jf' §fi).§.t7'".§i€$ as the daughters are :10: made parties
'£0""¥:E1e..__' Sui? and thczrefom he prayed that the judgnraeni
n:r--m__<:£ évelcfreee sf the 'i'3f'i'ai (3{3uI*t is {(3 be set aside and the
" %i1'i't: be dismisseci.
_;{;,
Pegr contra, the iea:'I1€d cemasai appaaring for
the retspendents supparted the itnpugxeci
d€CI'€€.
10. I:+"r{)m the afarssaid ;ma';i_(4:1'i;§i '£1€'}vL£"L' *~.I;';1V*§?¥14E_1i
contentions, the paints thafiazjise for Q1__iI'VVb€;(}1':1.5S'§.{7§fi?1'?'a1Z3,{}Ik. V "
fifffii --
1) W.ht3:ther... _V '»~:V.f§;&i"titi0§1 as
'by 30 as ":0
1/3rd share in
....
§ « ’13} Suit is bad €01′ 110.1:1-
VA -§QVi:-“;€w§%;r”‘.~th€ partias as Cemtended by
‘ihfiéiafiandants?
‘i*§:¢:;”‘r€£ati0I1ship between ma §a§.’T,i€S is 1’10: 311
di’i?sp1:ié.’» Suit prspezfy feii :0 the «share 0f the
V ” égfefidantsfi father under a registereé partitiafi fiéfid
‘fiéfaé 3963. 193$ a3 per }::1X.§?’2. ifiefefldmzts and
_,;;_
p£s.a,i:”3.i:iff’$ father Kaghavendra are the “Sri
Gopala chatty, whs constituted a
family. During tha fifethne 0:15; T.
was :10 partitiofl in the fa::m_i£3:. Afftér tt1e:{£€a:;»1i:f1 231″ f}épa {:s«,
chatty, three sons c0ntinfiéa%jGi§1t i;é’;§isVVV3_is0 moi:
in dispute that }’5%#éh$V€11QT3s 1710
regstered pa;f{itioI1_.d_<§¢§i jvgfiiistence severing
the joi13t_ the property by
II183Z€3$m8::I}d so, the plaintiff being
th€:';;daLtéEit:j.é1fV@_§:i'i;£a§§§}é§z¢ndra, is er1t§:!:led to 1/ Sn: Sham,
as or: record Cieariy estabiishes
':;.'i,':§2§ existericzfikji' joint faxniiy. In order ':0 deny the
.' of the plaintiff, the defendants have set
~. '§;:_;;:: £3; i:i;i_&a'£3rai gjartitian, The plea as set up by the
ééffeiigiafits is; very vague. The piaim: did not mentiefi
.. AA 't§f;at "mere was an orai partitierx, under which the
piaiI1tiff"'s fatfler rsiinguifihed his 1;/'Bid share by takitlg
' jfiwefiargf worth Rs.1,{){),UO€)j~»~ from the {ie1'.'e}:1<:iaI1t$ and
E,»
I… –
-§2-
that tbs piaintiffs father was given cefiaggi
vs;h.ici1 was beioxiging in joint faxniiy.
what is pieacied is that he had.” i501′:r0§v£:c£ »
he did not ffituffl and Eh€F€§1(;I’3
had reiiriquisiaed Ezis V. £135
fividence cf EJW. 1, f(>§i:1_1e {hat there
953$ an era} pa1’iiti0%; which date is
missing in 1:i%c1é;:: §§i*itt(-,:;:1 $£z,§%ferr1§§1’fft.I*».}i_§§WyeVer, the material
an recoréri $i4i(;n.i%S”— ‘th z};1*’i.’j x I:.he…rs<:2j1edu£e proparty was in
0c{:u}§3ati€s1:1AV–«.fl1<%"f§:ia;z;«tS and fhereibra it becajne
fiecessargr 1:0 ffifi 1523;: .fi:3r ¥?ace::vering the passessien from
'£h§: tei*1a11%:s."'Afiifeei Suits catne {(3 ha fiisci by the joint
' in {}Jo'.§'€c:3s.;E8E3;%/ 1982, 3&2; 1982 and
recavexy of gmssessiorz and arraars 0:'
réiii giff.ae'1*' the déath 01"' {ha piaintiifs fa.ti*1«:3r. Ef reafiy
"§%;:3gh$§iJ$ndm had r'e§ir1qz1i$h€& his share in the Sqzhéduie
""-Lgjféiperty arm it €X€§1E3§.VE3§:v' beiamgeé ie d€f?5I1<:£.a;r1'£$,
2 " fixere was rm Qccasian fag" tbs d¢fe;{1da:'1$:$ E and 2 {.0
K/%
..}:;.
impiead the piajmiff, the daughter of i<agJ}ai?:3'::fif§izfé;,.. in
the mid $111313 it is their spccific case
suit that the property is a j<:'ji§it"'fa:ni1iy .; 'fi.if1t3}.? j A'
have 1/ 31"" share in the pi.'Gp€A:f;:T§f E1:L1Ci tE§ r;:;§;i*9rfi a
basis, a dscree was saugfitu' "1111 {fiat :.:$i1' re{:<3fcVl
shews that the tefiagfit /3 of the
rents EdiI'€Cfijf to §<9imisSi0::: of the
de§'enda1m,_§ constitute a
Vtgfizonstratizig that on the
datvfi Of c:0m:in'u€d and that.
therié’ was $33..’ 1:116 famiijé. filerfifora, ‘there
fs;-gas rm érai. _ipé::”‘titV§G:1 on 12.1 1. E981 aid that Eiéiiifi was
A ‘ . “:’1<_3t_ 'i:;t::;ii<)Vr."1ad in wzitien statement 311$ 131$ §;)I'€S€I1Z suit;
. year }98& "i'£'x€r€f'0re,. the pagfitian Set up
Ey €:;%§é"<i;3fc:i1<iaI1t.s ig an attempt ta deny {E16 p§a§1"1E;iff'$
" ' éggiiimate Share in the yraperty. 11: is to be remembsredi.
féiai. in aid the 8§3{}V€ three Suits, ggiaimtifi' was made 3
M,
-35-
§81’i}” 811d as shé: was minor, ii is {ha
whe actad a3 her guardian in the said suits};-._: ‘
12. That apart, the matariai ‘feémréi
i.i:1& case £311: $231131 by .€i€fe:1’V:V*é% ‘gfsfistructeé Ciuring
the iifetiI::1€ 7g_’:f é§;§:dV_*.%’§;r€ in accupatian of
Ehfi §%.?é§:T*:::’*é:is(: ixiifiaisd for recevery
of pbssessiéii; p’:’0par1::i6:$ situateci in prime
igcajitjé in {fie evizienca, €§}{€;€§{ {fie
@i?i££€I1C€ {;sf”‘*£:§;é”1Er;éat d<3:fend3.nt, it is stated that the
_€V:1tViré;"L'g':§11;"1d :"1 €$u(:$i*&is in the 9c::L19atia:"3 0%' tenants. No
AV&_5jg:1ciic:ate flank fiiaeti a suit; which suit was
£;i.¢§:re£:;<i;' " 7–;*~;*:é%.::1:¢':11:ic13 gjroceedings were zirzitiated arid
£§6f€:J"1 §:§§€S 1 and 2 havsz digciaargeé £213 decrafai
" .. AA a§3:?;au_i*1t. "§'h«e§*@§ez'€, Whfiil 'aha yiaifliiif is siaiinizig har
$13123 in 'iifflff pr<3p@rt;y; SE25 has to bear the ifiaiaiiifies
ta/"
-;§-
Wfxich are ef {he j0,’i:t1t famiiy E0 {E16 extent ‘share.
Tize said caiculatitm is to its made in fifie, fi.;fié§i'” éiécfegj
proceedings.
18. Under t}:1ese_-::i_;;'{:uri1sf£;a._ fi.ces,.vi%zé afe ‘3’s.étt§sfi-::d
that the Triai Court, o19};L’~V¢a re fui ” cz)fli1T:sikief{:1ti<}:1 of the
materiai an reco1*ri;"%«-in -t3a1ftiéuV1a;9,"«.the Legal proceedings
and the adgnissienshlada ti_1€"(.;i'3.iIV3§,"V'–. Ems rightiy heid that
the suit prsperfy, joint famiiy
existed Vv.dwa£e'-.G:i" tf::e~-shit, there was no partition
axiifi iis {:0 1 jififd share in the schexduie
gropeiiy, x2:hiQfi7} égjtimate1y helcmgs iii} her.
in 39 far as the ccmtentien that suit is had far
'" ._:«10"i1¥_i1<*3i:;:.f;€3::"' of necessar}? parties are cc_mCer11ed, a3 the
'ria'a:1:gh'éiérs sf (jopaia Ohettjs were aireadgs married prior
V " *=._jt9 }3*8:;§. Even if may had right, in the: propafiiy, their
" Hfathar having {iiaé ii': 1935, they have not moveé a Iitiifi
finger £19 aeak thair remeéiy. at any rate, mereiy beacause
'L/,
-§{§-
they were not made parties, the 0133131 Of t,E:;s:’.’
cannat be Ixegatived, Under thesfi circu;r:1V s:anۤje3.,_ file _
Trial eijteurt was jusitifieé. that ‘1’*1.;{:;-1:’
joiudar for necassary partit=:s..4___ ‘ ‘ ‘ A ‘V
in the resuit, we do fizgd in this
appeal’ Accardinglga;
% ;_ 1 :L &3 jd/”
%kf9 jLgTUDGE
%% V. H,
*_k§SB@E