E.
IN THE HIGH coumr or XARKATAKA AT
BATE!) Tms THE 389 ms? or .A.?RI!;.,.A4;2i{!(:}§:: - _ _: "
nmvoazé
Tim Honrazs MR. J'£}8'I'ICE x.N;§; $sHAvT;:.rz.§;1§A,Y4§;u.§; .
REGUL.§.R smcoam zsro.9"é5' 'G15 259;
BETVIVEEN:
Maiathésapya, .. *
S/c:> Maheswarappafi _ V
Aged abeut $4§'.3*.Yea;'s;:
§€am€sWa1"a§é'pa;"V- _ N
Sjo Nfah€sw:3_régppa'; '
Ageé;~:bQui'4_2
Bo::§»g;1;»a--. 2~':,'o§ iéufmjg-alié
Hciaikcre Tq.,' ' "
crI11*RAI)::RG.a'3)mfg;
(853; Si1;AD.:&>.N"ag.:§f:a;a,A,A{§v.;
. .::a«::.1:¥a>;;3§5a;_
Si <5 M Sannasifméhappa,
Agad a£j;£0'ut.«*72 Ycarsé
$ince'd ;{a;:m;, by L.R's.,
" H Respondent Nr:)s.2 and 3,
_ Ningamma ac. Haiammza.
Smi. Ningamma,
” W10 Rudrappa,
Aged about 5′? Years’
«%e/’
. kl APPELLA§T8a
manner of right, title or interest ovfir the suit schedulfi pr§p:=;_: “{;i§s.
Therefere, they sought for éismissal of the suit. In
pieadizzgs cf the grartifis, the ‘Trial (301111 V ‘w
issues:
1) Whemer p}aiz3fifi’s prové: Pi 1~;:’-9.; i§; f3:1<_5:
owner in pcssession of usxuit .u1ftem."'E\£c§.'
property?
23 whefizmr pZafinfiffsAp;’§)_»*€ ti1Va:§_1D1″‘r»:,.¢;;3-“‘the
owner of ittéxiz; half
of mg. ” V’
3) \FJ”:t1{é’E.;”’71£éA:}i:lj’ prsfiife, if/116 alleged
{sh st:.uctjcs”n§- K _ ‘ ‘ %
4} Whéihgf gfrova that PI No.2 is
‘érztitlad possessicm of item Na?
.pfép€fiy? ….. ..
‘5.}_ pmve that {ha}? am
A &n3:*;tl¢i’§}, to recover Rs.}.{}G/«– p.m., far use
a:%:1:§c§_ occupatien of suit item N::;a.i2 psrsperiy?
‘ “‘A_Wheth€r defendants prove that by virtue: of
Maizntfinance Deed defandant No.2 became
exclusive ownfir to gigzit property? W
2:’) Whether élcmrt fee paid on the plain:
gufficieni? ” ”
8) What {)I’d€If and decree?
5. Dining the trial, two 1 ‘-:Ii§perty and aha is entities} to
the during her iifetime. Further the Trial Court held
‘j.”_’Vth:at:L:a;:fe}1fitiant No.2 has not acquirer} ahsolute right and titier over
V” .’;j’t¥1_§§”su§;%. schedule praperty by virme of Ex.£)~1. However, in the
V ‘ cf the findixzgs on E33116 N031 to 5, the Trial Court éismissctd
_flm suit of the pzamfifis. Being aggrieved by the said Jufigment
@
?».,,j_fl,¢;_=,gati’5?’;«5A the plamfifis have failed to prove that they
0%’.%é3′ in possessien of tbs suit schedule pmparties and
Lcmmz’ Appeiiate Court dismissed the appeal and
the Judment and Decree of the Trial Court. It is
these cenemmnt judgments of 1:h.t=: Courts beigw, the
ii_flSUC€€SSfi1l piaintifis, have flied this secoud appeal.
and Becree, the piaintiffs filed appea§ in R.A.£’éo.
the Court 01″ Civil Judge (S1nDn’), Hoialkere. T1″1«3.VL§iw,e.:r
Court, after ilearing the parties, during $;1;1;§:»V<§du:s't3_0f
framfici the fofiowing points for c0n3Tid€rati0n£"4'. . V '
i) Whether the piajntifif ap}$?éi3;3:v111:V_p1′<:)€fe
they are in 1awf1%.I'~.:}Wn_ér 'stghesduie
pmperty as allegeéi
ii) Whethgr Court
req11ir<«:r;" " of hands of
iii) .. é ‘ é n
6. G11 r§–:3sAses;§ mev:nVt’ and documentary evidence, the
Csmrt with the fmdings of the Ceuzt
be}o§xr__ and answered point News. 1 and 2 in the
/@
1?. While admitting this appeal 011 21.Qi.2003,_;”tE;i$ _1_§l%§ag%”tA _
‘fram€d the fallowing substantial qu&sti0n- of law: V
5.) Whether the Courts “below aim: .
dismissing the suit of.’1′:,¥)_.g”-: afipaviiants ftévi’
declaration that they are”‘z£:pTé*’+0wnefs.;§f”‘tbg<t-
property 301813; (312 the 0f t3:xa.
coxztsntion of the c_;iefe1:z§;2a ..’ri’tV~ i§1a:rt~she is
in peasession 01′ 1111::
by Viifélfg <"2f: I:3:«:.D.§:1'? '
8. Upon the respondents
appeared £hIi%g’ug11.A Duriqzg the pfindency of
this appeal, Nan} —- Rudrappa &ie<:i
leaving behfiizé N5':3.é and 3 who are akeady 03:1 If:'COI'd
as;: }3;iA;«;=.":::z&z:w1"§,'+*' répxpsentéfifies.
_9, I:s.§ivs.~:' —t1EAi::Vv'Iea1":1eci caunsel appearing on bath sides on
*7é;he s:ubsté:.$:t§3}V.aq1i:§§fion; of law. Pemsed the judgment of Courts
4. bfiiei¥<.a11ziLti;€ fécords,
V. Leéxned ccunsa} fer the appellants —~ plaintiffs vaheznezltly
cs,£_1_f§'=nded that both the? Courts below have committed serious
:§:Vrr3r in dismissing the suit 0f the plainfifis for deciaration {if their
,@
:'ig£f;t §0V_"€'i3.c;1;i1b_er t}:1é's:33.'m,* in any manger. It is also made clear
' no f:igfi%L'–.ovéI"'«V'f};e arm that if sha ha gets any chiltimn
Vlvaisr, £;:§i;e;5' 0f the piainfifis would axacute the reguiar
":i'jv"éjfl'é:,5:v1;%i1135ft?t i¥i"'¥espect ef the pmperties. Admittsdly, the father of
has not executed any document in faveur {sf
No.3, who 13 the' daughter Qf defentiani l'~é':::.2§ Both the
"€_.7'.e'V;VaV11r'ts below 133% made it clear that as pm' E3-x,Dw 1 fiiefanéant N92
maintanance 30 that 3116 could enjoy the same du'ri11g £_":e:Vf
Or} the "basis of Exfiwl the Courts below
defsndant No.2 has bzien in gessessigzg 'pf
properties ever since the date: of Ex,D-
are not in pessessian cf {ha gait f-;r;'1_)fe:.':11;1'1«e*~ };;r<i§1»ubt;,V""'is iarixvjf :3: registered
dacumttnt. The reading of §1_-gdicate that then:
is no tzansfsr of égacli praperty in favour of
the defendaxxt. figétowad on the defandanz
N053 of '.<<.%'vz:3;;;@-*:<,:a€31t during her lifetimea
The recritai cigar that fiefsndazzt N02
durixlg Exsg" }ii7efii,;;2.e enjoy' them and that 8235: has 130
1 f~E,<3a'£~1;1:}3§.i'f: the death. sf defendaxzt No.2, her husband has
&