High Court Karnataka High Court

Madhumathi W/O Shantappa Ghanti vs Gangamma W/O Late Basavaraja … on 2 June, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Madhumathi W/O Shantappa Ghanti vs Gangamma W/O Late Basavaraja … on 2 June, 2008
Author: V.Jagannathan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated the 2nd day of June 2008
:BEFORE: ._ _V 
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE'. : v.JAGANN;}K'1'HA;~1[:    _
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No. :_2§5=;L"'i., 2 ' 1

BETWEEN :

Sam. Madhumathi, .  _

W/o Shanthappa Ghami, '  " V V_ 

Age: 30 years, Occ: HousehoId}..Agn'culti1It, * 

R/0 Shivaiingappa Suqur Basva'P'z'iYa, 

No.90'?/43~i'.), Adarshnagarsi, A  .4 V 

Gu1barga--585 3.01.  --   

...Appel1ant

    2  
W/o Kate Basav 2 1ja_Ghaizti','
Age: 52  Geczdiioeusehoidl Agriculture,
R / Q Hars1ii*,V_'I'a}.uk &'*.IZ)iétz'ict:
Gufiibarga -- 55.55. 104. V
     ****  ...ReSp0ndent

  .   (By Sri V.'l'.Rayareddy, Advocate. )

__  Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the
(3.P.C. "against the fiudgment and decree dated 22.11.2004

 .. ' pagsed in R.A,No. 528/2004 on the file of the Presiding
2 '3_dOi§'ioer, Fast Track Court~V, Gulbarga, allowing the appeal
fand setting aside the judgment and decree dated 22.7.2002

passed in O.S.No. 538/1998 on the file of the I Addl. Civil
Judge (Jr. DIL), Gulbarga.



This appeal coming on for heaping this day, the court
delivered the following :  dd
J U D G M E N T

The suit filed by the __aga;?1ist’ »

for injunction was dismissed by

appeal by the plaintifi’, jowei”

aside the jtzdgxxaent. of ‘”(3Q.1.lI’t’ end. decreed the
suit of the pIaint.ifi’ ‘dd__’instV§’:*t§1e.’:’e§;;§eilant. Hence this

second appeélirby the 7

2. purpose of disposal of
this :appeae~ i eifeet that the plajntifl’ filed the

suit in di:esfion._ the relief of injunction against

V. _ d_et’ei1dan’t”o1i~~~t11e footing that she became the owner

as per the wifi executed by her son

and since then, she has been in possession

of the__d’s11it properties. It is also her case that following

death of her son Shanthappa, the plaintiff continued

to enjoy the suit properties and the defendant interfered

with her possession d hence the suit by her.

.3

3

3. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that

her husband Shanthappa did not execute any: in

favour of the plaintifi’ and that the

been possession and enjoyment of tile

It is also her case that one ti:-Le it

landed properties between the e

Shanthappa and his such,’
there was no occaeieft. to
bequeath the

4. Based’ parties, the trial
as could be found at page–‘?

of the and taking into account the

Vv the parties, the learned trial judge

a ;.n}finIatel_ydl’1eld that though the properties fell into the

* et shentheppa, the plaintifi’ and the defendant,

}_class–I heirs, became co–sharers of the suit

it if’ and only the plaintifi’ seeks declaration of her

iifiexclusive ownership over the entire suit properties. The

plaintiff cannot get the relief sought for by her because,
a co-owner has got interest in the whole property and

also in every parcel of it. Therefore, by holding that the

}/

r’

court were to concur with the View taken by the lower

appeilate court, the appellant be gven seek

partition of the suit properties as, according teeth’: 2%,:

suit properties are ancestraig” “In def the} T. V

submission made by the learned coiinsel ‘~

appeilant and the lower sgnjiellate llfounld
from the evidence pissed had
estabiished her of the suit
properties the same under a
will her favour, I am of the
documentary evidence
placed’ to indicate that she has been

in ,mssessio,IA1’of the suit properties to the exclusion of

‘ * _ ciéffifidogsit. ivvlllllherefore, the finding recorded by the

A . lQ*Nt3i’~.é’ippCllé3.tE court cannot be termed as perverse or as

avcase’ «niisreadixig of the evidence on record. At the

.. s.f::g1ne’~-time, the trial court was in error in holding that

it the: appellant is a co–sharer in the absence of there

‘ *’:being any evidence placed by her in proof of the same.

7 . Under the above circumstances, I do not find any

substantial question of law emergng from the finding

}

-r-3

6
recorded by the lower appellate court. As sueh, the
appeal is liable to be dismissed and hence, L

following order:

The appeal is dismissed Izhe ‘ 1.

judgment and decree of the iower

However, the ‘-is to ‘

other remedy available to,” “to’-eeieibfish her
right over the suit a share in the
same and, taking any such
step, above shall not come

in such remedy.

Sd/-3
Iudg3