IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22"" DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009-'.'
BEFORE T
THE HON'8LE ~\R..TusT.:cE MOHAN SHANTAJNIA6:§§}f§A!§_"'_4'A '
R.S.A. NO.2292/2oo3;p_Ec
BETWEEN:
Smt.Kadan1ma
W / o.MaregOwda
Aged 58 years
R/at.KalegowdanadodVd1'. _ " '_
Kasaba Hob}: " '
Ra1nanagaramTa1uk
Rama;§.§Tgéfar5»,Dis§{{S7_:"Si1 _ .. APPELLANT
{By SI'iu'I*ǤI 7 Bayya ,'
AND}. _
. . . . . . .
~. , ST,/.0.PuttegOW--da
_ A365 --78-yfiéifs. " ..
'' R)'a'taBVVejj%;;rah{£11i Katie
Rzmianagarani Kasaba
RaI"'BaI1ag3.'r"DiSt-57 1 51 1 .. RESPONDENT
Q This RSA is filed under Section 100 of CPC against the
judgment and decree dated 25.7.2008, passed in
,2»
RA.No.62/2006, on the file of the Additional Civil Judge
(Sr.Dn.], Ramanagara, dismissing the appeai and confirming
the judgment and decree, dated 30.6.2006. passedain
O.S.N0.21/1997, on the fiie of the Civil Judge,
Additional Ji\/IFC ., Ramanagaram.
This RSA coming on for admission, thisHday…the.:’Ctourt t
deiivered the following:– ‘
JUDGMEflTfdt
This is the plaintiffs ap’peal.._
appellant herein filed. a declaration and
injunction against The Trial
COIHT diS111iSSf3Cil’th_e Court
confirmed Court.
per their rank before
the trialvteourtt. in t R t
‘£2; The.’ 1′-eexords ‘reveal that I-ionnagirigowda and
are genitive brothers born to Bettegowda.
iiivrquestion, i.e., sy.No.50/1 (New No.615),
_ measuririg acres was purchased by Puttegowda
registered sale deed dated 14.5.1932. Since
the name of Puttegowda is appearing in the
V’
– 3-
revenue records. After the demise of Puttegowda, his
three sons, viz., Thirnmaiah (defendant), Appajie’..::arid
Thimmappa got divided the family _
property in question had fallen M ‘4 W
Appaji and Thimrnappa. Both
jointly sold 4 acres of sched*-‘i_Ie.. property in i’a\dfQ:u.ryVof_:’3the
defendant herein on sale
deed and on the very thlephoon-.,is handed over
to the defendant; in turn has
sold 1 acre. certain Chinnappa,
S/ o. hand”lreinainingfportion of 2 acres 20
guntas defendant.
The llplvairitiff-. the daughter of I-Ionnagiri
,_iGoved:a 13:15».filedx’the'”suit for declaration and injunction
~4t;l1cat_’_.Honnagirigowda has got half share in
the question and that Honnagirigowda has
[T7-‘««___V’execute:1__f*a gift deed in favour of the plaintiff on
c:i’é..1o.:i-‘971. Pursuant to the gift deed, the plaintiff
P
claims to be in possession of the property. It is the
specific case of the plaintiff that the prope~rty..l_l’§_n
question was purchased on 14.5.1932 by ~
and Honnagirigowda and after such._purchase;.fpbothithe it it
brothers Honnagirigowda and liuttegoyvdla.
property equally through oral_ “and ” V
consequently Honnagirigowda the “v..owner in
possession of 2 acres otdt_he”property_ which is gifted by
him in favour _of the 2 V’
to show that there
was an oral’L”partitionsbetween I-Ionnagirigowda and
Puttegovirda. * property in question was
purctiased in narrxe of Puttegowda as far back as in
__ The record of rights stands in the name
of really the property was purchased for
andllllonbpehalf of Honnagirigowda also, there would have
“..flbAee11_sorne documents to show the same or at least the
‘ lorothers Honnagirigowda and Puttegowda would have
V”
filed an application to enter their names jointly. In the
absence of any such material on record, it can_n-otfbe
presumed that the property was purchased _
brothers and that there was an oral partition’ ‘* if
the two brothers and in the oral.’
Honnagirigowda has got “2”‘-,acres~ of. “Since -. ‘
Honnagirigowda himself ihaye anyjjtigpvvvibver the
property in questioniféhhe. .4 gifted the
property in “f}’_1y’oi;r iof the plaintiff.
Consequen.-tiyfipthe the ownership
over the extent of 2 acres.
(51: the hmaterialspproduced by the
defen dvant Aifeyefals that the property Was
A.so1e’iy'”””i’n the name of Puttegowda on
the demise of Puttegowda his two sons
viii Thirnmappa. in whose their names the
R””‘-._Vp”‘propertyf:’in question stood, sold the property in favour
defendant, who is another son of Puttegowda.
Y”
admission.
eggm
Thus. the defendant has become the absolute own___er of I
the property. Thereafter, the defendant has so1dV~.:i:’~aCre
20 guntas to certain Mr. Chinnappa, S/0. ~
All these facts clearly reveal that….t.he plairitiff ‘Au
right over the property in
defendant is in possession of–th~~e_ property.ir1v-,qi1.estiVoh as ” t
the owner. Both the. Courts-‘–‘o.e’10W-.tA have ‘eon.ci§1rrent1y
and rightly held that to prove her
title over the pmpe.rty V”
N0 of law arises for
considevratiezipthd,this’appeal. 5 Hence, appeal fails and
aecordingigfi *sarneAis= at the stage of
Sd/m
IUDQE
*ck/hail: hi it