IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAJCA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
nxrmn mm THE 19:» on or mnxuanx, u N
nmronn " ~
mm Hozrnuc mm. wsncg A.8. = _ ,4 "
R.F.A.. no.2o6c§/29¢; * A
BEIWEEN:
1.
SR1 VEERABASAPPA _
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS _
S/O LATE vEERA--3ADRM=m_'HU'RKADLi
R/OF' BEHIM) L;'mf~'cc1iM£>LE;£,'»V.% %
KARATAGI, GANGA'\{ATI~l!_'?Q=.,
DIST. KOPPAL 583,231, V "
APPELLANT
(By sxjf:5.N;§fARA%f3gU9ri1;j'_ADvé'CATE)
AND:
1.
KUMKRI NA.YiANA I3f£:> VEERABASAPPA HURKADLI
¢ .;f AGED ABQ-UT 3 YEARS (MINOR)
°*R:EP"i'»E). BY TH;-':";iR NATURAL GUARIHAN MOTHER
61; NE1K'}'--._FRINED SM'I'.NANDINI,
Twm VEEPABASAPPA HURKADLI
AGED ABQUT 35 YRS, OCC: HGUSEHOLI)
A R/QF%.KA;RATAGI, NOW R/AT HIRE HADAGALIA
T€2.H-GOVINA HADAGALI, DIST. BELLARY
KUMAR1 HALAMMA @ BHAVANA
' we VEERABASAPPA HURKADLI
AGED 2 312 YEARS (MINOR)
. REPTD. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER
85 NEXT FRINED SIWIXNANDINI,
W] 0 VEERABASAPPA HURKADLI
AGED ABOUT 35 YRS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R I OF KARATAGI, NOW R/AT HIRE HADAGALI
'FQ.HO()VINA HADAGALI, DISTBELLARY
RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.: HANUMANTHA REDEJY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE)
RFA FILED U] S 96 OF CPC AGAINS’1″‘””‘—THE
JUDGMENT AND DEGREE DA’I’ED:7.12.05 PASSEI}._m 0:S.
NO. 14/O5 ON THE FILE OF’ CIVIL JUDGE
GANGAVATHI DECREEING THE sun’ FOR PARrrITiG§ –%.a:s:–n
SEPERATE POSSESSION.
THIS APPEAL COMING o£§t1Ax:31sr1is$I€gN ‘i’;~11’s*;
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FQLLOWJNQ; é
JUlJiV§_fi$H’1′ *- .
Appellant hcreiz; is ~uqucsfifiGzi:_tJ1V¢_f§judgmcnt
and decree dated 07. No.14/2005. By
the said judgment has decreed
holding entitled to 1/3 sham
each
‘ -V22: V’1″hvt”:i ‘1’§:iafibn§1ip between the parties to the suit
‘ ” iii dmputc as the: plaintifis 1 and 2 are the
tbs defendant and the suit was’; instituted
Qhams in the suit schedule property by the
n10t117’e:7V__A;as the next fiicnd. In the suit, pursuant to the
of suit summons, the defendant namely, the father of
ffhc miner plaintiffs had appeared and filed Written statement
contending that then: was sctflczraent between himself and
the plaintifis and he had agted to pay a sum of
Rs.2,25,()O9/- in full and final settlement in respect of the
$
3
shares. Between himself his wife it was that
there was divorce petition in MC No.04] 2003.
3.
Court as many as six issues werc_fi*a1:_1ed _f61F”coi:1.:3i€ic1fafion.”” »
On the rival contentiens urged 4′
The issucs read as hereunder:
i)
1’1)
Whether plainfifiifi ‘;3mvt;:t ‘the’: ‘
pmperty is the joifit
Whether ‘tha’i} they are
entitled far-..__1fj3’d–_sh§~;.*e,”e,§s:<:h? _
Whether defgpklani are not
thc _}31n_111btf:I's of
_ . fiuthcr proves that there was
' _ a nébgztwcen himself and pLaint3'fl's
including p}ai;ri.ifi's guaniian Smt. Nandini and
_towa:nr}_s 'mzazititenance of plaintiffs a sum of
AA 4.
I~'<'s.2,25,0{}0[- was paid in full and final
scttIe;m_t:;3t of their shapes and the piaintifis have
' sjefinquishcd their interest in the mmaining
of defendant?
defendant further proves that the suit
not properly valued and the court {ac paid is
‘ not proper?
What order?
In order to discharge the burden cast on the
‘ s by the issues flamed by tIr;c:’1’rxa’ 1 Court, thfi plaintiff
examined herself as PW-1 and got marked documents in
E’«x.P1 to P6, The defendant c:-caminad himself as DW-I and
got marked documents at Ex.IT)I and D2.
3i
5. In the light of the contcnfions_–p’ut.: ,
documentaxy as Well as oral 3216
Trial Court, the Trial Court cofisidcmd thé xéhaxg .
answering the issues fiamed” b3;:it. _ As”‘a1«§gciy the
nelationship between ._ao:&–..§hc of the
properties and also in the suit
property in the piaintiffs in the
suit was contention put forth
by tho’ of the said shares, the
dcfentiani sum of Rs.2,25,000/- in full
and regard, the payment as settled
by’:L’f}1cE’§f{cfcndaiit’has*not been received by the plaintifi nor
‘ -produced any documentary evidence not
aécefi manner that the said amount had been
.. T§1cI:ofore, since the monetary compensation in lieu of
u x V’ .. ft1Fc*- in the movable property, had not been paid by the
‘”c*1e fcij,dant, the Trial Count was of the View that the
Kajcttlcmczat itscif has not taken cifcct and therefore once the
tight to the property is established and the relationship is
also admitted, the piainfifis are entitled to the decree for
is