IN THE: HIGH COURT GP' KARNATAKA AT }3ANGA__LORE-
DATED "IRIS THE 13*" DAY OF DECEMBER'
BEFO RE
'TPII£ HON'}3L.EZ MRJUSTIC §5,:§§.sA':YAN§i;f2A&*;Ar€'_A " "
R.S.A..NO_ 1794/2005 c /x};: Rs-A._..§':=o'.'TT1.§96g20§;f5..«
R.s,A.No. W94/2005 V' '
BETWEEN;
SMT.SARASAi\/EMA '
W/O MUNIRAJU __ :
AGED ABOUT42 YEAI§'.S --. 3 ;
R/T FARM HOUSE m SY.NQ.73~.."_--.._ '
BALIGANAI[i£ALi:;$j "
MAILUR 563 ' -- '
' _ ...APPELLANT
{SRI JwALAKUMAR'ANiD_N.G.RAvI1<:UMAR, ADVS.)
mtg; n x
'A . If .jAV?A1LzxKsr1A1@MMA
" .. ,wA
13/ Q M'UN{SHAMAPPA
AG-<E'I) ABOUT 60 YEARS
~.. " ._R/T KADADANAI-IALL1
= ._ LAKKUR HOI:3£..I
MALUR TALUK M 553130.
" 3. .M.VENKA"i'ESHAPPA
S/O MUNI'SVVAMAI3PA
AGEZI} ABOUT 55 '{E*3£--lF.S
KASEPU 179L!--\.€ I'3ANC}ARI3E1T 'fA3C,{§ K.
4. M..RAMACHANDRAI:'PA
S/' O l\/EUNISHAMj»\.PPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEZARS
BAN GARPET TALUK
5. R.RAMAMUm'HY
S/0 RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS : '
BANGARPET TALUK
6. DAKSHNAMURTHY
S /0 RAMAPPA 'V
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
BANGARPET TAL-UK
7. RAMAPPA
S/O vE:NKATAPPA.~~ _
RELSPONDENTFS 5;..6' SI '2 ARE
RES.I_DiNG AT _ " * '
CHALA_GANAIéfAL,LI'~..'
; MALUR 1-'.A_1;U K.
* . ...RESPONDENTS
‘ ; ‘(‘SRi -VIGPE.NES}{WARA S. SHAS”1’RI,ADV. FOR R1
‘ .;-R1 f<7jARS SERVED)
'.7;-:iS'TRSA FILEED 13/8 100 OF cpc AGAINST THE
JUQGMENT AND DEGREE DTD.16.05.05 PASSED IN
R.A.:\3Q'.312/98 ON THE FILE OF 'I'H.E2 PRLCIVIL JUDGE
AA ii?-R.DN.) AND CJM, KOLAR, ALLOVVING THE APPEAL AND
' 'vSE§'TING ASIDE TIMER JUIDGEMENT AND DEGREE
DTD.21.} 1.98 PASSED IN OS.NO.243/93 ON THE FILE) UP'
THE CIVIL JUDGE URDN.) AND JMFC, MALUR.
ISETWEIENJ
1. JAYA’LAKSHI\£LAMMA
W/O RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS .
R/AT CI-MIAGANAHALLI, LAKKUR H033-LI ._
MALUR TALUKW 563 130.
(SR1 VIGHNESHWARA S. S}1ASTR’.I, ADV.) ” .
AND :
1. SRIEMUNISWAMAPPA _ _ .
SINCE DECEASEDBY LRS _ ~
Ha} RAMAKRISI»;NAPP;; ‘ 1
S/O LATE MUI\}ISWAM_P}’A_ f
AGED ABOUT 50 ‘ .1.
R/AT cH,ALA,§:ANi;iAL:,i’~’ A ‘ u
LAI<;r{LIj§§"H0'i%:L:–, "
l\11ALUR’1’Al,I.jK«.+ 553.13o.S’
1(b] SR1,v1§NIgpA”
S/e_’LATE NHENLSWAMAPPA
– -. AGE!)-AB’OU”_F?15 YEARS
ILASH£PURA__’_\[ILLAGE
‘ 5»-KASABA HOBLI
_ 1-ZANSGARPET TALUK – 563 1 14.
‘ . 1:9; SR£_’M.RAMACHANDRAPPA
‘ , S/0—LATE MUNISWAMPPA
« =.AG’::”1> ABOUT 40 YEARS
~~ V R./AT CHAMXGANHALLI, L-AKKUR HOBLI
‘E\/IALUR TALUK — 563 :30.
‘ SMT.SARASAMMA
VV/O MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT C}-IALAGANI’~IAI.;LI§ LAKKUR HOBLE
MALLER TALUK –» 563 130,
., wRI3S1?’OND ESNTS
.4-
{SR1 JWALAKUMAR. ADV. FOR R2
SR1 HKVRAJARAM, ADV. FOR R3 (3.)
RMB), R1{C) are served)
THIS RSA FILED 13/8 100 OF’ c:Jc;AGAI:s’s¢%@4111:
JUDGMENT AND DEGREE D’m.;e.oe._o5., PASSED’-«IAN
R.A.NO.52/98 ON THE FILE QR me ;’P12L.«C:;1v1LVJUin_.13:AL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGEME;’;NT”
DTD.23.1..98 PASSED IN QS.NO.’1._5-4-[90 THE E4′-{LE OF’
THE CIVIL JUDGE {JR.DN’.’)_AN__.D JMFC, ‘
THESE APPEALS C0Mi’:~J:§:; ON 1%*o«RT_ HEA:R1NG THIS
DAY, THE COURT DF;3L.IVEF;ED”TEI13″PTQLLOWING:
‘é.’pp”ea1:~3& filed by piaintiffs in
0s.No. 1’5};/ 3A:9’~.§§3.. ‘,1 r1eE44V_LV25+§e{3:j’tedV by her father Murliswamppa in her favom’ for sake
” A’ 0f._.&agrVf;eu1tL:ra1 land bearing Sy.N0.73,measuring 2 acres 31
gLfi1§,as si’i.L:a”£ed 211; E3a1igz:11ah.aIIi village” The one and the
” {ml}; praye1* sought, in the aI”er<;z<3aid suit. for a direction 1.0
W and 23"' dei'et1d;m1:s i,herein 3:10 exeeuée the ssaée deed 0!"
*1
V ~\
4'?
-5»
suit schedule preperty in favour of _ plaintiff
Sm.t.JayaIakshmammz:: pursuant to agreement r3i”‘e~efi-e.’t:i¢ated
1.4.8.1984. In the said suit Muniswa.mappa_.§S-~ ‘IVS?
defendant because the pr0perty_,is.. 3_tjated beloiigixtg {O .
him. So far as 2!” de’fenc:ia11t Sé.raSe;r11’e1a
plaint averment is that SEi>i;C v’SC..}:%l€Ci;.i3’€. eeriief
beionging to Munisufamappa£_L:Vi:$vusaiei been gifted in
her favour under 3. §:*e;f%_StmerAe&d deeefdeated 31.3.1986. The
said gift deedahas eeme .i:1:’1tO’~exisiei1ee”‘ if: eoliusion between
2nd v~c1e1en,:i;«:,nt defe’f1dai 1t. to defeat the legitimate
Claire ef ” a§.:fe33}{shmamma.
2-, » See-Grid’ sfiit ‘in OS.No.24.~3/1993 is fiied by
sggraserathaxnfiga’ 2r¥<'=* defendant in os.No.154/1.990. This
jmfilevd bjyewher against Jayaiakshmamma as 151
is ineidentaiiy plaintiff in OS.N0.i54/1990.
A5.r'.i4'?'~'3 c§efe!rAi'dA3.nt in this suit is Mu111'sw3_mappa, father 0f
AA Qayreieiishmamma and Sarasamma, defendants 3 to 5 are
–bfethers of piaintiiff amfi. 131 defendant and sons of defendant
N02? defendants 6 and 7 are gene ef Jayalakshmamma and
m,:”‘}’»
‘x,
.5’-
de{‘en::iani. No.8 is husband of Jayalezksliniaifzfna. 15’
defendant in this suit. This suit is filed by S*a;*3.sa__I__r’1i::i;i for
the relief of decrlai-aiion in 1*espe<:.E; of prdpezity
which is the suit schedule propei9i,yVih'O.S1NG3.'A1_
3, The common facts in bo°'ih Suiis are *
The parties in both Vsu_ivf'§s.V_a1*e ri1e_mbers:df–:ééi111e family
I.e..Mu.r1iswam21ppa and hisi…<:h:i'}rife~n i_e. 'hivs..t.Wb sons and
two daughters, 11usb'éi;;<\d..ai2e§i_V0'ne daughter i.e.,
Jaya1e;}{shi§Ia111i§fi}.3'.' T'he"'caseubfgiayalakshmaiiima is that in
Augiist '' 35.986? A/Iuriiswamppa was in need of
money. Heh was -inA'.seai*eh of a buyer for the suit schedule
p15=':)pe_rA1yV to i*aise____funds required. On coming to know,
' V;"J21ya1aksi1.ffian1ma Called for panehayath of elders in the
. '– her father Muniswamappa advised by them to
eeiiai/*e'yjV Suit schedule preperty in her favour for vaiuable
' eansideraatien of a SLIE11 of Rs.25,0(}0/~«, which was agreed by
Miznisx an}-appa, P'1,11*Suar11, to such zirrangemeni:
' Jayaiakshmamma irnihecéiaiely gfewe 2; sum of Rs.2C!,0GO/»»
on the sartrxe day an .E4,8.1984= when 21g1'ee;12ent, ef saie
,7-
was entered mte between herself and her__ faiher
Mu1’1.i.shaInappa. It is her case that S1,11T)SEfC}L£€I’1′{,l:}{‘})§h}’_}K1’€Ziv her
back. elemdestineiy her faizher and her s;is_tee._r S’a.fa-s:é1i:3.1na
created :3: douement purp01-ting >10 be””’21’–.::’_deed “of
beqL’1eai:hi11g suit schedule pr0pe1:1:y fin .fave.ur-.oxf S’arfa.32i1;:1;r1a .
under a registered gift deeddVd’3:.ted 1 E3861′ _
4. hfitially suit in “”Q_zS.TF\I0154′,l xikas filed by
Jaya1aks.h.rnamma s.eek_ing of agfeefnent of sale
dated” executed by her father in
her fé1_\&rdu_r.’ guilt in OS.No.243/ 199315 filed by
SarasaI1V;1r:1é1’v5seei:irA1’gb’ declaration that she is the sole and
5i14:a:E3031,1’te __ow11ei’ in..p.e’ssessi0n and enjoyment of said property
‘ Vi¥f4’Lvii€i’;”0:f’17€igiSi€1.’€d gift deed said to have been executed
” ‘he?idtheidMunishamappex in her favour on 31.31986.
-, :11 the original suit. 154/1990 M.ur1ishama’ppa and
AA $are1s3.i11m21, defendams E and 2 respeeiLiveiy entered
V’2:;a;3ear21n(te$ filed 1.}r1ei.r detaiieci wr1’t£’.en aatdemezzt. En the
wr1’it:er1 e;ia?;em,e1’1t. filed hr E\.«iI’maiewame::>3a. adm1’é;s
I
V kg’
execution ofagreemeni of sate in favour oiflayaialiehnianirzia
and receipt of a eurri of Rs.20,0()O/» as adV’3;3fiee sale
consideration.
6. Whereas in the suiii; ifiiedv ”
Sarasamrna fiied detailed _w1″itteriu. s’ii.–atemen.’i{Aivhereinfvishei
denied each and every averfi1«eh’i. of i:h.e._p£air:1L. denied
that her father Munis*~.i(ania,}Jfia’iiifgasneg;)nier1’ii5iafi’r1g the sale
of suit scheduie ih 1984, alleged
pane}:’i’ayaih:iwherein h’e’VVag;i’ee.d”i0’V’se11 suit scheduie property
in faxreiir hf and Jayaiakshmamma paying
the aforesaid a._iIic.u:r1’i– of Rs.20,000/~ to her father.
A_.ee0r;i__i’i1g_ 1:0 hieix…,layaiakshma.mma who was married to a
‘ differerii village was not getting weil with her
“hi3’sbe.ricE;7j’hence she came back to the viliage where her
f3iherV””~a;as staying, she S’L£1Fi,€d to reside in the said village
Aiziiieng with her ehildrezi, since she was not having any means
father had provideci. a house and arise C{;?}”‘f£1iI’1. extent of
1H1E1.1’1(§ for the maintenance Qf Jayalakshmamnia and her
childreii. SimLi1.i.g:i:ieoi.1.:-sly he had ales e.>.:e.<:'i,ii:eci gift cieeii
v"1,="'–<i3i
.. 9 _
settling the suit schedule property in her favour. Sp far as
his sons are ecmeemech there was partition h.e1;véee§:.Vthe
father and sons and the rema1':r3ing property
share of ehiidren. The pr0§)eriy»A}yhiehJis""b.eq1ieatE1edx.vhy'.
Muniswamappa both in f'avour',of:_J:1§*a}.é:ksh1h?1ii:f5s2.a'and
Sarasamma is independent'. ':)fQp€1't$T' QfV'PJI.unjs{vég;11_e;Vpp;:.
7. It is aiso neeessa’f”y_.i’e piaee~.ei1e*fee’eg~d that 15?
defenciant Muniswanfappa ._§i.1hede.w1’itteh statement in
the s’i1itTIi1ec§._bySéxrasagfima he-h has neither Chosen to lead
eviderrze «nor to Cr0ss~exam1’ne any of the
Wiinessesef p1ai:i~tifi”vo15dhefendantsé With these rivai
suits the court beiew framed the
in OS.No.154–/1990, In the said suit based
the court below framed the foiiowing issues:
……. ,..-2: .._2 = –7 …..n 9» . 1 .4 .. ‘
1. we-£:*::?:3 we 2:3-*3 ¢.:c;m..,”*-:,,::,=ri 3i.{J3.8(3 001.45 efimafi
-.-2′ +4 y1«’–+ ~= = 45.. –I–« ,9-3 A –M mewws
‘geese 9&3; 39.’: jib-Em ‘::Ce;C13 c>.e~Q§\JC;.3’E ‘i”3F¥U§aq Eie/CK2:’L3
. «.4/’
c ‘ ;°'”~”.r\% . m~ ~«. . – -~–‘ ~-:-*’.3\:>x§».««'<2«\.,'<in.».:.':r<.3 :\.z@i~'x»'»./«.v'\/3 .
mg}-
Venkataswamy as IDWSQ to 4 arid produced and ixmrked in
ail 25 de::euments as P:xS.D1 120 I325. _ ._
9. C)ut of the five witnesses exam_i11e__d”‘0a1’jbe11£:_1__”‘Qf
Jayaiakshmamma PW.1 is herself, sh.e..V_A4_fe§f€:{3ied €he
contentions raised in the plaim as hegj’ ex/ié§eri%:AeV:i.:1:i’ :~;u§pk;;rtfof ”
her case. The persons whogxre examiiaed as.£3x1IS”.2. :05
supported her case as und’e:j.”* PW.2~.jé’w3f:1 i3f1depe’r1dent
witness who is suppd’sad to which is
ag.reerr1e1:t=A :’tj’gf }ieV’*-haé””given evidence regarding the
inteIi”ti0fl4’o1′ £0 sell the property and holding
of panefieayaih,’whe_1’eiai3:7a decision being taken for sale of
euii s_e’h-eduieh”property in favour 0fJay’aIaksh1″namI11a and
‘ : ag;:ee.nient.Mbejng prepared and executed on the same day.
‘– P’WL3 21:1″.’inCiepe11d.e.1’11 w’i’t11ess, is an ag:’ict:1l.t;u1’ist of the said
v’1I1agé,_xA?rio ES ales 21 signa%;'{>;”y ta EX.P£4~ and he feiteraiee
“the eiridenee that is deposed by PW2. PWC4 is a
bi1’Si1’1essrn2:11.q he aiso eiaimss to be a signatory to Ex.P14. He
” also euppcarts the ctase of plainffif and oiher two witnesses.
:.,1_u/.x/2
~12-
PW5 is the scribe of£Cx.P14 and he ease supports i:he,__es.se of
plaiiltiff.
10. As against this the witnesses who
on behalf of de.ier1dar1ts are, DW.1, who is”2W?:'{f:<§f€nt?]:a11f£ in
OS.N0.I5-4/1990 and also sistefiof vV:.;;S11e '
reiterates the statements made in fie:'written"sVtsf;eme§r1t and:
tried to assert the property beqiieafgheei her unéer
registered gift deed;:,4_."'~xvhi.eh is in the said
proceed'ings"_j;. 1ifif:.;s-11pp,e'rt case she examined DW.2
Manfigef 'of' 'Where she has taken loan on the
strength'*-._ 0f ' deic,-1,.1:n'1ei7it.s executed by her father
1\'I'i'3§:E1i,Siivarnapf§'¢1«-iI1..her favour for deveiopment of said
' Upropevfty.¥,fi'sV,3 is the scribe who is said to have prepared
. '~ 31.3.1986 and assisted the execuiant and
bei:e£'i'ciaiy of we said doucnieni, {:0 get the same registered
2 is " ijiireizgh him. He supports the case of defenciani Sarasamma
the effect that said douemeni. was executed by
" Muniswaziiiiia durilig his 3;ifei;ime, DWA» is Si;:i.pe:1c1ia.:y of
G3'«E11'I}.E1p&1I'1€fh€ij,FE1U], he said he we.s:» preserit at: the time {if
i/'§J;&
'\
5
execution and 1’egistr21tE.o11 of IE;,x_.D1 the gift deed exeemed by
Muniswaraiappa in her favotzr.
11., The court, below on appreeia.tio1’i_ oftl}e”a{o;’eseid
evidence avziilable on record ans’vVered’i$5s7uess’ l_e1£’1d_4llilr1 the ‘
negative and 2 and 3 in the positive. l:z3nseq1i€:nt.ly ‘the:-eueitloi”L
Jayalakshmamme. for the reli.ef’–of specific=.p_e1’fo.ijmanee was
rejected and 3 positivv°e,I11idiiig*’ W213 given so far ‘sis execution
of gift deed dated ‘l.*1fA._aye’V_?3een executed by
Muniswaaieippalliii-:1’ fléwotzr ol”.””Sarasan1ma and also gave a
eat.egoric3a.1 ‘i’indii1g’i~.1;htatl _the agreement. of sale dated
1-4.8.l984–._V e:«<eeute'd, Muniswamappa in favour of
Jdjzalaliet;marii'rna….i_s' a fictitious and concocted doucrnent.
';'l"1"'1':…e –pl3tz:1tiil1' .._in the said suit OS.No.154/ 1990 namely
'«J.d3ré1l21ksl?1jme=mina being aggrieved by the firiding of the trial
Codrt ion the issues framed against her has taken up said
jégdgiiient. and decree in RA.No.52/1998 on the file of
l'~:Pli9iiiAt:ip2;1l Civil Judge' Sr.Dr3., Kolar.
4/V-"\J_§
-1.4-
12. In the said proceedings the IS’ appellate court on
perusal of the grounds of appeal and also the the
trial Court on the pleadings and evidence _C.jE1″‘1ieCo_itl:_.he,s
framed the following points loz’ CGI1Si(Zl€If2?iiQ:f’i.xlfl-.::.fh€ Said
appeak
1) Whether the appelléni:VlV:.has estétblilshed she had
paid Rs.20,0QO/- toEvin-:,’§j§s{x;*:a7ma,p}5a”and he in tum
executed agree.i’n_er1~t 1.4.8.1984 as per
EXPI4?
l’t._’2} : and decree of the trial Court
ll .i1le’gal’_.’~ based upon the material. on
2:’leco:rdv?. A l
1′.
order’?
l*1e.l:1rir1g the counsel for parties 15>’ appellate
Court v_ 3.12s3li;?2’ered point l\?os.}o and 2 in the negative and 3 as
per a linal order diemissing {he appeal Filed by
” ‘Jayjéalaksh.m2m1n1a. Said Jayalakshmamma being aggr1’eved
the eonem”rer1t. finding has Come up in RSAJ996/2005
alleging t:h.at there is pen-‘e.1’sf.:.y in app’recia1,ion of evidence
awailable on reeorci. ‘.l’l1ai. the CUU.E’l’.S below have gleliberately
e;\_,5′}
-13 .
igzncred the adm.1’ssio:e.s of Evi{u11i.swar:aappa rega:’di11g
execution of agreement of sale in her favour. ‘Fhat t-hte.t.O’t.her
evidence which are stzpporting her case haverjet been ieeked’
into. The courts below have c:0m:n’t’tt’ed ef_1’o1j.ifi..3p;jreé:ia1t.§.gg’ j
the evidence available on recofd the” appvreci’a:tiQfi”Qf
evidence is perverse and epjgeéed to the_ legal’-prixjeipies.
13. New coming to the-.V1_i1,igat’.io.fi «-witth reference to
OS.N0.243/1993 fi1.ed..};’y_ __is seen that in the
said vsiii’t Mtu.1iiswatiiapf>a entered appearance filed
his vfirittcén _.V’t’i-$€e’\5,*eve1′, he takes neutral stand. In
the WI’itVt€*’1′ sf.aten1Ae.n:t”~.EiVe neither admits execution of gift
deed favettr bfvSH211*asarnma nor denied the same. Whereas
i.e.. OS.N0.1.5»i1/1990 he categorically
“ac£:epi;edV–“ej*– entering into agreement. of sale with
Jajraialgshamxxaa, piatxitiff in the said st:.it.. in this suit: except
AAJa;{ale1kshma:n11aa1 and her father who are respeetiveiy
h”:ciet;endan1,s 1 and 2 nobody else filed vwiiteta statement.
H However. def’endar.1t,s 6 to 8 who are none other than
husband and children of 1?” defehdartt. ted, Jayz1Ia.}:shmamr:1a
t,«\..”3″)1,:
.15.,
l”1’c1\.-*6 filed memo adopting the written statement, filed by
Jayalakslimamma. The trial Court aftei” cor:1pi.et.io.r1 of
pleadings proceeded to frame the following iss_tie’s:« .. 5 ;_.
1)
cfi .
t__,, ..
Whether plaintiff proves that lal3Sol1.1ti.elo.wrie1* l’
of suit ro ertv b r virtije 55 ‘rift deed’
P P – .. E.» s 3
defendaiit No.2? ll
Whether pi.ai~o_tiff she” in lawful
possession oflstiit _orolpertyl?’-. ” —
W’it’otlieriLplaifitiff proxies that defendants tried to
‘ interfere”in”i1er=possession of suit property?
Whether: deferidant No.1 proves that she is in
possessiofi’ of suit propeity’?
defendarit. No.1 proves that defendant No.2
‘ agreed to sell the suit property and executed an
agreeriient. of sale’? (deleted as per order cit.
27.8.98]?
What. o1*de:~:r or ciectree’?
– .17 ~
1-4. In ‘this p1″0ce€diIags Sarasa1z11.ra’1a, ‘V “f3,L’;1£’I1fiff
examined herself as PW.1 and produced _…:».1r.j1d ‘o’V;j’:11V*’i::cf;3d
dOC’L1fl1€I1iS EXs.P1 to P22 and her evidenm-i”‘-is
repetition of statements made b3.”Héf’ii1 s_t1~1e p’1a_i:r”1i.,_ ‘I’ar ?as i
isr doiéndaxat in this suit,VJayaléaks’hmanmfzaAis ‘~co11c’6rried
she examined herself as ‘rV11arkocVi
documents Exs.D1 to”D_.lO 21;-‘1(:’i of h€:1″‘oase she got
examined as many s.2 to 6 who have
given eVid:’:r1.oe ;is. 2
‘J’ai3}s’Iéi1{§sh111ar11ma is nothing but
repev1’§ii_;&io’r1’_oi” she has made in the written
stai:emeu%1£–;_VAA is concerned, he is brother of
R’1EiiI”15Eff Eind AF-«vde.f-cnciant and 5″‘ defendant in said suit.
‘this proceedings supports the case of
“Jay’a}.ak.sIE;m}m1n1a and tried to assert that suit. scheduie
p1’op6i”ty is joint. family p:’0p€rty, which his faiiher haé no
AA r”1g};1. sell. According to him, he also has a share in the
Ajsaid property. So far as DW3 is concerxaedg he is one
“Ran1a1::”ish11appa who knows Jzzyzziezkshnazimmax and
Sa:*::»:sz1mmas. His ri”.E-“Ed€:’;’fI€.’,f3 is not of U1LI{Ih 13-556′. to 316 case of
~«.I8»«
JayaIaI;<;ehma;11ma. DW4 is one Balappa, an agrieulmrist
who has given evidemte to the effect': that s~3L1:ii. 7s_5eheciL1Ie
ro ert is "aim femliiv m erty, which is in «(ISS€SSi"()f:._3fld
I3 J -1 P P , _
enjoymerlt. of 211} the ehiidren of Munisxm*ama_p}A5a.Va11:§i i_.h.c:bsa:;e1
property continues to be in p£:ssessio:1 "«an1d'enjgy.,;1ie13_t jof '
Jayalakshmamnlaw DW6 Nachafamhma alsdf. .Yieiiera9§;e»§'~i:hee.
evidence adduced by :.'ifez.i1:<a{:.eshappa
who is the b1'O'£hE:15OEi.V_plai.1*1'"fi'ff: de.f'ef1<:f2i11t and 59'
defendant he supportshthe n5£'¢.Jgiy"§1§akehm.amma stating
that of schedule properties and
he arid' his bro{h.e1=.5"v*. _:i:Ie£e1;dan.t have executed release deed
in f21vou1x* 'of themfather?"nMur1iswar11appa during his Iifetjme
do uf1o:……have any right over the suit schedule
' these witnesses again have supported the
"ease ef c§'e3fe}5ada1nt based on the docr1.1.mer1ts available with
t.he'm.. h h
1.5. The trial. eeurt, after recording evidence and also
'Hon appreeiaieion of the pieadirlge and era}. zmd £1oez,m"2e.m:ary'
evidence 2;wai£abEe C211 reeerd proceeded 1,0 zmewez" '1 '£0
,19..
3 in the pasitive’ 5; in the negafive and 5 was deleted by
order dated 27/’.1OA1988 and thereaftier” based on s1.;eh44″§’L.x;1.ding
decreed the suit of plaintiff Sa1*e1szu:11n1€e “by
the said judgment defendant
Jayalakshmamma filed appea} 1,11 ”
to set aside the jt1dg.111er1fg and deri_r’e’e t’1§;e’ 1rijziie.
Court declaring that plaintgfff..V¢Sarasa.fii1ne£’Tie the sole and
absoiute Owner of [sefieelule in both
suits). In the appeai AV_’tl7_ a& IS’ defe.ndar1t
Jayai2ii{S11:1j:1.mfii:é?x;V’ 1 ~**eV’appeiI:ii’eVV court after securing the
entirerecortisVet1;id.MO13._jg§ayfii:g through the grounds of appeal
and as evelwlé the terial court; proceeded to frame
t:_F1e.:.fQ1_ie*.ar::.ng 150;-;::t..s_._.f0r consideration.
W”t1ether the piainéiff/1″eepe.11.demi No.3 has
the registered gift deed at EXP}. as
by deceased M’u11.iswamappa and
i:’:i.e1’efbre she had aequzreei tfiitie and
. p0s3ess1’01:1 ever the suit. property’?
‘Q21,/’–=”4§
»-20»
2} Whether the said Sarae.amm.a fL1rther prove
lmvful possession over the suit property atfitct-_
interference by contesting defendallts? ”
3) Vvhether the judgment and d€3(?I’€_€’..
Court is legat, valid e;i1E} ‘t33$e:j upQha_the’*
material on record’?
4) Wh at order?
16. After heaxttig :t:E’:e”15.:1:’ties lt’-*1 appellate
court.p;fo_eeette€i*::tn’ p’ev;:1t”§N0s.I to 3 in the negative
and as ‘perv “In effect the 15* appellate eeurt
by ansxi>e;’it1g f:o1:E1::.s” .t:’_”_.’tt;o 3 in the negative reversed the
fin£f:I’it:1g~oi’ the court on all the issues, consequently held
. *t3,1a’:, _Sa.tfae9a’n1Ir121 has not proved that; she is the 5016: and
._éibeeliji«e”_*-.<;w:je:' of suit seheduie prepefly by virtue of gift
deed s.éu'd*te have been executed in her favour for the reason
V uthfat She has not examined the scribe and as wet} as the
K_éit.te'St.e:'5; to the d.0ue.me.nt, L1I1d.<.-31' WE1iet1 she 1':-3 said to have
~7.t'eeeived title to the propertiy tn questiorl. Plaintiff in
OS.,243/ 19913; "hm-firtg suctczeeded in the trial emu': and having
sL1.fl"er€-cf ills reversal of the judgment. in .1" appellaio court
has come up in the second appeal in RSANQ. l 794/
1.7. in. both. the aforesaid second apoéals' :i§fh¢:'; izhsty
came up for admission this
grounds awed in the said appeals.ad–miti.ecll..i;h§3"appeals for'
consideratior1. based on thévi,si1hsi;a11t.ial "C}1i'€S1Ti§')11S of law
which were frarI1ed }3y~e.¢_}1e at; the i:iii1éVof filing the
suit. Subsequently, io{:la._Vhw'h:3Vi;1:i:h{:sle.iZwo'_appea}.s are taken
up i'o1*fi"r1al "the counsel for plaintiffs in
OS.N:o,&1 .1993 this Court felt that the
subsiianiliialolques'i.ioi*is: law as stated by counsel in both
ap}f;eal_L'momosV"ars….n'oI. substantial questions of law which
' i'or:'aoonsicieratio11 in both the appeals. Hence this
'C..oulrt. in both the exppoails substantial question of
ml? i.s:'r§:qVu.i:'ed to be i'1"am<=:d before disposal of the appeals.
2 xA'(:'c:o1"di.r1gIy, in both the appeals the following substantial
Afiquesii on of law 1' s f:'an1e(:1 ; —
ix: pi
,g;g_
RSA. 199652005
Whether “there is per\rersity.V__o;f_’T’
avaiiable on record by ‘oo:th”A”t.he. ec}g,1rE;;$
in Concurrent error’ and tI;I(§F€:§§y’~éf1iSf13.i$Si;li. ~:1V’i_E1eF7–A
suit, of piaintiff seekiiag’ spe’t:ifiE: per.fo’fr:;a;n_ee _:of VA
agreement: dated I-4,8. i’e«9uV8«?»?
RSA.179-452005 .– –
the vfkopeiiate Court was
£1 “””*¢’;££:v:1t the plaintiff in
proved execution of Gift
A’o¢ed% an her father on 31. 3 .1988
u1iei’er”iEx,£?1A’3.rid’ ‘:hereby justified in reversing
. V the V’jé,tdg.1_1qent and decree passed in
/ 1993?
1 .;H”2¢é1″eai”ie1*, both the counsel appearing tor the
pa.r{ie__r3 ‘we.;9e called upon to address th.e1’r argLunents. Heard
t}1e . W=(s§0Lt}’}S€I for Jayamkshrllamzria plaintiff in
«’-.e ‘€DS:=No.154/I990 which was filed for specific performance
fa-u1d Sar21s2s.1mna pIai1″a¥,i.I”i” in OS’No,243/1993 fifeci for relief of
dee121ra1Lior1.
mfk;
On going thrciugh the mam:-.rial available on ifeeord Le,
the g’r0ur1d of appeal and the findings of
below in their judgment resulting in eorieinfrenvii-fi.hd’i11g’of
dismissing the suit. sf pEaintii’f1.V99G
divergent finding of the eourisliiibeleiw
filed by Sarasamma, wherein hef ._sui.i; ‘-:fof~.:Wp’e1’:hanen1
injurietion is decreed and the filed’agai.n’st the said
order is aliowed by s’e’i;f’ing”-ssiidéa gi1<§_ign1enI. and decree
passed in OSN0.243/.1'998{'afid..§i}_so .ethei*"rx1ater_ia} on record
this Cbi1i*f:i.ei:;isWefir"ih'e'~sf0resegiCi" substantial question of law
in both iiihée appe~a1's.as.1.Q1iI;gie.r:
SuBsta.r1.i:iaI question of law in RSA1996/2005
' stud RSA.:NeI'1..794/2005 are held in the negaiiive for the
'L: –: R
REASONS
Relsiionship between the paifies 140 boih suits are not
.. _..;'§n dispugte, It is aiso not in dispuie t:h::1t. piaintiff in
OSNO. .1. 54/ 1990 JayalzikshIz1amI:<1.a. had left, her n1.ai'.ri;:110n£aI
.h:.1se arid was si’zzyi1″ig in the village 0i’§?.1er* father £1232″ £a}«;.iI1g
,2.:-1,-
Care of her chilciyen with the support. V5’£’q.*a4′.he1’*
Muniswamappa. 15* defendant in the sui_E..E7i1_ed._E>y.;’he1′. ‘I’h–a1:
in the suit while Iiling wri’.-jien _,.S{.’;’V1{uL”._II}.:€.”?_’l”l§-_ 4’h..evr__ ifather ”
Muniswamappa has taken” a 2
i1ran.saeiion as séated to h21¥*e'”h£een’take:1V_ I984:L
wherein it is entered into
agreement with his for sale of
suit schedtglekgftapeitey. though
Munisurarn.2hppex;””‘ 3. party, he entered
ap;3¢.ara:;-g;§’;-#18′: eiaternent he has not taken
21 he executed ihe gift deed in
favour plaintiff in OS.No.243/1993 or
. …..
20.§V’e:—- fzks eouid be seen from the recordss said
Mni,$\$}’arne.ppa deee not deny execution of gift deed though
2 , A’ he._zsu;V3sport$ the case 0fJaya.1akshma.rnIna in stating that he
“je’ni.ered i11t.e agreement ef Sale with his daughter for sale cf
H suit schedule property far x-Hltzable censide1’at,1’en. ef
Rs.25,£)C}G,!~ fliid zygfeepted ;::2″:;n’;1e:2i: af par”: sale
r:or1side1’atior1 arnotmting to a sum of Rs’20,Gf{JU’;’–{;_’ \.?\}’f1:,.r’ee,s
the reeita} in said dOL1C’:1″£1€I’T[., which is aé.EE3x..”F?l-4i<–..i:t is seen
that said agreement is errtered izntoqfrr the r1"1o'm'f1"oiZ_Aug:,ist
1.984, In the said ag1'eemen_t there a refeéeliee that
sale price is Rs.25,OOO/A."vO::1t1' of '.VRs:23§O,t)00/~ is
alreaciy paid and £fl£)1".}fi.'_»';;~_§:"_II1€]_':}t!'eV't_;{'TA — which is
a paltry sum eomparetcit Consideration, the
purchaser daugh1;er of 15'
defendant years time to pay the
sale deed registered in her
favour' '' L111' of sale there is also recital
regardirrgputvtiogvtrertrriaossessioll of the property. There is
or: reoo'1'dv.Whi'ch is produced by her to estabiish that
' is"ir1';'«,riossessior1 of the property pursuant" to the
. 'ag:*e:e:1.ie1';iVf'eL: dated }4.8. 1984.
231. In the said suit, the person who has supported
hherflease is none other than one of her brother who in the
wt “”meanw’h1’1e tried to set up a separate tjtie to himself to an
e;x:t;e1″1t. of 3} gzrarztzas in the said property wiziier t.:*y1’r3.g to
‘.4, /”via
-37.
executed by her figxiéfier in fav0L1i° {if her sister is eieiflasside.
W’i'{.h0ut a$ki:t1g for such EL praryel’ Said Jayalakreih2:.1’13§ii’1i.1’r1éi..is
trying to substantiaige that gift. deed
come into place in ctollusioii bf? 1″l€Z'{“‘4§’iii.'[i’}€I’i’£1I1d*’1′}.§§I:’LE3iSi”E?]’ *
Sarasamma. Though such 211Eega.1iO’n is .ri12;de’.’ ‘*;he=, e’m:1’1′–€::
pleadings” the evidence eivaiiehie. on .1feec.irde1eéir1yVeiisciosee
that it is Miiiaisxvanjappa whd to ei1?3Siant.iate the
case of plaintiff even th$0;_1′,1ghi–thei-e__iS—ég..i9egisi.ered document
which is at Isehedule property is
bequea’ti’1eg;,1:fbyiiii:fZ3’i-n3′–.Vii1- fadft)’i:3i”V:of his anotlier daughter
Saraearfihia deed which is registered in
the 01’fiee_ o.f Vjuii-iediiciiibbnal sub–registrar on 31.3.1986.
Jafyzalveikshinari*1ma_”sibrother given evidence in support of her
» ucaeee .,iA1n«.bo,{1’:i:he suits ie, as DW.3 in <:)s.No.2zi3/1993 and
r aiseiifiw; the said suit.
“‘I’h()ug11 these txwi witnesses ha.,ve tried to
su§3ssija[i:;iia1i.e ihai, there was an agI’€€3I}’1€}”i{ of sake by their
iafiher in iavoul” of Jayaiakshmaiiiziia and J’€£y€1i&1kShI1].8,Hi}fI1E}.
iiS in pGSSI3SSiOi”i of suit. s:.<:1f1.edu1e §)r<3peri.y and Sarasanirna
Le ..s:\,
.33"
1.Ir1ough corltenci that. 1*egisi.ered ciormtmem, is eXee.uie_d in
fawour of S21r21$a.1111″na’1 she is not in possession.f'[Iie:,3_’Eitaveriot
been Successful in establislling that po£;3e:ss3io*rir of Vs’i:”i1;.b
schedule property CO}’}{,l’I1L1€iS::_ u}ri..£;h} ‘Jé;y;1Iak8hzr1a;r:$1.a
pursuam. to agreement ofsalek ‘I””n_e”tlocu::e’:erj1.fi:s wh.1feh are;
produced by Sarasamma eleeirly’ est21.b’fieh 1irie1i as on 1986
Sun; schedule 13roperry’Was .’rnL’V1_E;21″te§iV,ivr:*–.favour of Sarasamma
purs’uar1t: to reg;iste1″ed gii’t.dee_e1 exet::u1:eé§i:b31r her father in her
favour and 1’eVer1r;1evrecords”‘arefliatanding in her name
and ir1V’t:o~E:,1r3-rn “if” refers ‘:o'”fi1e”pe1-so’11 in possession of the
property’ ‘ as Vei;1’§1;ive,1_or.,. ‘es Sarasarnma. With ‘these
overwhelming cioeumeiiie supporting the ease of Sarasamma
3_s’3’Sh:e being iopossession of the property 13*’ appellate court
RAL’No,3’1:2_/.1998 has not properiy appreciated the
” ewe.-2}eneeV.”ave1i1e1b1e on record. It has proceeded to hold that
S3é3s§1.g’1mai has not proved execution of gift deed in her
“f2:vou1′ by exzxmining independem witnesses regarding
“je:>’-:e<:ui.iora 2111:} .1'eg'is;irai,ic)z1 of the same,
L/'K,/39%
24. incidentally W s.ppe.1.l-ate Court has 11e–t__ leaked
into the fact that in OS.N0.i5»4«,=’199O wheiieiinh:”L:’sfieciefiC
defence is taken by Sarasarnma to establish’lthelfietjtzeslt cljfa
suit S(‘.l1€dL1l{i’ property in her favatiziby liter Of j
gift she has examined the sc1″ibe«Aar:ell to
the said douement as witriesises in’ the anti
so far as the evidenee of has taken
Certified copy of the said eviclemre
and pleadings in:.='(‘}S doucment in
OS.N0;’2’43:/ii} li1~_e’f1″eet has established execution
and 1″‘ regist1’altiei1,: deed in her favour in
OS.N0.2″£l§3../ iv993._ specific issue was framed by the
e6u:j'{, calAli’i’;g….t.1p’0:1 her te substantiate the legitimacy of
‘ sa’i’r:E tlvoiienaent having established the same in the said
” has also produced the certified copy ef the
er1t3’3″e”, Cleposition in the said pmcteedings into
AA 0–S.Nd’;243/199%.; ‘ a suit: filed by her seekiiiig c:ie<:1a1'at.i0n of
title to the suit schedule _p:mpert:y p{1I'SL1é1f1E tn the gift
deed.
LV;,=§
~ 30 –
325. ‘I’heref01fe. the approaeh of 15*” appeE1atefC0t1rt in
RA312/1998 in not appreciating the evicienee…_evet:iI;9t};’1e” Q13
record and thereby holding piaintiff in
Sarasamma has not proved €X;L5Cttt:iOE’7’_ or gift: “deed'”i’s hot T
correct. Therefore, this Court white:eQnsi.de;ji:1g~s’t1bst.é5u:1tiatl
question. of Eaw framed inVt:E1e:s’ebtwc.)” tight ef
the finding of both .the COIJFI:-L*:.’V._:L”E#’V1Vt51?Sf’ anaazhih’i:1″1e”‘vg:roL1:1ds of
appeals answer the of Law in the
negative for u ” 2 h
in RSA1996/2005 wherein
Jaya1aksh_1ria.rhh’:a’Vplairgiiff in OS.154~/1990 is Challenging
coheu1″reh’t*–§”iht1t;1.gs of both the courts below is dismissed
»A :’a.a;c1 }§SA.;RfiIVd«..1_794/2005 flied by Sarasmma plaintiff in OS
there is divergent finding given by 15′
atgzipeli’-:§p:e”eourt4 in setting aside the judgrnent and decree
AA passed in her favour in OS.2<f,L8/ 1993 is set aside and the
Vapgfieal is ailowed helding that Sarasaxllma is the absolme
"oW1f1er in possession and engoymerlt: of suit seheduie pmperty
;mrst1a:r1t' to gift cieed dated 31 E95-36 e:x:ee::'ted by her fat:h.e2"
sf,/L
W:
Munigwanappa in her favour and permanem. injun(:§:”§6’I2«.}1s.. : ;_.
prayed for is grzmied.
27. In the resufié, appeaf; .i.1.1 «is 3
disniissed and RSA.N0,}794/2005 “ViV;<§.V:fiii0xx,1ec3" /,Vif1:f5ut. §1ny
order as to costs.
Nd/«