.1.
IN mm HIGH counw or rcmm-AKA Ni'
om-so nus ran 1" my on APBIM. éobé .
ma now 31.13 HRS. _
ms HOJPBLE Hii._v"a1;swzcAn*v- L_
'fl.A.N0..1B6!/2006 a}w.§§..\,._no. 1"aanrs:/[_;fe'fio5 v}u;.n-.113)
an rzo.1aes4/3oo6(:.-ii-'z4s__)_
BETWEEN :
«£1-_s'.«.%1% s' ;_'s..1xs$6c_Iu3Ifis J
- an-Ian munc-
__ l?.U'fi3L~-.DI'5'I'RICT
w/.9 vr§Nz'.3wA1eAn;«sAIAn'.V
SIR'-ECE HEB LR"
i'VENKATAi{ARhSfi~EfA!i "310 ,1'ia--tmArpA
Assn anon? 75
. _R/"A_'I' KhLIUNA¥itKAfiAHALLIv;: sot-munn noun
'nosaospfir Post," xamumaam mwx
. . . aerxaxmnr
-
“mzs smi-it)’:-‘ xcannarmca.
«av» ITS SECRETARY TO sow
,,n2.2mmuw or mama
u vmmm soumm
– 3M3GALORE~01
“THE LAND raznunnr.
NBIAMANGALA TALUK
BY ITS SECRETARY
3 RANGAIAH SINCE DEAD
BY HIS LRS
8) K R RANGASWAMAIAH
S/O RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
I1/AT KBLLUNAYAICANAHALLI,
SOMlP’UR.F. H081-I
NEIAHHNGHLA ‘1’AI.rUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
b} SMT GILNGAPDM
D/0 RANGAIB!-I
If/0 GANGA 303.3131! b
AGED ABOUT 6’7 YEARS ”
RIM.’ T.DASAIU\HALLI_. TIIMKUR ROAD
a) saw LAKKAHMA
D/o RANGAIAH. NH
AGED A301 65 YEARS
R/AT KALUVANAHLLLI_ 1′.
Tataunaonnnu nonLI’._*: *.=
nELAMAnaALA TALUK_ . ‘ Pa
BANGALORE RURAL nisrnzcm
d} sMT;nY3AuHa 1_ “”
pvo*nawsa:An._._–.
1w1o;caAsuA99A*g=. =_;
AGEI5- A2130!!!’ 60′ YILKRS
[-R/Ar xnfigxsfizphnxn ”
MIEABI Roan.
–.BANGhLO5B”_b”
*5/O»R.hNGAIfiH -~
AGED ?§ YEARS
R/AT”KALLUNAYhKINAflALLI
.souApUnn~aanLI, nonnosanw roar
NELAMANGALA rnnux
RURAL DISTRICT
7’»a i Haannaan sanrrx
“sxo’nAnA1an sasrwv
‘ .3_.€3ED ABOUT 60 YEARS
MERCHANT
1303303931’ ?OST
HELAMANGALA T31-UK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
. . . RESPONDENTS
: (By 3:1 A v annamnnnnnpvn non c/nacny 1
SR1 R SRIDI-IARA HIRBMATH, AGA)
THIS wax? APPEALS inn FILED U/S I or was xnnnarnxn HIGH
counr ACT PRAYING To an? 35103 THE onnnn PASSED IN THE HRIT
pnrrrxou Ho.3B796/1998 nnrnn 22/09/2006.
ma no. zeeegzoos _c LR- us)
1
—-.—–
1- 11:1: «._Liiw-.–::’–_VrhI3Ln__i1’x1-.
‘ Nszmwmm 4TFJ.£1.l V
AGED ABOUT 75 mans «_ .g . V
R/AT xALLUNMrA1.wsr:un V’ –‘ ..
vxnamaa 8<X1EJflA"' g
n4§2:aM;qnz–o=; "
Bx aw.-22.; __s1;ca3m._nr *
‘é..–vnAnt§.asw.\§¢i:1;!.H .s_/o mmaaxnu
= AGED”.\BOU’1’»,70′,YEAM
«R/N1’ Vxmfimaxaxauannnnx, sompuna -nosm
A L NBLAMF.-HG?.Lh..1’Fr!JIK
«amaeawss ‘mum. nrszrnxcr
suf D/0 GANGAIAI-I
«H/0 eancawaonarna
msn amour 57 mans
% ‘B/A’!3_T.DASJhRAl-IALLI, rumcun noun
“smacnnoan
S_M’i’ mxxmm n/o RANGAIAH
-AGED ABOUT 65 yams
R/AT K311.-UVAIHIHALLI
THYAMAGONDLU I-IOBLI
NE TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
3141′ BYEMMA D/O RANGAIAH
W/O CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/N1′ KAHAKSHIPALYA
MAGADI ROAD
BANGALORE
V. V ;~–…AI§9551.LAu*r. ‘
(By His s c. s ASSOCIATES-._»
7 H R NAGARAJA SHETTY
S/0 RAMAIAI-I SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
MERCHANT
DOBBOSPBT POST
NELMIANGALA TALUK ;
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT’
. * . _ Essxédnzusnrs
(By Sri A v aanoanaannepn FOR C133 ;”.;._H . .V>
wars WRIT APPEAL titan U/S i of fan xmnunraxa HIGH
COURT new PRAYING_TO SBT_A5IDE man ORDER PASSED IN-THE Halt
PETITION No.a71a/1999 DkTED’22/09/2006. “‘
THESE waxi AmA_L:ee’ on iron PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DfiX,VMAN3ULAWCHELLUR. J; DELIVERED
THE roI,LoijI.NG:;:– V ‘ ‘
_ …. __Tnis ie_tne founth round of litigation. The
ogeaent apoeei is filed by the Venkatanaraaaiah
huebandV’of”iAtEa§amma claiming the share of
Vethkkayamma on ear with other legal representatives
‘of Rangaiahii iiii
i’7fg§ it is not in dispute that late Rangaiah
hi nae tin possession and occupation of Sy.No.1/1
‘”V<e neasuring 1.05 acres of Kallynayakanahalli,
i ":Sompura Hobli, Nelamanqala Taluk, Bangalore
District between 1968-69 to 1975-76. During his
life time he filed form No.7 and the occupancy
.5.
rights were granted in his favour, lrdfie ~died
during 1976 leaving behind hie na:;:a$’w.éji:jai~ah
and four daughters including Akkayannat Ahkay;fima°;
was residing with Rangaieh and w§§h¢gaié¢1§ghn1n”t
in all his dut1es.”«t;:”ex;e n’ev_er_V_ovla’i_1:ned».”interest
over the property in omestion in her individual
right and she” olainedf right– only through her
father. ‘-Afterxth§ death ofhhendaiah, the matter
was oonteeted hy hda ledal representatives. The
matter, fleaned xnenT,to” this court on several
oocaeions3,rh Finally_ the ‘tribunal held that the
hnshand oi ekkayafima is also entitled for a share
tofu Ahkeyamna.h ‘Tlhis was questioned before the
hdalearned ainqle Judge. both by the husband of
x”VAh§efamna claiming the entire property and by the
“‘on;y7s§h and also other daughters of Rangaiah on
the ‘ground that they are entitled for entire
x lV,tenancy rights of Rangaiah.
3. Sec.14(1) of the Hindu Succession .Act,
1956 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Explanation
thereunder would clearly indicate that any
-5.
property possessed by Hindu feels” fehether
acquired before or after the commencement ef the
Act was to be held by her as full ewnerfithereer7
and not as a limited onneri_hpparentlygiksngaiahil
died somewhere 1fi:_K1976.a’ige?{n””is’ after
commencement oi’. the:p_1ic:{tv._ ‘*![‘her.ef’ore Vpzfiikkayarmna is
entitled for “re . snare dhinfi’ the interest of
Rangaiah, as one sf his leéfiihfepresentatives as
class time, if she had
gifted, f£g§n§ee§§§a for fiencumberred her interest
in the g;q§s;zg in qnestion, it would have been
altogether a different situation. If the property
Vin queetion=or the interest in the property in
f question i}e:; tenancy rights came to her through
i”~her father and she died intestate and as such the
d p~¢:ae: sf succession as contemplated under Sec. 15
kef the Act pertaining to a Hindu died intestate,
n’*_would come into play. Accordingly the interest
llwnhich is acquired or inherited after the death of
her father would go back to the heirs of her
father.
i a Self”
-7.
4. The learned Single Judge in
saying and modifying thaw orde_r~’—of:j~.i’.”ho
only to that extent h:o1dJ.figfjv ui’:ahat_”*«.what_’aim_§r:’ th<a 'f
right: or interest aoqpiradjoy aajil;-ong
with Rangaiah would oéhoive of her
father as she 'V
5. Ian the-V” find any good
grounq impugned order
passaq Judge. ‘
aopoja1s_– are dismissed.
sdl-‘
‘juaqe
Iudgeo