iN 'THE HIGH comm' arr KARNATAKA AT BANQALd_g§:jj _
DATED THIS THE 251%! DAY OF MARCH.----12§Q9 35.] 3 A; "
BEFORE
THE HOWBLE MR. JUSTICE z§s1~1cfi{ '£5~; H1N§3Hi:}'Ei21 A
R.F.A.No. h V
BEIWEEN; "A %
Biflavaira Ramanatha _T ;
8):) Late Lingappa, V V
Aged about 54 years, ' __ f ' _ '
RIC: Bfitoli Village, " _
South Kodagu. 'V A' » APPELLANT
(BY SR] RAM' _SR.. 'C;:{ ) UNSEL. irok SR1 PRASAN NA,
. 'V ADVOCATE)
1 Smt. Billgeavaia Sé1_raSwa:flii~.
W/o_Sri ScS~hap;)a;- %
V atmut 60 yqzaxs,
" ' _ Housahald W£31"""
, filo KQ:aa:1_aikattc Village,
VV »_ Padmavaflli
Srgi Srkihara,
Agcti ~.ab'_.__ share
in the schedule proierties.
3. The respondent N035 and 6 consented to
the suit.
4. On czonsidering the rival p1gadingé;.__
the foflowm g issues : V. x V’ t
1. Whether the pn)9}e:_t}iet_ N<).1Vi*'.Htl;1e
plaint schedule also beisimizfgtzfttr 1{_{1.fc;.:L§;ig§{ppa :2
2. Do they Aptosse-ssion of
the suit the defendants ?
3- Wh¢m¢?e.V.fi1,€ afier the year
1955 –a1id.VVtI’a§:§1f”3iSiej’s.. by name Vedavathy and
Janéiki to the year 1956 as
e0;1tendea1_i1iVt1i’e
. V. 4.V”e*\i;?hefl1ei*..Afl1e tiviutiivlefextxeiasrxt proves that under a
deed dt. 4.7.1984 Lingappa
” – the pmperties between himself and the
_ ‘~2m’ ea;-auam: :3
n£”5._ he further proves that the 233 defendant
3″ “executed a registered release deed in his favour on
J 13.2.92 *9
. Agg_iic*%;rs:*i£::1.1irfiV’tI3e aforesaid judgment, this appeal is pmferrw
‘ defcndvsztsxt No.1.
K 6. Whether he f1lJ’fl1€I’ proves that the suit is not
pmperiy valued for the reasons stated in para 12 of
the written statement ? V ‘
7. Whether the plainfifls am entitkad to
each as contended by them ‘5’ V
8. Are they entitled for a decree hi ” ‘ V
9. Are they entitled for ;mcsnc* V ‘V
30. What decree or ‘P V» ‘
5. The respondent No.1 PW–1 marking the:
documents at Ex.PI fiaminod himself
as I3W~2 besidcsf and Bhavani
Shankar as at Ex.D1 and Ex.D2.
The mspendfint I the claim of the respondent
£405.} to 3 is V .On considering the ylcadings,
oral and placed on its rccord, the Trial
contcfifious issues substaniza’ !ly in favour of
the 3 and deemed the suit in part.
paltition deed; the claims of the respondent?’
daughters, cannot be better or higher than g
Lingappa. in support of the submissicginsé has 7
judgment cf the Hoxfblc Supreme; bf u
Sahab Iv. Sged Ismail and otharsm ‘ 3
Court 1205. The rcl¢vant~..1 naraVgi¥1ap’}i:’ ‘1EhC jfieigmcnt is
extracted herein below:
H not subject
mc;iiier_ &:’f t)sv%N¢;-3;*,2}*1§5: Additional cm:
‘tiiexefoiaé; in his findings that
proved. They were not
the father continued in be
ergbyment cf the Sands as
‘V by the revenue records until
. Vi: muiiiféii in the name of the appellants to
. of 16 aaes purdzased by him as per
.. gjrférficdd sale deeds EZXLDI and E:x;D3&
‘Ibrrfihim has attested Ex.DI when his father
” v.V__A«’sonveyed the lands as an owner. Though the
sale was against his interest, he had not objected
to the sale’ He, thereby, is esiopped by conduct
and reward to assaif E.x.D1 sale or as claim any
interest in the lands’.
Q3!-é
or alienation indufing any
iestamwntwy disposition of pmpefiy which .
taken place before the 20″‘ day of L” ‘
12004 “‘.
12. Thus, the Parljamem has bmught a15’0j1″t’–a vlc,«€;is.3;3;1.:i¢_fi1V”‘» L»
to bring about the gender equality
13. I cannot entertain any delivered by
the Trial Court on am tbc: filed by
the respondent
14. I donft””fi”m1. It is Iimk to be
dismhsefi age; aecfimg:y:, it (1.
Na Quit; as
Sé/–
Judge