1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 1551' G§§)EEfI%8IO8
DATED THIS THE 27"?" DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR.JUS'I'ICE A.N.VEN{}GOPAIA GOWDA
R.S.A No.1025/2008
BETWEEN:
Boramutti @ Kondana Boraiah, * ._
S / 0 Late. Chinnaboraiah, Age: 60'=yeair:s; _ _ '
Occ: Agriculturist, R/0 Tumkurlahalli"Village; . A' " "
Tq: Moiakalmuru, >_ V . _ T'
Dist: Chitradurga ~ 577502. ".~..._ 'APPELLANT
(By Sri. Basavaraj .°V_";;1f_11?l;.L"~Archei£9ia VMurthy P,
1. Boraiaki, 'S / :()'v._Lé17*§§é;<€§hir1nab0raiah,
_;Age; 68 ye.a;'S:
W/0 Boraiah,
" " 'Ag'e_: ' 55 .years;
W/0 Late. Nir1ga}a Naik.
Age: 52 years;
4. Bfjfaiah, S/0 Late. Ningaia Naik,
r __ Age: 35 years;
R.S.A l\lo.l025/2008
respondent No.1, since he is the eldest son and as such
the suit schedule property is the joint family property. It
was also contended that, respondent No.1 in to
defeat plaintiffs right, divided suit
between himself and respondent No.2 bystay.Vvoffpartitliorr
dated 27–03–1999 and refused ptlopf} gm.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2,.»’w_’ho are°defee11dants– ,
denied the case of the that,
respondent No.1 left hisnatiye ;piace:iorig back and resided
at Turnkura1ha11i.vi11age- married; respondent No.2 and
that offfespjondent advanced Rs.1,500/– in
order to if suit schedule property and
_according1y”he’ pu:-chvased the same under the registered
ivdatedV’Ci§;’=’l0–l958 and became the absolute
.oWner– of»..VsuitlV..s§;heduled property and hence, the same is
not partitioned.
‘*-._Based on the pleadings of the parties. Trial Court
‘ the following issues:
\
/-/fz.
R.S.A N0.lO25/2008
“i) Whether the plaintiff proves that
plaintiff and defendants are joint family
members and suit properties are the joint
family properties of both parties?
ii) Whether the piainitfj” further, V’
that defendant no.1, 2_..co_liudih§j'”Lv’ith'””cach~,.vu “V
other have created alleged deed ‘dated:
27. 03.1999, whiehftsénotidiaihding t,he”sh’£;:zrer V
ofhlaintlff? it 9 V. ii
iii) Vi/’h:ether and 2
proves that they title to the
suit 7 of Adverse
” po’ss’essiofh””?”‘ ‘ ~ .
_ ” % iv)!” the plaintiff is entitle for
re9i’ief_”of_p-.artitiah and separate possession of
,/__.3rd 9′ in the suit property, and
Vdergilaration as prayed for?
xiv) What order or Decree?”
deposed as P.W.1. and examined a witness
9′ Palanajka as P.W.2. EXs.P1 to P10 were marked.
the defendants, IS’ defendant has deposed as D.W.1
\/:
R.S.A No.1G25/2008
ii) Whether the Judgment of the trial court
calls for interference?
iii) What order?”
After reappreciating the evidence on record.\.’es’pe’eia}1y
taking into consideration the admissions on _.tiiie
plaintiff, who deposed as P.W.1 and noticiingvi .
made before the Tahsiidar, it
has not committed an error -in=.reeor’din * .i1:Vs, fin.d’ii1′”s since
the plaintiff has failed… to proiz.e:*–tI’i-at, the—su.it schedule
property is V/the . and are liable for
partition. did not find any error in
the findings and the tsoncliisions recorded by the Trial
Coii1*t, ar1d.lhenee’~- dismtissed V the appeal.
4. has preferred this second appeal},
V’7′,eon–tending ..tI%ia1:.,’ substantial questions of law as raised in
g the ‘appeaié memorandum arise for consideration.
X
/T
R.S.A N0.1025/2008
evidence is neither perverse nor illegal and the findings the
consequence of correct appreciation of evidencerecord,
no interference in second appeal is called foie.
appeal is sans, any substantial qiuestéicndofdviavipcaniiot’be’ a. it
admitted. As a result, the appea1;°stascid’s
PKS/MK