zazawrwwh wwwvwnmu wt uwmamnwwwamfiwm §5HHeaiV%"I. WWMWWQ WW3" f'1u$7*'°§:fl§@a.Ei-*f£<J5*'*i§?:'W&%'%fl'"@ fi"'99%W¥"\¥B '3v..s%«"$a;u5?§'§§§ §mv!?\l§w
EM THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
EATER THIS THE 2'?" DAY 05' AUGUST 2993-'"----
BEFORE
THE HON'ELE MRS.JUSTICE K.N. xasHAv3§AR$&$&Af= *
nsA.Na.224;2oQ€ f""'V
snrwxnxz t
Chandramouli 3 Chand:an§aa_
5? years, S{a.Papanna '1"
Rin.Hahadavapura village 3
?ara$hurampura Hobii ""
challakexa ?3luk '._f ; E-,".=,"u
Chitradurga Hist:ict¥§?T»§2E _ x",'.,. A9PlLLAlf
tar s:1;s¢s.a;a¢.pa,&;agg¢.g¢;
A33 .1
1.
K3ppgsn2, ?3,y3ar3 ‘
SXu.9a§anna1 “‘ ‘>’
2.Channab§safina;_63 y§§§§x _
S/¢.Papannau, . ‘- *’ *–‘
3.V¥eranad:ap§é; $$ ye&r§
3f§.P&§&na§: R vH.. …..
§esg¢na§ntSV1htb 3 are all
Ra$i&ents_¢£’Hahgfiavapura ?illage
Paraahurampura fiébli,
°*”fihall&kere,Ta1uk
iz chitradurga fii5trict~5?? 522 ..* nsponnaxws
‘ : {fig £f§.Jjy§raj aad.Asaoa1atas hy n.8.Jqyaraj and
R_’A;&}?:eauaax, fidvotes for c/a»1:
»e»o»owo~
M” This appeal is .filad undar secticn 108 af
wJ”$?C against the judgment and decree dated
;’1?.1fi.2G66 paased in R.A.Na.1?0iG2 an the fila cf
‘ the civil Judge(sr.Dn), challakera, allawing the
fig/,
<1! his contention, the plaintiff apart
W?' W» mmmwmwmm mwma %%#wlifl§.- yr wmmnmam. fiikivfi f."UUW€"fi' W?' Kflflwfifflfifl mm»: fiflififi? WI" KfiRN&Vfl§:?€:4i'% :§'*"§:§€;§i~§~§ fiflififiwf W? flflwfififififi Hififi C333?'
the unit: schedule properties are the joint family
properties. Ha contended that the sons
xappanna namly sranna, Banana and 9apafin;$Via4:'_:'..V_
becamc separate alwut 50 years prior to K
about 15 was thereafter, Eranna 3
suit schedule prcpartics from
affarts and earnings, as 5u»¢:l_: tfié–Aiéuit s:::h§fdu1a1"
praperties were the sapatétifi'. and'
properties at K:-anna, ,thgrcifbbahnfff:$é-.._Asai§i"flréjnna
bad right to execute iaizfxsé' was his
further c<:ntent;j,m§; ._:_1;naj:§H in wand
dispasing a;§¢u},:§$V tha will
baquaathing éV¢.j:'.i:§:é:i'i.z'1:.«a:V:::Vi__zgopartias in his
favaur aniei at Manna, he mcamo
the alaaoluteii suit schemle
pi-<f~gmx.-tzieggézni-ad. in.' "K-.1:V_V;a;'t:V" cafipiczity he is in lawful
p<3§mss.._ i<2ii" ithg to the mclusion of
2 and 3. on these
first dahndant saught for
of' igfie suit.
the basis of the piaadings cad!’ the
that Trial cazzrt framed swan issues. In
,&/,
ha
:72
35
£3
E
S?
3
§
3
E
§.
§
$5″
%
3
§
2,;
X
E?
ti
W Wmmmm WW5 @””mW:%.- W mwmmmmt mum €.2K;i3UK”§ W hmhmmm WWW CQUW’ {W mhmm
held that their evidence that the properties are
thn joint Iamixy propaxtias acquimd by the joint
martian at three hrnthara cannat be ba3.ioved_4,..;{_V’::.:’.:’._
the light: at the recitals Iound in th§.fi
exeauted about 25 years prior to the
lower Appellate Court also tzihic
conduct of the plaintiff inv_éc aapih-ghhhhquitg,’h.}1’h.t’ ‘251″
years sitar the death at 3:53.153»
any ahjactihns. In lbhror
Appellate Ccurt held thahth has
committed an e_;:;::c:§;*:._ vrhthe suit.
schedule the joint
axartian ..th§’~.h¢i:i;~?¢,_ Thexefoxa, the
lower Apph1.1l2teAV.Vttéqrt’hhdltftrsht the suit schadula
properties nqt’ family properties,
tut, on _€;h’e ,other.. they were the exclusiw.-e
fiV:§e9§;t§fxtEéh:” Brahma, as such he had
fight» will. ‘rho lower Appellate
élést that the evidence at 935.2 to
executicn and attostaticn of the
A Tharetare, the lower Agpallate (flaunt
‘ V. that the Hill has bun proved in accordance
law. In that View or the matter, the mar
ihgzallata caurt set aside the judgment of the
“b
WMWv”‘v~ wt-Wwu-MM mwwnww wr F4\”<M"D|l'¢-9l'M7"\t93l"\%'HMF'€a» suuswnm mw'wmw Wm $%m.¢%$W#WfimNM %"'H§%m"f9'W"% MWMW3
V4m"!W¢'Wawf\h an war 4: am:-""ny:'m:» wrman vuwtm"'w rt 2: :2 4: '*t<ss#"'«aW wt-n E 'fK\»0"'IM'?A%h' Vem"'w¥M: mm»: -s. , ,. .. .»
Trial Court, ccnsoquontly, unmet: the appeal and
dismissed the suit at that plaintiff. It is H'
against this judgment at the lower Appa11a_ta _L-L'~._
Court the appeliant-plaizztirf is before E
ctmrt in this second appeal.
6. x have heard sri.B.H.si:i3;1a§§pat} tttlgéfifieg
caunsel for the appellant a::::’§is.t;;1$etiv- tn;
secured 1:-cm the courts nglow.
‘I. After hearing triat’ J’.’§?§a{‘l’3;1Q§’j’:”‘-‘.g;;.Q1,vl!»’I’1E’_§€.}. ten:
the appellant an_;:.f§ri-_ ‘xfitcctds 0:
the Cam-ts ‘~-fiievinian that norm
of law framed by the
appaillaat of appeal arises for
consid&e7r§tiV;:1i’. _ above, there is no
d:§..:_jpi.:t.e thEt_V_ theV: suit scheduie prupertiua were
an 30.3.1932 under mum Thu pumnase:
1 was manna, the firext son at
I{appa_nfi§.§’.~* At The only question that was required ta
‘Abe éegiéidered by the Courts helm: was whathar thc
acrzsdule pmpertiea were acquired eat: at the
‘Ejaint exertian 6: the sons of Kapyunna as
centendad by that: plnintifl. the avidancta an
xracaxd clearly establishes that as on the data at’
t
the acquisition at the suit schedule properties
in the year 1932, rcappanna was still. alive as is .
was the Kartha 0:!’ the family. Even accorH_ihj§V.VVté{: .
Mfififl flifiiiivi-W?” Q? fiéfifiwfififlfifi Hififi Cfififli
ancestral joint Iamily prope:4:rtia4£s’–.A”‘¢xca9t§.–“.i.fihé
house, which was acquired by Képgganna whhraih i
of than were residing fi*hé’A.’Vr.:’;2r’:iiA1;’ ::r:h?&du’ia
properties have been ‘:9: the
member: of the __j¢:ih_t is no
praaumgztion thazv-‘:.” by one at
the coparcaVnmJ:f§ V by property,
since the :*.,_’ceparri3sai§rs ‘éntitlad to hhld
separate rm’: the perwn, who
§1lege§.;j’tI:.at ‘Va praperty was acquired
jji~»M.Mw mm” mmmmmamwm MEEMFW mvfiéfii “QC” W.%KNfi.Efi.Kfi HIGH CQUWW W?’ Kfifiwfiwffiakfia W553″? CQUWE” W? Kfi..§%§\:>..«,;;
avidant from the recitals round in the copy
the Bill marked as &.D2. Therefore, Kap9§fin3..’_’;-«L
the plaintifx, the family of
14
perversity or irregularity or illegality
warranting intarfaxence by this Court. Hance,.f
da net find any gaad graund ta admit this app§fii§*fl ‘;
9. Accaxdingly, the agpaal is dismisfifiagfi g
– = #] ][}f)§3}§ flWQEw_h§
*a1bI§£.