IE REK 998:"O6 IN "ma HIGH COURT 9? KARNATAKA AT Bgififl-§lX§§_§'}:R'§ " LT ' QATE9 THIS THE 293' am QF"'3uL~:i, 299%" paessrsxfr A T A 4 THE HOWBLE MR.Jtis*fii:£ N .xm'_4Aé; .
ms aowsze MR.JU5T’I f:E._A §:V%{?£N§iLG£}:?}s%zA aowm
BETWEEN: ” ‘A %% é 4% V%
9 L Nanjaéfaj _ . .
S10 iate C>.’?~£.£;én§ia§_ah~.V”–_ ”
63 yrs, r/a N’o_.2s’3 “
Brunton Road Bangalafe-2_S Appeiiant
. E’ (F3§r~S _ri V ‘;¥4;é”r9&akaram, Sr. Advocate)
A559;
“:3 L s:§ia:1anna~ *T
S’/22 me E}. ¥¥£ALfr:gaia%1
” ~ -. i:’ ‘3?4″‘3,*rs,, rfa Né.1089
1 12$’? :’~»§3°;g, HAL II stage
Efsd¥m*nag’ar
Ba7*ng’;§¥ore~38 Respondent
(By Sri P H’Rama§ingam, Aévccate}
\/
Q…
2 RFA i398f’€)é§
‘¥’§1is appeal is fiied under Section 96 CPC ag.a~i–.*z$t. 1_t;ir-:3:_._’»..
jucfgment and decree dated 3?-$-2006 passed'<."En_"": '
O.S..N0.?892;'1991 an the fi£e of the XXII ;5K.dd§;C:ity..:"C§3i§'§
Judge, Bangaiora ciecraeing the s;3§.t.._f;or .'par't¥i:§–¢n "am
separate possession.
Thus appeai canning cm for acimésicn t[fi.§’é;. éa’y, V’
KUMAR 1., deiivared tha fo!fow£’:1§:—.V..
This is defené:=mt’s Zapgrrfiafi’ fifigmezwt and
decree sf £he.tf:¥;*s£v’.’C6é;3rt vflfiicii ‘§17a:;~::é%creed the suit of the
plaintiff €é”r p’a%titi§r{j’a.§§d.§e.g§{é:f§té possession of the suit
s<:hedu¥e prcpférfig/.v. " A'
_2 ;~– :§'-"ci-z""At¥i:a__pL:rgfi§6$é of convenience, parties wi§E be
réfer?ad'Vtc referred to in their erfigmai suit.
3:"Ff.ia"§§;ti'ff.V is aider bmther 9? the fiefereéarzt. "fheir
Vf:::i"}t;'1:e'£" name S.f~£.LEngaiah. "fhe giaintiff, éefendant
émfather canstituted a Hindz} tirzdivided Famiiy. In
t'§i:é""fém§¥y'f there was a partiiinn an 29~–3-193? which is
éikifienced by registered partition seed. The jaint famiiy
V,
8 Km 9%2_8§{3é
1} 'Whether the p£aéni:ifF ,prQvesV't?ia'f:'_'ic»§§é'
scheduie property is the join'; f'amiiy.__p'm;g:sgrty_j j
and he has ha£f share?' ii? ' _ ~
2} Whether the dref-m§dant'v– p:":3vé::; 'shai… the
piaintiff has receiveaé"i?s.?5,f3{}(3;..A.g;hr<é;:gh his
representatives E.e,,"-wif5§_ and 'gsacvn, {awards
his a¥:}and9'::aa_d arzd ;*eiéj;:quéshed his fights in
the suit sc'he=a"dui'e $ir'c%p'a:'ty_ £52.. favour of the
defendant? [
3) whes¥;%:e.r t¥5§_e :§£éf’en’dAé’r{t_”–pfo§*e’s that the suit
:51,vne§:T’L’Vp_roper!y<.ya!.§£a§:!. ar;d "'Court fee paid is
not"–pro'p§:e.r?"–.ij'j*–
..i}s£§j3é§t;ié:;”–th*é'”‘;§laE§éii£ff is entities? to mesne
_ .pf’or’2;*;ssf?”«. — I
;.
L’f~§i.iii:’?V ‘ ‘
Sf’: 3vVhéth’éf;v..t§i锑e’§ i’é’.causa of actier: to fits the
xWhaA€”‘d-:.=a::..ree or order?
65′;?”:;.::§g:;;§Vs{$V:3.§i£ate his ciaimg piainrtiff exammed mmsezf
‘”:~’=:$ ?.%:’%:’;.3. am gcééioéuced registered partétiezé «dead as Ex.P-1.
“– .l’i;’v§_;?-3″”heizaif’ the defendant, éefendani: was e:x’am§n&§ 33
E*,:éf£.,Vi,–.._’Léxam§neé fzwa witnesses as D.Ws.2 8: 3 and
‘f;:.?2’:;ags,av*,i_:_%:§c”:ed $2 ascurraents which are markes as §x,$-3. to E»:
1?} REA 9§*9¢’a’3tf£
in the year 1960; in faméiy arrangerfjgnt, piaifitif’Ei:§f;va§”béeVn ‘
paid xsaiue of mi? share in the §ifQ§:=_;£§rt3;!’ é’r:. ;2′
Rs.’?S,OG9,»’– by way 9? cheque:~’:V_’£n_V..the “néimes AV;5;f::a.§.:*;Vt%%”’53″sV
wife am son. Theraafterhe ga~g*_}ve_1 ;:’..:E:ett;uer’Eé§i’%§;ji;Aisf§féng hés
rights 9*: the property ta Corporatien cm
the basis cf which..i<atha -~v.:§.5ff'ihe name of
iiefendant. Frcggfi in exciusive
possession af€€–%3V.e'::.;.§e'g_§:tv Gray in the year
199:1 pEain_j1':i3°f_'Vg:Aa §¥;'vjhvivsA.V_§;:a.?ne:..V§Ar¥'serte§d to §ay daim an tha suit
scheduie fifapérty; was chafienged by the
defendagwésfz. as §§I:'§thpe€Etid°n xémich was aiiewed setting aside
sa'§t¥' o§~éje;fV%'aAf:d dfiééted the parties to estabfish their
rifihté~.;ir:V 'av.:V'¢V:§v;*rs;$'&t.ént CM; Caurt. Even etherwése, when
' ""'a§m§tte:j§y,___»9Ea;§.§*ti§t'*f in gettiement cf his maém left the suit
" * 5i.'j';~:a::VE':"e§;.;£e firztéefiy 38 'years back, grior to the date 9? suit, in
§'as§$:V'«.ii'ar%f.§-iearzts muster anfi defendant has perfected his tétie
_ar.§s:erse pessessien. The pragerty taxes are paid hy the
' '«. : 'fiéferzéant. E£ect:*ic¥ty, water connectians stand in the name
" cf éefenciant, In the Weaith ?ax Returns and Irzcame Tax
15 RFA 9§8(-':06
p£aintEff's wife and Rs.3G,800/- in favour G? p§aini:«f:ff'sv j{r1'ifi":§r' M
59:: aged about 2 years on 28—3-19;é32" r*:sg_f:,iy .;a¥§§}§!_t ffiQ~r
yeats prim’ tcs the date of gartitiengit’rifle._nsaid’ “g3§cE’atfa£:§$fu~ ”
states that on acceunt cf iovew a”:<24:':dT"'–affe;'§té'<:~;'jV' '-ashjE'y,VV fi§vi'i?ic;'at
any ccnsicieration :21' money' or«vAVr'2*§eA.."§s_:'ej}'*V'V§LA.y*§orf'h*"'deféndaat
has gifted Rs.'.?5,809;'~ fogsoigdanaes and
unrestricted anjqyr%§:§§'§1t of the
donation i.e.,:' this payment 91'
Rs.7S,§0Cg:f;'§§'§3f can be construed
as 59% <3z;'t§f':2'e' \}a§=.1: é' A§'f_»ti{§"'é'c'heduEe prcperty which wag
paid to the ;3¥aai"r';t§ ff fa?' féiéaéfiuishment of his interest in the
I- 'vé.'<:é*:».eAd:'§L§.$' p:.rcap«'erj;y. krnraa evidence on record skews that
'v£}3§:;:"§v<i in the year 1%? at 'R.s.i,5€/3,398,/~.
,_;&dm§ti:§€!§y,..'a:f§e§ éivisien, no ameunt is mid by tha
_._jf]f – éefendarit_§§é the giaintiff, The afsresaié payment is fem'
*-.v7e§ égAAs-'s_'pu%f§'or ta the éam af partitizm. Theagh piea sf faméigs
'VT"'—.é;9:'ar%ge:'nent, partition, gift, adverse pmsessicra, CiEJSt€?" is
'V"V'A»»..4f.73Ecendit4i’e;1i”-erecetieaffivtot’
proved in respect of piea of advei*«e§”‘.pesee$si_¢n
owner er joint owner of’:’~s§a_aid iiivvé’ étiit fer
partition. Therefore, piea Oi’VGiJASt’é’i”E?}¢3S_.l’§¥'”i;1’i;’:§%iE.’d a piea and
not supp{§rted”rA evii;i’ence;’V'”fl”Fhe piea sf adverse
pessessicriciearly of title cf the piairitiff in
the suit sxghedijie §:’op’erty_, negates the case of partition
z ….. V’ V
._ as course esf conéuct of the parties far
V it 6.. peridé of–..’3U<§ears prior to fiiing ef the suit is concerned,
""'.4e?rij'whiitc_h great reliance is placed, materiai on record shews
ef piaintiff and defendant died in the year 1963;
it .:}:€§}'3*i?&?i was made eut §¥"i the name of the eeferieant oreiy in
i°*. "'t'he year 195?. The defendant's witness D.W.3 has deposed
:8 998iG<:'i
that in the year 1969 khata of the preperty ceuid-.r:§r§'__'__fi'e: '
entered in the name ofjoint owners and eccorc£j.in§';'g€.Vpiieiifliffj' '
has ghren ietter re the Ccrporaticrz 'c;h'*e__n'aAr–n:e'ef
defendant in the katha. Heweyer, in ¢:}*reV.year,_.§;*3'§'1"3o§3r£i"vr 'V
Katha was effected m the names efuéieintiff 'afi_d"'6efefiearit.
Merely because after the'::'deatriV"efe~?§£fgeV"'e'father; khAétha is
made eut in the name of oneT-ef'f;'i1e:'vci3~ii.é:%;ggg~; _f$ no proof of
exciusive titie cf §rhe.TA,p1repérrty irr':whA§'s%e–nrarfie the khathe is
made efvfrre defendant that after
receiving P§s«.}75,.Q0&,.{-j-"'§bx»$?ar{§s'.*:he vaiue of the he}? share,
'the pla£_;n.t%ff g aTare 'a7¥etter relinquishing his right and
I-': 'ret;-2-:;es'r:§rIgi.the'"autherifiee to make out khatha. The said
§e'i':_e!*_.eE:S'*'eVi;Vr:r;r3.3ened. Infect the piaintiff has arse
' *»admittee% Er:v.§*:ie":eir'idence that he has given rte oiagiectéee for
.._/A/'.:A:V"V'§'fiVE-kiflg e£5tV__V;:he ichatha in the name 9? the defendant but
hé'g:"_"r*:~q%_:"jife¥EngL:ishee his right in the property, after taking 9?"
fazhathe in the name of the defendant he started
'V""r»».;$:Seer£ing his titieg the pieintiiff gave 3 ietter is the
Cerporatien ta make eat his name am: in the khatha MEG
{Z
19 REJA 998§i}£§
accordirsgiy the Cerporatéon made eut khatha
name of both the piaintiff and d_efen_dan$;4'..V" V"'"'a;,.;.?7% was
chafienged by the defendant in 'féisevfefere
making ef khathe in the name o?__§i':e_ defeneanfi,'ajfigeeauegnt %
joém: khatha, subsequent fiiing of..aVV':Av§.rEt'..;:;et§i§dn–ibefcgie this
Court in :13 way assést the "eeE:a:f3i.§sVhEng his case
of exclusive titie ef_=tf_1_e p{ope–ft}'.v_" eiectrécity
meter, water the defendant,
that $3 éeaéeadants 5 ever the
property. vv'A1'nfe"ctV was in eccupation ef the
propertyf.-. _It 'is' to pay the tax. Pfaintéff
5 a'c$7'rr3Etj£:"eci«¥yVisaefiat A;:v»e'i§A taxes ail these years and the
de'feri:§_afii the preperty and he has paid taxes.
'~='~The narzfée Q?' Eiefendant is enteree én the register of the
~f'.j';-Vi7je:=poratEee.,__1 It enly means he whose name is ente-tee fie
£.f§eV'.Areg_i.$i;er $3 iiabie ta pay taxee and eefeneant has paié
. 't'§ii;e_Vv;t_exes and eeyonzi that, it éoes net cenfer any right en
%'§ii.:*r°:. Strarzgeiy, the gift tax paid in this case ' negates the
case of the defendant. The expiaraatioéw effered by him E5
52
23% Riifi. Ga
shown to be faise. Infant on the date at’ the g¥ft duéeci ‘
year 1962 M was hardiy aged abQ:.:tw24Ay£§$1;§,”‘
given a gift of Rs.48,0:’;}0/- ané ‘£0
wife and his son was aged abctfiV2:”;%.ear:§.A.”‘ %
reiationship was very cord.i§i in ptV?2éi’§{ea’r..LAf;9t.S.»2″‘b;zec&R:E§e the
piaintiff has Eeft the entifé’;:;fqpé:;§}. és:%}§g–Vj’,}fé:fsas moved out
at’ the house. Takénig ,§dv2§h’E’ag;é;¥ §f..g:fi.g$é’- ‘ézaymenits by
way :3!’ chgqug.éimj;i};h_pwi:f;§i_1′ gift, a case of
partition gs sQ§J_’§k’§;£_-»te__:vA3b.ie .o’_:.2t. If the defendant has
Shawn thié”p{dperty._.«a§.’A’t?§4e~.,j:?§:*Trai evidence are record has rightiy hefid the
n$¢hedu}:$ pmperty is a jeint farniiy preperty. ‘fhere is
acggsisition cf titia by adverse pessessien. The
‘j’*réi_iVn__r§;uéshment of right of the piaintifi’ in the suit scfsedme
“‘—.p:é*epe:*ty is fiat estabiisheci arsd accerdingiy has decreed the
= 12: e’ :~:.a;;s A
2% RFA §9S:”‘{)é
suit. The saici judgment and decree is just and iegai. No
merits’ Désmisseé.
Sd