E IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 2%" DAY or AUGUST, 2013 PRESENT THE HON'BLE Mm. JUSTICE K.L. MAN:bNArHl*d"k AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUsTicE2e.MAfiQHAR=n' REGULAR FIRST APPEAL fie 1565/2003 fpifij BETWEEN: 1. H.V.Ramakantha s/o Vadhrraj§mftd_ Shet, 53 years, Qcc:jProyisienal Stores, R/axK}M.Road,'Kadug,W_T Rukminiyamha*3/oalatervadfiiraj Shet, Oedigfiofisahéld wcrk, 86 years, R/6gSubha§h Nagar, Kadur=:¢wn;,d'"V"='"~' APPELLANTS (By Adv6cateWSr§.fi.Ravindranath famath) :lARD:"a'i= Rn; W """ t "Of CPC against the AH.V;Chafidrahasa s/o Vadhiraja Shetf 55 years, Occ: Jewellery Works,aR/Q}K.M.Road, 'VKadur," RESPONDENT
x?’:’BY Advocate Sri.G.Balakrishna Shastry)
This Regular First Appeal is filed under Sec.96
judgment and decree dated
$3/fl
2
2.9.2003 passed in O.S.No.11/O1 on the file of the
Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Kadur, dismissing’ the suit
for partition in respect of Suit ‘B’. and ‘C’
schedule properties. ” 7
This Appeal is coming on for final hearing this
day, MANJUNATH J. delivered the following{v.’ ‘ W
J U D G M E Nywf
Appellants were the gigjhtiffs in o%s:fio.1l/O1
on the file of Civil Judge (sr$Qn.iL Kadur. Suit
was instituted by dthehfefipellants against the
defendants pclaiming1dhpartition’: and separate
possession¥offtheir”2{§@ share in all the plaint
schedule propei£;esj”,§he’suit was initially filed
before the pcivil 7Judge (Sr.Dn.), Tarikere in OS
_flo.22flQ$j’ On estahlishment of court at Kadur, suit
hwas transferred and remnumbered as OS No.11/01;
“*2. Ehe fleets of the case are as hereunder:
d*A One ,Vadiraj Shet had ‘three children .by’ name
«”fihandrahasa~defendant, Ramakanthawlst plaintiff and
hdsurfiakanthi daughter. Plaintiff No.2 Rukminiyamma
“”~is the widow of Vadiraj Shet who died in the year
A,”
1976. Initially suit was filed by the 1″ plaintiff
against the defendant. During the pendenoy of the
suit, mother of the parties came on record es 2″:
plaintiff. It is the case_of the olaintiffs3that\
plaintiffs and. defendant arey eembei» cf jthe,?jointf’
family and they lived together’ stillst’hé’~~death’=of’
their father Vadirej Shet and thereafter they are
living separately V£ee- the; sehe: of convenience.
However, plaint’scheddlegoroperties which are joint
family propertiesfhereu treetedl as joint family
properties and on the gronnd that plaint Bwschedule
propertg is standing i§ the name of 1″ defendant is
claiming exolusive right over the same and that C-
.~Scheddlei’profiertym_is purchased. out of the joint
v”fart;ily–vV_vinco1fie_, plaintiffs filed the suit for
partition and separate possession.
»ffd3f’xgDefendant contested the suit on the ground that
flate-Vadiraj Shet came to Garje village of Kadur
llTalnk long back from North Canara District and
d”thereafter shifted to Kadur Town. He was a gold-
fiw
fimifin by fifififfififiiflfiw fie acqairad plaint1§,an§ B
sahedule jpxaperzias ad. 3 grwaeryf s§o§fi §§é:ia1sa
being run at Kaénrwfiangaloxe EOaQ;_ ¥qEhe’–fi§i§
daughter Suryakanti waa givan fig arrigga aga 55¢ %
has been living separately wifi#>har’¢h§lfi§é§*%ftgr
the dmath mf hax husfiéfifi; §¢¢m$fl£fi% Vfim fifim,
prcperty 13 agquifefi fi§mfi%%§§rgj\ fiefl wag selfw
acquirwd pr0@erties’§§§ Q§£_§fif;§¥$ amd affectian
Bugahedule §r駧rti§$g%éré §$@§§§é in favmur cf the
defendant; 3;;-‘;’%c:c>1;é$§3″*w.. Settieznent; Daed and
sim§&:$han §$§$§daafi”has became the absalute awner
af pl§in§~ Ewscfieéuié. praperty and tkat the
_V defefifiant” wa§ “g1$a d9ing* businegs indeymdently.
‘fi&t mi §i$7&ardw&arned mmnay ha purchasea a site in
L§u§£;¢”7§ua§ibn and canstructad, buiiding therecn
whi@h §$”éhQwn as Cmsahedule praparty. Tfierefore,
‘ §eg¢a§%e&ded that E% amd C schedule prm§erties as
–} Ei$ $&if~acquixed §rmp@rtie$. He further aontands
Vum%hat Qne mf the pra§erty has alga hen acquired out
Qf the gmint family gncameg a site in he name Qf
61/
the 1″ gsiaigxtiff and thamafter 3 hmme ‘mas bééfi
mmnstruatad andT tharefaze dafamfiant; 13 alga
entitlefi ta alaim 3 share in %he 331$ gzapegty’ I3
the circumstanmefig 3 aaunter claim was aifié gag by
the fiefiendamt, $a$&fi an the ab$%: §i%#§§§g§,
failawing issues wara framed by aha céfififi fiei$#:V
1. Whether the plaintiff §%¢vaég£§§t”fi§f$§ong ‘
with the defandant afifi_:ate,f3thar}¥éfiiraj
Shet Vera runnimg the grmwaryxfifiqp and %y
utilizing the jeifit ‘a=_arnir:g.%;”§o;$$esse§. the
muit pra§er§;as?A»~_*_” “~. I
2, Whethar, the pia;fiti§£ prwvea that the
*”&éfa$damt” mafiaged Mia get settiamant fiaad
3 fr$fl:”tfieV<€&th%;– in re$peat. mi' B. schedule
"prmper@y? '-T
35 :~:r;;e=%;1»;<e;{;~_'Vi;1ri%ee_' fgsviaintiff pistmres that am said
* "settfiament éeed mat acted upan ana it was
"5. Qm:y far —- «the managamant mg the family
§r§§gxti&$?
gra.’ %§ym:;e: the plaintiff prmrefi that the ‘B’
$;’::;a:1___ VG’ scheciulfi pxepertiesgs blesnéad with
,t%$”jeint iamiiy?
‘xv 59’fi%at%er the dafemfiant praves that Vafihiraj
fixet purchafied the suit: p3::@ert.:Les by his
individual earnings amd thare is no fiaint
faxnily nuaieus?
5. fihather fihe defandanfi pxovas tkat vadhiraj
shat. has purchased the ‘ B 5 schédule
§r§§erti$s amt af his earnimgg anfi exeautefi
(3/1
10:
11 .
{‘1
the settlement deed dated 21.6.1976 in his
favour and he constructed a hotel building
by borrowing loans from Vysya Bank and Veda
Finance in his individual capacity?,ie
proveswogthatux he
schedulejfproperty1°as
defendant
NC,
Whether the
purchased the
vacant site by
constructed the residential”»fhouSeW
it is self–acquired property?=?.
Whether the de£éndant”,pr9ves “that ‘his
sister Smt.Suryakenthi is “a proper and
necessary party to the suit and the suit is
bad for non&jcinder_of necessary party?
Whetherp the_ plaintiff’ ptefies that he ais
entitled, for the_’re;ief,’of partition by
mates and bounds and separate possession of
his share? V
pwhether the pieihtiff is entitled for mesne
profits?”fa
Whether the-plaintiff is entitled for the
accounts of the suit property?
VWhat”order?
Aee;).:es¢ee:,c
ig
“Whether the defendant proves that he is
“.entitled for the share in the written
statement schedule properties?
Whether the plaintiff proves that the
written statement schedule properties are
the self acquired properties?
3%’
auction on _18,9g1976″uand_
, u byir
raising loan in his individual capacity and L
7*’
in arder ts prmré their raggacztivw; canfiaantimnsg
lalaintiffa 1 & 2 Wéiffi gab exa.m.::.Z.ne«d as
they relied upen E:r;.s.E»-E, ta 8. §C.§
examined hixagelf as mum ¢_r’=;.’-“:3..:§.<4.a:¢;i" AV
evidence af three witnessaa w@if§e:A.A'A3e:;a3§a;§g.:§<:,p§§3I;._VV;,s
mvxmz :$ a and zarsarma is no:;ie»::§§w,he$~
1" glaintiff azzé ._E:}T€'f;.en\\cxosrmidering the
entire I as partly 373:: the
a£’fix’E§:a_tiv’§.1
in 6 , ‘? aim; Add}. . E53329
340.2 and ugtimatmy decxeefi am
5111?: 5* -scarf ‘t.”:§§a’Vw.vp3..”a.i%§.*.E,iff in gzaart holdaizzg that
‘;§3-4£1§;37£;t§:~§i”f$§” ganci &?飒encia::t;$ are tagether antitlaa ta
1′.’:.»f::*%é¢}’1 in glaint A~–$che&ule ;::3:mp%rtfg amfi
d;tZ.§$:’a:_3″K5sv;_s:§<::*,:.VLA<}'%:1A":§a alaim cf the plaizatfidffs in ragard ta
':2: & 3 aria similaxiiy the claim image: hy the
, :3je¥'i*-2:;ida.za%.: wag gist: difiiiiifififid by the jzzfigzmnt agzd
.£iéc§ee mam 2.9u2Gt:3« Being mt fiatigfied with
the gran": af dearea in ragyact af &-s<::haduE.e
6/
yroparty anfi claiming a ghare in p3~ain:;"V.:FB;–«.:';»:;1:i Q
schedule prepertiesg plaintiffs hava3.A4":—-ca§§:a "' ',3':
this aweal. Againgt me d*:i._:§2§;i….:.~:=gsa.: _15a;§L§nt;§e¥;:*
claim respcrzdent. has :':c..":i* ~. I
saparateigzu In this %3.u:i~.'3[§§rQunfl; _w::%_ hax;%é""2;a$rd tiitaé
caunsel §$;l:' the paxtgies.
Q , ffhe main aonten’§c!§%fo¥’z§VV Kamatl:
before 1:25 15*’ :”A?;h€2; Deefi mazrlicad as
E:s:.?—-6 w¢u,1i;:i right in favmtr af
the am:¥e5rQdl;ai:§%:;»v__V plaint Bmaahedule
p3::c;pea-:r”&;y .7. him, his fathuer Vaaliraj
She%: had mxifiv’ the defendant to image anezi
:§:iia;in%:.’é.§iirz : pf: aint A V Sfihficiiilfi pramrty i ihareficxe
p51gi’r;t.’i;f’§fsAV:AM ” entitiad €110 claim aqaai ahare
— = thm:°é3¥f_.aix, is alga} his @353 that trig; gaurt dig
cm’1$.’.’:,g;’ §ter that mm af aim income frcsm thaa joint
fisusizmasa Qf gamaery gimp Cwacshefiazle gsxmfwxty
_ §pu:<:mha:3ed 3232 aha mama af tha dafendagat 938,
V ' ' ~ Znéiiilfiirgg wags aanstmzcited later , iiherafora
"§.1a:;;.:1t:§.ff$ ara antitied ta ciaim 3. fihara in S»
3/.
9
schedule property. In the circumstances, he
requests the court to remappreciate the_ entire
evidence so far as the evidence let .ind$h¥_ the
parties in regard to their claim in’ respect agf
plaint B and C schedule properties and granting of’
a decree in ‘those properties WaIso{*i.Per”icontra,d’
counsel for the respondent contends “thatfi Ex§P46
clearly shows that; Vadirajtvfihet has .settled. the
property out of love and aifiection in favour of his
son Chandrahasawdefiendantiabsoiutely and therefore
plaintififs’ cannotp cream ‘any share in plaint B-
schedule propertf;:”i$o far as C-schedule property
H_is concerned, he contends that even during the life
VWtifie of father of the parties, defendant had his
own income and business and out of the same in the
‘year 1376 site was purchased in public auction for
:a sum of Rs.2000/– and later on he constructed a
” building by raising the loan from the bank. In the
dgcircumstances, he requests the court to dismiss the
RV
ii
maintenance as aontended& by the $§§§;iant$.
Therefere, in order ta camsider the zighfig bf tfig
partges in Bwschedulef wa }xra’ws.*–.&tc€ icfiiisizfé .i”n%;a – ‘the
racitala 6f the Sattlement Dééd gfodufiéd aa Ex §r§. A
Parties admit that thei£ §a§h@fi”Vadgkajféhéfl waé a
xesidant cf Garje ,vi:1age. a§a_ laEéQ~~§hi£tad to
Kadmx’ and. ant ‘of’ hi$ “éar§§n§ Egg V; galdgmith. he
acquired p1a;n§W B«@é$é%fi§§£ p;é§%%fiy. Then tha
plaint Bfi34hefi#§§~ §fiapéE§y_’ is aeifmacguired
yrgperfiy sf fi$é%£ath%r; fhawénly questimn is umdar
the Se£t1¢$fi§”f§§e§ii%$J per. Ex.Ew6 whather the
d@fendantV%a$.p&rfiifim%fi ta manage tha prayexty Q?
,%as véfi. écmveyéflu ta him absmiutaly ig the only
Vq$e$fiiQng”a$fié,re¢ital under Ex.§~6 readg tfiat thg
V_v abwV§”§x¢p$§fi§ has béen givan absmiutaiy in favuur
: u Qf the fiéfiefifiant Chandrahasa. ?his raaita; we havw
‘f g¢ti¢e@« immadiataly aftar the schadaie by
‘ x_&@$é;:§ing the prfipery givan under the fiettiamemt
V ‘i&fiééw in viaw 9f the reeital in Ex.?»5, paint R$-1
‘” has ta fie helé agaimat ihe aypellanta.
8/
2%:
?. $0 far ag point flo.2 is a¢m¢erné§g é§m§tfi&fi&y,
fiefandant has acquired .C:$¢h&$fi1e? §rQp&$$§W by
gartlaigating in the gublifi afic$1§m; fifififlgh it ia
aantmdaé. that mane? hé$;”—§eefi’v-figéaéwd ~’_.”‘§:§.2°>.t
family incemeg siaae mg é#®fi$gcé $3 1§fi in to Shaw
t&e xifitanca mi %%é_fi¢in% fg§31y and its incameg
when the de£gmfian&”§§§ fig; %@fi§£fi@ame and buainefifi
and by .fi3tfi¢q’§f *the=fbus£fiess inflame if the
fi&fQii’§$,§,§73§.T.u”v}’fi’§E£.$1.::,_@’§I:.f§’¥ii3C33;5€€53»._ :.–::?:ite in a ;m1bf;,31c auctian
and éQn$t$§§@éd hfii§fiihg by barrawing 1033 frwm the
flank? &Qfitgfi€§bfi’£§f fihe apgeliamts aannat he
__ acaépfied. Rik; gagent. avifiemce is let in iby the
»§§ei@amt§” ta shaw’ that Qwsahedmla pra§exty’ W33
‘a¢§uif$fif.¢fifi of the emntrikutimn ma&% by the
‘V p1駧£iff$ anfi canstratien was dame an accaumt af
math@_fiaancial assistance cfl ma plaintiffs. §he
fififiingg mf the trial court 15 hafied an he yrapar
Wéppreaiatian mf evidenae and pleadiflgs and that tfia
trial cauxt is jufitified in refiecting the miaim of
aha plaintiffs in zespegt Qf flmsaheduie §z5party.
fip/