IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 215? DAY OF' OCTOBER 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K GOVINDARAJIJAL-U_«'I' "
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.18O4/.Zd(}8. '
BETWEEN: I I I I I
JAVANEGOWDA
S/ O LATE MADEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 4-3 YEARS, VV
R/AT ADAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, .
CHATRA HOBLI, NANJANGUD M H
MYSORE DISTRICT. " ' A AA ._...APPELLANT
(BY SR1 R.GEORGEv.LAZARU---SADVII:~__ I '
SMT CHAND'RAMMA:','~ I '
D/O MADEGOWDA, -
R/AT NO.671,... 391,3 "
ARA\7IND.ANAGAR,
..PRES.E3NTIJ'{ RESIDING AT
""" "
/O ..L_A'1fE'RAMEGoWDA,
SR1. BUvAN§;:=.wA121 BRICKS,
S.NCz__128/2.. DEVAIAHNAHUNDI
I NIAIN ':2zoAD,'S"R1RAMPURA 2ND STAGE,
1. HEAR EID PARRY INDIA LTD.,
«:23. ...RESPONDEN'£'
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W
I .:'_4:'OI€;;IV)ER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST mm JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 18.02.2008 PASSED IN R.A.NO.32/03
ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, [SR.DI\§.) AND
NANJANGUD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRIVIING
THE JUDGMENT AND DEGREE DATED 13.06.'2Q'9.3'-_
PASSED IN OS 05/01 ON THE FILE OF
JUDGE, [JR.DN.} NANJANGUD.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON x++oRAmnss;QN
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE _
Plaintiff in os 5/2001 gi~1.civi1
Judge (Jr.Dn.], in this
appeal under Section
fijitiif seek for an order of permanent
' ..._'3
nu,
injunetioaifeoiitendirxg that in a partition, the mother
0 .VSmt".';'Mada.1iiii;1a is given a limited right and that the
is that she shouid enjoy the property
her life time and thereafter it should come to the
"'<:VVVVplaintiff. Inspite of such a writing, the defendants claim
title under a will as there is no right to Madamma to
execute the will. The approach of the CourtsV.VVr'.._':is._V
improper. So, pray for orders.
4. Perused the records.
5. As against the hi for
permanent injunction,' is that
Madarnma has .ve2;ec_1ite§l"'a"veill is in
possession of"tl;_eV is not entitled
for the
6. ..---framed issues. Permitted
parties to lead ._:'evic.1eri'c.el"' ll PWs.1 to 3 were examined.
to P';1p9 wleremnliarked. in response DWS 1 to 3
to D.8 were marked. Learned
l _ trial Judge veiiile dismissing the suit of the plaintiff has
a1:.sw'ered--~«:' the following issues with the following
_' T. _reason's:
4
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the
owner of the schedule property?
2. Whether the defendant proves that her" S
mother executed registered will dated-.deV'_~ ' V
16/4/1987 bequeathing the sche.du1e.._ H
property in her favour? '. .. , ..
3. Whether the plaintiff proves if if
lawful possession of the sch.ed'1_1_le ' " 2
property as on date of snit'? '
4. Whether the defendant_4_eproves
suit is barred hj/*..1aw_of resjju dieate? '
5. To what decree or
.A Issue' No-. 1»
* uIssue'NVo.2j~_:
Issue No.37;
Issue No."4
» Issue
..
In the negative
“inthe positive
“Inu..’ithe negative
Partly in the positive
As per the final order.
for the folloWing:–
aieire-ashes preferred appeal in RA 32/2003 at
_’ e(:o’r1si’deration and answered them as follows:
Civil “‘r.Iudge-,eA(Sr.Dvn.) er JMFC, Nanjangud. Learned
Jiidge has raised the following points for
/Z»-»/”‘
POINTS
1. Vifhether the plaintiff/appellant proves
that he is also the owner in possession
of suit schedule properties and
defendant is interfering his possession? ‘* . – ~ V
2. Whether the Respondent/defendants2
proves that her mother …has e-xec’ut’e_Vd
will date 16-4-1987 b;equea£hing’i’
suit schedule properties in h’_er~favour?.’ A ~ A
3. Whether the appellant./plaintiff_proves’~
that the judgment and ..decree of the trial
Court are iliegai, perverse’;
unsustainable ‘ and inptei-ference of this
Court is required? ‘ V ‘
4. Whatpvorder 7 ~ V
” Point No; if V: in the negative
F’o,int,No.2 it In the positive
-V _ Point No.3 :’ In the negative
_ Point N0.4i…_;.v As per final order, for
I H” ~ the following:–
” Iiefarne’d..–advocate for the plaintiff contends in
g view of the p-airttition as per EX.P.12, the property should
it it ” l.°r.evert__bac’k: to the plaintiff after the death of his mother.
of the sister viz., the defendant in claiming
T “title under the will is not proper. So, it is not properly
appreciated by the Courts below and also there is an
improper assessment of the evidence in regard toV_t1E1e
will. Suspicious circumstances are not removed.
pray for admission of the appeal.
9. in view of Section 14(1) of ;
Act, even though Mad-amma
right under EX.P.12, ‘said ahsolute
right. In view of this I not merit
in the case 03″ d the stage of
adinissiéla, d it ‘:77
Sd/3
1 11191929