Loading...

K V Puttashetty vs K S Paramesh on 30 November, 2009

Karnataka High Court
K V Puttashetty vs K S Paramesh on 30 November, 2009
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30"' DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE Aw.vENoGoPALA...G'oy§q'ba0* 

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.115.7../,  A A 1'

BETWEEN:

 Siififsaffadya,

K.V. Puttashetty,  _ '
8/0. Late Venkataramana Shettyy,
Dead by LR's  

1(a) Shivakumar Shet'ty.,,_ _
S/o. Puttashettyfi ~  fl , _
Aged about 40 years,  '

1(b) Tu|asina~t'r1j,Vy:y." 

S/"O"; .~<..V.;\z';. PdVt:'E:a'sh'etty,'
:Aged.abo.uVt..V_3"8yy'ear3, . '

1c) 1.a'k..ghma Kvufiwt-ir,  
D/0. Oif..\/V. Put~tashetty,
 'Aged ab'o;4_t"34 years.

.. "  _t3/o'. _i'<y..\/'.-Puttashetty,
 A A-ge«ci'_abVo.u't 27 years.

1 (e). Ja__yasb~'éei a,
..D/''-;_). K.V.Puttashetty,
Aged about 25 years.

0 =.V1"(f)Alijayaiakshmi

D/0. K.\/.Puttashetty,
Aged about 24 years.



1(g) Prabhavathi,

D/o. K.V.Puttashetty,

Aged about 22 years.
1(h) K.P. Komala,
D/o. K.V.Puttashetty,
Aged about 20 years,
All ARE r/O. Basavangudi b
K.R. Pet Town,
Mandya District.

(By Sri. V.Srinivas, Adv.)
AND:

KS. Paramesh,   :
S/o. Late Stddas_hetty,,.-- '
Aged about 4.4«yea_rs,  _, 

R/o. Agrahafa Beedicaiv, 

K.R. Pet Towty,   
Mandya DisstVrt'c.t,i, '  

Mandya --. _t;'

eetdti ','~ .

T.   LL_i§\i\tT'S:  " .

_..RESPONDENT

ThiVst”R S’AVits-__fEied’«1’5thder Section 100 of cpc against
theft:}Vudgmet{t’~._.at}d ‘Decree dated 25.1.2008 passed in

V R’._.E\.No”.tE;’s9:/ZQO6 (om No.51/2004) on the file of the Civil
3t;d’gee;j-gstst.’t2Ve¢§.sion), & JMFC., Krishnaraja Pete, dismissing

.th»e”tappea’l.’j_a.rid confirming the Judgment and Decree dated

12″‘;*.t.2t’oo4’passed in o.s.235/92 on the file of the Civii

..Jt1%dge;s—{‘}r.Decision), & 3M:’=c., KR. Pet.

‘ This appeal coming on for admission this day, the

= ..-Court delivered the f0ilOwEng:~

property of the plaintiff and hence, suit was filed for the

said reliefs.

2. The suit was contested by the

filing written statement. He adrni’tt«ed iivsfbthe

maternal uncle of plaintiff. VAccoééd_ilra–gA”to the *~d,efe’ii:l:cil’an’t,._V

one Siddashetty S/o Kala Shet.t:y’*..pf Bharatl–pu_’i’_aufiilvlage was” V

residing at KR. Pet “‘f”ow..n property by way
of a grant and was Said
smdasheuy had no eggggganaaas was had med nithe
year 1967 are hekuas under no Care nu hm death. Itis
his ciase” executed a will dated
10.12v:.”:_9£’3:7,’ suit property in his favour

and also d’e.livered._ all theloriginal document of title. It was

st.a_jt’ed,’._,A’§f’ia_t, pla’in.t.iff’s claim is unsustainable, the suit is

‘ shad» for,:rloii.:jo~i_nder of necessary parties and is also barred

‘bviwnuaufin§

Based on the pleadings, Trial Court framed the

‘g_’f’o-il-owing issues and additional issues:

l/.

/,

i) Whethm’ the plaim’ii’§” proves that he is the
absoiute owner in p0ssess1’on of the suit.

s<'?hedL1ie pr0pe1*t.y by Vir'i'ue of i.h.£:i_T'~.gra:1:'11.

('e1'ti1'ic211e 1'ei'erred £0 at para 1 of ,-T.:1:1t"."}")'~:..£'-V'v1i.I1__V'1 -1é_;'1" _

fav()L.1r of his lmiler'?

ii] Whether fhe def’e11dz1hf1′. p-licnyiesh’–1.ha’1″-he’fig

owner in possessxionJ)1°–._1he s.i.;;r1″ s§(rhed”uié’–..

prc)pe:”t.y for the V” “.;ja1:’1}Vj’Vzi’1″‘2′:”*4 of”

written s3ia1.en1e11i.’?_____VV”- _ K V
iii} Whether j.L$l’c1i:.IV1A1vé’i£~7{: ‘. ij’3TQV€S “the alleged
i11terE’t.’h-£§ d.efetédani proves Lhai the suii is
” VV 4’ bad.i}:51’~.lt’ioki”j.Q’i”1’3 der of necessary parties?

Addi€–i.o1’1a.1V I55 L1t?§u;§ ‘ ”

VV VV’H€’i”.h.§E__1_’__”vihC piaimiff proves that, his Ember”

. ’11_a.n1e1y S1’i.Sidciash.ei.1′.y was granted suit
Vhv$vfi£’?v1%1_’,t=.”.(hi1<;'. p1'0pc*:1'1y by the G-ovi. vide
"xi'QAiasi..C0mmiss.i0ne1' for disposal of Dharkasth.
"vMys<.n'e and Manclya {')ist1"ic1.s. as for order
N0.SP1.:D{)R/40/60-61 dated 30.:196'1?

vi)

(3

Whether the pia1′.I1tifI’ proves that the Tahsildas”.
KR. Pet issmed g:”a1111. (*e1’t.ifieate to plaintiff”:-3.
I”a’:.he1″ in 1’es;.)e(.’.1 of st-mil. schedtlle pr()pe1*iy?

Whether the p1ainEiiTp1′()ves his title to the suit

S(Tht’dL11C property’?

Whether the defendant proves that stat
property was g1~a1’1teCE to
Ka1as}1etty of B1’1a1’atipuI’a. . ‘
Asst.Cemmissiones” f0 He1i’Spe,sa1_ of
I’\/Iysore and Mandya –;de:j

No.SPL/DIDR/44f60.;V61 ttclatteci 3Q”.’e:,11.9_a1 and v

{hereafter the ‘I’21I*1§i*1..r;.1’a1’ issLie~d_ ‘§};:’an1″:<;ertificaE.e
to him dz11e:d,{1.9. 1.96 x . 't V'

Whether' the VeEe£'et-1.dé§h}t that Siddashetty
S/o.AV_Ka1ashe1':1':y '-QE" 'txillage executed

_Wiv1'§_..c1_g1t.3VL1«1.(2:’f) 1″‘Q.pe1″1′.y’?

Vt”»._4Whei.Vhe1;¥t1″ie.:_if;21ief of declaration of title sought

E3y”‘t:.f1ej>1a1ii1tiI”£”is barred by Iinlitation’?

.44vAP’:..aintiff has deposed as PW–1 and has

e>€a_n1in’ed_”_v.4}’egiitnesses. Defendant has deposed as DW–1

artdhasiexattmined 4 witnesses. For the piaintiff, E><s.P1 to

P21__ have been marked and for the defendant, Exs.D1 to

'nave been marked. On appreciation of evidence, Trial

Ry

e /

Court answered issue Nos. (i), (iii) and additional issues (i)

to (iii) 8: (vi) in the affirmative and issue No.(ii), add'i.t:i'o.na!

issue Nos.(iv) & (V) in the negative. As a

findings, suit was partiy decreed.

5. Aggrieved, defendantiifi 2′ firstv_..’gAa’ppea”i

assailed the judgment of Tria§..i.’:C’ourt, “both~.or”i_i”and int’

iaw by contending th¢a”t,._.there”isngnoirr..e0nsiderat”ion of his

case in the proper perisiiprectiivei’iantjiitfiat’,-appreciation of

evidence is bad’:a;n_’d iil§j–A_’=ga:,l».’;}

6. V -wCo:~nV:iii_:dering.’tithe. Vrivaiivig. contentions of parties,
learned A_p.r)Ae’!’ii’ateV_fitigdgeihas.raised the foliowing points for
consideration: ‘ V

‘”i}_ V\fhAeE’h’er the trial court. erred in f1*arning proper
” ‘ – . . . H «

i’:aVs’Lies together for dis(‘ussir.)11’?

‘~_Whei.he1′ the trial rrourt erred in taking ail. the

i_i.i”}* _n:~’VVhC’i}1€?I” the jticigment and decree of the irial
ctouri Calls for any rrlodificaticm at the hands of

this CC)Ui”1(.’)

‘ iv) Whai order’? XV

7. After examining the record and after re»
appreciation of evidence, learned Appeiiate Judge has
answered points No. (i) to (iii) in the negative and as a
resuit, has dismissed the appeal. This second avpp’eaI.. is

directed against the said judgments / decrees. i’ H’ ‘V

8. Sri V. Sririivas, iearned advocate–auppVea–ri:ng

appeilant contended that, Triai :£:;OLAl:IF-t::’V’Ai:v’:’3″‘n>O.:t.’.’jVUétéf%fl”d\nag”?

decreeing the suit in part and__ theiiovver ago’piieVi.|ate

has erred in dismissing the firs’t.._a’ppeaiV,–‘ plaintiff
has faiied to produce th4_e”V«0rig_Vina.I.At’iti.e»d’eed of property

and thva’ti”‘tiieA:’:j;Vev’i’dfe’nce~on reco’rd”:cieariy admits that, the

possessi_orig’_of’ Jishwith defendant / appeiiant.

He further”-«cionterideditthat, appreciation of evidence by

Cgourts”‘be.i.o.w, is perverse and illegal and hence

‘t.hé~iimvpijgn’ed’-judgments have given rise to substantial

q’uestions’.VofVieavv, which are required to be considered by

this “Coijr;t, in exercise of the jurisdiction under 8,100 CPC.

_ V Point for consideration is: X
/

9

” Whether the impugned judgments have given rise
to any substantiai question of Saw to admit this

second appeaE?”

10. Plaintiff — PW–1 has produced 21 docurhents.

Exs.Pl to P5, P14 & E315 are the RTC of

Exs.P6 to P8 are the tax paid receipts. P9lis…tf§e’~death

certificate of Siddashetty. Ex.P1O patta

Ex.P11 is the loan discharge endorsement. is noti”ce”g

of the bank and repayment Ex.VP~1p3″‘isV-I tippani,

Ex.P16 is the re–survey~-i_recotd_.:A is Hvvmahazar.

Ex.P18 is the grant certifieaté”.’ViEéxfitgi.ji3_’_the office note

relatirigfltov thesketch of the suit property.
Ex.P21xis the grant certificate. P\/V-1 has

reiterated casehfpieadééd in the piaint. PWs 2 and 3 are

rel.ativesVVot’Apiaintiff and defendant. They have

_stated stiit property was granted to the father of

piai._nVtiff,V..yyh–o’iV.was in possession and enjoyment of the

Hsame “tyiiiA’1~his death and thereafter, the property is in the

V.’-V’pos_sje’ssion and enjoyment of the piaintiff. PW–4 is the

fahsiidar of K.R.Pet Taiuk who has depofd about the

H)

grant of the suit property in favour of Siddashetty. PW~5

is the person who has attested the signature…Vof]tVhe

grantee — Siddashetty. Their evidence has

accepted by the Courts be|ow.MAs «hsaid

evidence, defendant has deposedgas:_-DW–‘4:i;ri,.an.d”-ex’a:rnin.edé

the attestors to E><.D1
came Ato=..gthe 'defendant has also been

con:side.red and__Vc'o"rrectIy appreciated. The material fact of

the su;'it"pro«p_erty having been mortgaged in favour of the

.b'a'ri!§A a»n"d._i'_ts:V."discharge has been correctly assessed. On an

overa|!__"assessment of the evidence, the learned Trial Judge

..ha__s held that the property had been granted to plaintiff's

";:fath'er — Siddashetty and after the demise of the grantee,

" -~-plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit

l/

property with which the defendant interfered, which can be
inferred from the fact that, the defendant attemptedto put
forth claim on the suit property on the basis

alleged will of Siddashetty.

11. The finding of fact b’y””t*hegTrial.”Co’urt,i-afte-r

examination, has been affirmed by lea’i’ne’d., lud–ge.,Vof._V

the first Appellate Court. theft

Courts below are purerfindin,g”Ofi.fact1’TE”he find~ing’s are with
reference to the material’e’v-ideinceii’:plaLc’ed on record by

both the parti,es,: =-The,Adefeildajntfsi..atte’irnVpt to create doubt

regard’i’n’g’ idiehtity-.vof’the””g’ra§ntee — Siddashetty, has
rightly”‘-been in view, the parties being

related toi”eéich,ot_he~r”an-d the evidence that has come on

re._cjo:rd,_.ilnci,,uding”tti.a.t«PWs 2 and 3, who are the brothers of

‘ thlelcief,e’ndan”t,~-_supports the case of the plaintiff.

12′. .:’In view of the above, since the circumstances

..rel_ati.n”g to the custody of Ex.D1 being with defendant, has

explained by the plaintiff, which circumstance has

V» ..–rightly been appreciated by the Courtsxbelow and since

both the Courts beiow have referred to the materiai
evidence on record and have drawn correct inference on
appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, no

substantial question of Jaw arises for considerationyv.t:”~.._

In the resuit, the appeai stands rejectet§’,~..Vfor.A_1wanthof b

substantial question of law.

sac*    '

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information