IN THE HIGH COURT op' KARNATAKA AT %
DATED THIS THE 15% DAY OF SEPFEER/'iB~EI5{VA.2OO9 3 S
BEFOEE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUE3T{'ICE s;1§;"sATYA'N;AQRAi*A1€:A"E V
R.s.A.No.3'2§4= OF 2636
BETWEEN:
1
V R] on v:L1.Aé_E
MYSORE _--'57c- 00 1.
LINGACHARI V V' : '
s/0 LATE SIDDACHARI-- _ AV
ADOPTFEZD /O¥MA.DACHA;RIj E V
AGE.,3_ABo"u"1'.,s's ms, ; V
AGaR1C:'5Lfr'GRIsT.jjBY" PROFESSION
S/OELATE sIL~.DAcHAR1
' * AD0P'I'ED' 's/0' MADACHARI
I AGED AB'OLI'.IT«62 YRS
""AGR1«CULTURIST BY PROFESSION
~ .1,R~,fQ.r1A.NcHYA VILLAGE,
' - TALUK--57O 001
V_NA;R'AYANCHARI
H /0 LATE SIDDACHARI
gA}3OP'E'ED s/0 MADACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 54 YRS
AGRICULTUREST BY PROFESSION
R/O HANCHYA VILLAGE
MYSORE TALUK-570 O01.
... APPELLANTS
(By M/ S: VISVVANATE-I ASSOCIATES )
W
AND:
1
1a.
1b.
1c.
22%;.
2b.
PUTTASAMACHARI
S / O LATE SIDDACHARI
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS1:
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES"-« G A
JAYALAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE PUTTASOMACPLARI
AGED ABOUT 59 ms
R/O
MYSORE TALUK--57.0 1
SR: MAI-LADEVACHDARIV -, I
s/0 LATE '£>UT;:As0LéIAcHAR1V' "
AGED Q-u3QU9r 39 1' _'
V R] 0. 1{1ANCjI_:--1YA'*.IjLI.AGI3:;"' '
MYSQRE TALUE£r_57Q 001.
- SR1'
s/GLATE l?U'ITA.SOMACHARI
;' ~ AGED'-ABOUT :29 YRS,
__R/_O VILLAGE
ES/IY_S0_RE 'I'ALUK--570 001.
..fi's1§bArfiHAR1
DECEASED BY LRS
. "'§1AY}=;MMA
' GAGE: MAJOR
'R/O NO 182,
HANCHYA VELLAE
MYSORE TALUK-570 001.
SMT SIDDAMMA
D/O LATE SIDDACHARI
W/ O DEVALINGACHARI.
'M
MAJOR
R/O CUBBONHALLI
MANDYA TALUK--57() 001.
2c. SMT s CHENNAJAMMA
D /0 LATE SIDDACHARI '
W/O NARAYANCHARI,
MAJOR
R/O NO 182.
HANCHYA VILLAGE ~> .
MYSORE 'I'ALUK-- 570 001-.__
2d. SMTPREMA ._ s
D/O SIDADAC}£ARI., _ '
j
R/OE%._TO . ' ' "
R/Q"H'e.N€vHf{A '
001.
26. SMT NAGARAT§:1NAr;aMA
D/O.,siDVDACI.¥ARI.~~'
5 ~ AGE:MA,JO'R '
__R/Q ViLLAGE
MYSQRE ~ 570 001.
* .:fjs13k£*r%':3Ufi7rAL1NGAMMA
MOTHER OF PUTTASOMACHAR1
raga ABOUT 59 YRS
'R/o HANCHYA VILLAGE
" _ MYSORE TALUK--570 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(By snrr N RAGHUPATHY, ADV.,FOR R1{a–c)
R2a,2C, 26 ARE SERVED )
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 012* C90 AGA1Ns*1f.._THE
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DT.21.O8.2O06WPASSED’e. IN
R.A.NO.44/2002 ON THE FILE 014′ THE ‘_:3RL–;1’;–1sTE,1cT
JUDGE, MYSORE, DISMISSING THE AND»
CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT DT.
28.02.2002 PASSED IN os.No.1.-s*s/-1.991′ o_N QE’ ;
THE PRLCIVIL JUDGE {SR.DN.):=MYS.ORE§:_ 1 ‘
THIS R.S.A. COMING *O_§\I Eon A;oM1ss’:o.I$§_TH1}s
THE c:_’_oURT DELIVERED THE-v1«foLLo\zgz1r~J<:;;+: *
,JUosMEE§'
This is p1a1nttifs_§" Tapppiealp challenging the
.concurrent fin:éiir_1_gs xhelow, wherein, the
plaintiffs .wh0"are"see1:1_ng.deciaration that they are owners in
possession. of E~O%V'share"in suit schedule Item No.1, which
agcordping Works out to 3 acres 14 guntas in the said
.Vit'em:"'1\f1o.1'~.and exclusive possession of one of the house in
A suit I~$¥o.~f2.~'& 3 house, which is said to have come to their
As-harev'in:fan oral partition, taken piace about 10-15 years
pp priozatlo filing of the suit. On dismissal of the said suit and
* appeal by both the Courts below, the plaintiffs are in
second appeal before this Court.
“*1
2. The essential facts leading to this as
under: –
The plaintiffs and defendants:iilarvelrnemloersv is
family of one Lingachari, who is said to’ havel.Cii.ed in thiéyeaga
1930- 1931. Admittedly, lifigachafii. _ had-ithrvee “children,
two sons and a daughter °KempachaI”i
and daughter~Doddathafisfarf1rna. to plaintiffs,
l\/Iadachari Zwas “_’iss1ie-lessi 11e’~,f’OQ}v; adoption one Sri.
Siddalchlarilisonutiflliis’sister dS”rn’t;fl4Doddathayamma. Plaintiffs
ciairrlin the sons of said Sicldachari.
Accordingtov father Siddachari had in all four
.<_;'o';«1s,__Lti;ey are"'pla,i.n'tiffs 1 to 3 and another whose name is
la}so'v._Si~ddac'haI'i, who inturn is given in adoption to
" .l)'oddath7é1yainma's husband Kempachari and his second Wife
Posttathayamma, the said Siddachari is second defendant in
if the original suit. 13' defendant is one Puttasornachari, only
of Kempachari {the second son of propositus Lingachari
l <3: younger brother of Madachari).
“*1
3. It is the ease of the plaintiffs that there
partition between the plaintiffs and defendants
15 years prior to the filing of this~s.1_1it, itenii_}&Nc.,Vll’
was divided into two equal halvpeslfiand lone
property was given to them measuring’-to an exten’t’*of.3: acres. V
I4 guntas and in suit Item whichlarevv residential
houses, one of whieI1fi7was–. the share of the
plaintiffs and remainingwd suit schedule
item No.1 defendant {son
of late son of propositus Lingaehari)
hereinfland defendant {adopted son of
Do4ddathayamm_a’sl husband Kernpachari and his second wife
Aputtatliagramma). according to them, these two persons viz.,
and Siddachari had taken the remaining
share andit is their case that since the date of oral partition,
they .1’ia.”t’Ie been in exclusive possession of 3 acres 14 guntas
‘of_land in item No.1 and also one of the houses in item Nos.2
3 and they are seeking declaration that they are the
owners in respect of the said suit properties. In support of
“*4
same, they have produced certain. revenue doeuinrents,
do not either disclose the adoption””of«Dod_dathaya;nm–aTs son f
Siddachari by her brother Jorll”t?_:1Vfe-.’,adopt”rQnl’:of
Siddachari, first son Siddjachari Afby ‘DAo’ddVa:thayia:mma”sl
husband and his second wife.uvl5uttathayainma,..vv’i’he alleged
oral partition said to .:’loe»tween the plaintiffs
and defendants*a”bout”I’t5 filing of the suit
is also not Court dismissed
the suit judgment and decree
datecigzspizilioveggirxQ’.«s’}’1aIo.16s/1991 on the file of the Prl.
Civil which is confirmed by the First
Appellate in” R.A.No.44/2002, by its judgment
” .;1′;i?:éd§’4;2j’1.é3.e~2o06 onmthe file of the Prl. District Judge, Mysore.
4. the perusal of the evidence, documents and
the entire. judgments of both the Courts below, it is clear that
“tr1e_ plaintiffs have neither proved the alleged adoption of
father by Madachari, first son of Lingachari and also
it “the adoption of Doddathayamma son Siddacharfs first son
Siddachari by Doddathayamrnafs husband Kempachari and
WW
his second wife Puttathayamma and they have
established that all the plaintiffs and defendants 1:x}ing”‘.
in a joint family and there existed: jointpfarfnilyé ..?;;n1o:1gll ‘
them and that the suit schedule
properties, as such they are .enijitIedA’tnV aVshare”~i_vn’ suit items V
Nos.l 8: 3. Further, the plaintiffs_haye alsol-n._otVp,«-fstablished
the oral partition set have taken place
between the p1a§ntiffs:.a1’id– idefendants prior to the
filing of rendered by both
the Courts’ facts pleaded in the suit and on
the documents». on record. The entire dispute
between the plaintiffs’ and defendants are decided based on
the “position regarding the relation inter–se between
lrcgarding Joint family status among them and
their rivghtlitol claim suit schedule properties as joint family
xproperties. Hence in this second appeal no substantial
” Lgigestion of law arises for consideration and the same could
V not be framed, hence there is no merit for admitting this
appeal. The second appeal filed by the plaintiffs is
‘M
hereby dismissed, confirming the judgmeéii deéfeé’
passed by the trial Court in ().S’.N’O’.”166,i”f19_9′.iAV, :”}\(“ifi’1’CiIt;’?tI1y
order as to costs.