RSA 461 I 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT E}!-IARWAD
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUA1§gf':2:£§o9'MTv:'~ % "
BEFORE _ _ _
THE HON'BLE MR.J1ISTI(§E',__I*§;-$:PA1'fLv_' ~ * V' 1.
R.8.A.xo.46:£'ZV' A
BETWEEN :
Mahadevappa Hanumanthappa v
S/0 HanumanthflPF*9&x$0m$nnav3r, .
Aged about 56 yrsiitfsfi " X »
GCC: h '
R/odogayallgpmug,'--- -.:_;:V__ _ ' '
Taluk as Disn~ic'tT.I3,naxw:;d. _
Pin-~580 011. % "V ..APPELLANT
(By Sri s.R.Hegdc, _ J
.....
1.. 2 Sakmppannavar,
‘ S] Q _Ycfla.t}p§” Séylqfippannavar,
Aged ‘about 45 years,
003: ».Ag1’cf.1I£u}:rist,
V — R{oJbga§*a13apura,
.. Taluk as Qistrict Dharwad,
en.
Hanumanthappa Goudar,
‘S/cf» Hanumanthappa Goudar,
.. “Aged about 48 years,
“Occ: Agriculturist,
” ” Rio Thadisaha Koppa,
Tahik & District Dharwati,
Pin «-580 OIL ..RESPONDEN’I’S
R88 461 I 2008
(By Sri D.M.Bandi, Adv. 85
Sri D.B.Ka11a11agoudar, Adv. for R-2)
This Regular Second Appeal is “milder 1{)G=of
CPC against the judgment and T giateed -20. A
passed in R.A.Ne-.15/2000 on the file oVf;t11e_IICivi1 Jucige”
85 CJM, Dhaxwad, dismissing the–4_appeia21Veiz1d eui3;;’ii’mVa’:ag_V§the
judgtnent and decree dated.._v}”‘~()8.12″.129S39_ in
().S.No.6(}6/1989 on the file of the.._Pr1_. Civil Jtzcige {Jr.I)n.),
Dhaxwad.
This AFPCBI is ‘g eene this day 31¢
Court deiivered the fo}loWing_:”–” 1V ..
01. This the concurmnt
findings
D2. u defendant before the tan’ 1
Court. ;’I’h::_ suit ayes’ ey one Yeliawa wife of Somagapa
V. that she was the absolute
o§mér.;§£* :1;;eeee%.Vs1gi:.e;4.ag:~heduse pmpcmtes and for consequential
— reiief bf restraining the defiendant fiom obstructing
.. possesefin and in the altemafive for the relief of
as also for mesne profits. The 2″ defendant
respondent herein was the purchaser of can of the
A A ‘ X , get schetiulae properties.
RSA461/2008
03. The I” defendant (appellant) contended
statement that the plaintifi” was his grandnH1ethe1′;’
father expired when he was a chiki,:’the1efo;’e, he
up by the plaintifil Defendant
had relinquished her right in; j’:31titV>4’Veehedu1e’VV
property in his fiavoup the “pm1$erty has
continued to be in his owner of the
same. He aiso _em;ten¢.:ie6” substantiai
amount he £1093;-:eV_ and started
04. In A’ h’ ._ er pleadings, the tna1′ Couxt
framed 11CC€’V’.’§Sa’I’_Y’ isst_1ee~-,.1’hein£1ding the issue as to whether the
u hef’eese as the owner of the suit schedule
to whether the defendant could prove that
her ngh’ t in the suit properties in
–v1’aavou1′:”o..1’V’t£’1e.V4c’tefend,a11t. Both the part1e’ s adduced end’ ence
u x V’ ‘ 0;: heonskieration of the evidence both oral and
Adoeeexehtaxy, the trial Court recorded a finding that the
Vt was abie to establish that she was the owner of the
“suit scheduke properties and that the defendant had got
changed his name in the reeoxd of rights by obtaining her
fie
RSA 461/’£008
signatum in the blank papers. The trial’ Court also feihiéthat
the defendant fa1]ed’ to establish his case that
waived her ugh’ t in the suit pmpertiesé M Vt
defendant by Iehnquishmg the salllefig
found be in possession of the evi’1itV pmj)e1t1es, * V L’
found that the plaintiff was entitle_(VV1iA’ ~f_rVVposseesio_1M1 the suit
properties.
05. Aggrieved by the trial
Court, the a regular appeal before
the Based on the
contentieizss Appellate Court framed
the necessaV£y«._¢ “c~e;i:1sicieration. The lower Appellate
, x(?O?l1C1i’1TL’£1VV_’Wfi’t}J the findings zmoxded by the txial
held that the appellant before it failed to
recorded by the trial Court suffered
V V irons, It is neeessaxy to notice here that d111’m’ g
., , .. Iéfifidéhey of the appeal, the appellant herein filed an
seeking amendment of the written statement. He
to contend that the suit properties were absolutely
by Somappa, the husband cf the plaintiff’ Yellavva and
that after the death of Somapll’-1. the plaintifl’ Yeilavva
tr
RSA 462/2008
akmgwith her three daughexs Ycllavva,
Savakka jointly succeeded to the Saki pmpertics V’
and therefore since the suit pmpcrtfies’ wcm” K V’
propclfics the plaintiff being the son ._
Somappa was cntitbd to This * L’
application came to be fltljlt: Court
holding that the app1icafi;51§;T -if tantamount to
permitting the éixzxxissions made
by him in out that the
Written ditéiféldant-appcflant herein
on 20.02-.._198QA two occasions on 21.09.1998
and 27.02′{i».’3§*9 statements W618 filed. The
V lower» pointed out in its order dated
1′ vamcndment sought for that aithough
was filed in thc year 2000, the amcndmrznt
was a lapse of nscarly six years during the year
‘I’i2¢§r:forc the same could not be entcrtaincd.
,. Counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously
T ‘ ‘d’oi1tends that the lower Appellate Court seriously erred in law
3 in not entertaining the application for amendment to the
written statement as atmght for by the appellant herein. He
RSA 461/2008
contends that the rejection of the application fbr
in the facts and circumstances of this ‘.
amounts to a substantial question wlgfich ‘A ”
into in this second appeal.
0?. Learned Counml -{gr V;espbndE2fiit”’1*efi1tcs ” V
these contentious and urg__cs lgst <$n'thc and
having contested the cast dcfcades when the
matter was at after a lapse
of nearly six V fi1ing"'iof the appeal, the
amendment were contraxy to
the admission _fi#a§"'a:fitemp{ed which has been rightly
negatived Court. He submits that this
cannot Siibsfantial question of law to entitle the
topm a m ad appeal
08:." '– ;'.he learned Counsel for the parties and on
v¢:;Va:=ei'11I".44i;r§3.ii§,¥i.t$1§'#11;io;:z of the materials on record including the
.15.11.20o7 passed by the lower Appellate Court
j the amendment sought for, I do not find any
question of iaw flailing for consideration by this
RSA 461/2008
09. As rightly pointed out by the lower
amendment sought for, if ailcrwed, will result tee’ V’
resiiing from the specific stand takerfbye
had become the absolute orw11erof
relinquishment deed. It was ._1f.he ft_he”–,Véefeedant’V’
that the properties in question ‘jeint 1;an1ily~1}3roperties
wherein the plaintifi’ Yeflsvea three daughters
had equal share. ‘Cmvuthe rhe. specific case
of the defentianir. owner of the
deed and waived
her of the defendant Thus,
the Appellate Court holding that
the amgendmenat iée permitted is just and proper. At
en}? Vxvste’ the amendment sought for in the
” result in a substantial question of law to
appeal.
M ‘A ” was the other findings recorded on other aspects,
;7ific§:”béth the courts have concunently held that the plaimie
Vj }jas”estabHshed her case regarding her ownership over the suit
schedule properties and that the defendant ram to establish
his case regarding the relinquishment since these findings are
%/
R86. 461 /2908
recorded after appreciating the oral and documentary
this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under _
cannot upset the said concurrent findings. ‘
being devoid of merits is Iiablc to ‘
the same is dismissed. Parties tr: hosts; V
“K j ; fu&g*@