Mallikarjun vs Shivasharanappa on 7 November, 2008

 

In THE HIGH comm' or KARHATAIKA _

I

Gzmaanm
Dated this the 7th day   
THE Horrnm  H.   

R.S,A.xNo. 

BETWEEN :

S/0 Shhiéishérafiaypd  V
Kadda;gi"  V  
Age 4'?  '

B£;savaraj?;g.,    ' '
8/<2.» Shiv&ah:%f9AL app'e':__ " "
44Ye~érs%%   %

V,  A.
_ ~ .}._W/ Q-~Sizi\fasha1i3iiéppa
A 3 'years

A V Khughxmgsri'
"Gu1?ja1g=:i Taluk and

Disuipt - 585 101

  A.ppe11a13ts No.1 ta 3 Iepresmted
 ' *--b:.y parwer of Attorney
 Sri Siddanna

S] o Sharanasiddappa
Mali Biradar

Aged 68 ycam

R/0 Nandn Khnrd

Gulbarga Taluk - 585 101 ...AppcI1ants

 



VA . No; 1531105 an the me of the I Additional Civil Judge (Sr.DI1.).

  '€},uIba1'g'&,V Tpartly allowing the appeal and modifying the
_  judgfamut  anti decree dated 27-0?'--2G05 passw in OS
  "4.»35}1§f;89 on the fiie of the V Additional Civil Judge {Jr.Dn.),

'V V " _  " '.'d<§fivemd the foliowing:

(By sfi v N MadhavaRm:£dy, Advoaatc.-.3" V

AM):

1 Shivasharanappa
S I o Mallappa Kandurgi

Age 75 ycam
Ono: Agriculture

2 Revanasiddappa 
S] o Shivasharanappgz '
Aged about 35   r

3 Bhimashankar 
S/o Shivasharanappa  «  
Aged about  years:  _V  

4 Slut.  = = ~
W,' o"Sh_iVashéiana"p~pa
Aged abéiitgg  

All mg 411:-,side~:12t'*=.q:f _ "_ " '
Khushnoor -' . ' V
Taiuk 5:. Vflisiirict
.»'s{}u1E2z~aI~ga --- S8f??_.10»l  Resp-cmdents

,      Amaiesh S. Roja, Advecatc)

 ~.  under szection 100 of CPC against the
judgment V.  decree dated 23-1143005 passed in RA

This RSA coming on for adraiasion this day, the (301311

 



111:: family. Hausa bearing No. 1-27 and 2/7 

properties. Their grievance is finst defcndant_.iiI§:g§iii§f'  

the mother of defendant Nos. :3    "

they are the illegitimate  A':Ifi3erefo:f§:';.   *'

plam' tiffs are cnfiflcd to     nary

4. Aficr  of_tfié v_ffié§t'ciefcndant entered
appcalancc.    defendant
was   v n=.emanded by the lower
   an an earlier occasien had
held theVv'Sa;%t"wfias jbiixdcr of necessary palfies. The

fimf '.3\tf£:ndz1fiii.. tI€niiedA."t}¥é.. mlafionshiy between himself and

 $10.3,' HE ;;~1¢:3iec1 that the fourth defendant is his

  "gcpntcnded that the thin! plainfifl aim to give

  ran away finm the house with 8 taken of gold

  3iiv§1*':.o1nam£:nts worth Rs.8,()O0/- without consent of

  " N<::r.I by eomzaitting theft. Thcmfare, plaintiff No.3 is

 §lIlOI'{§ his wife and only defendant Na-A is his legally wwdcd

" Plaintifis 1 and 2 have no right to claim partition in the

suit schedule item. He denied the Chaim of the piaintifi'. H:



also set up a plea of partition in the year 1981 

of Panchas. He oontcndcd that the suit   

were given to his share in the    T

pmsczut suit filed by the plamfifis 4§3m"§avc  -giv§a:§'%:1:a.%e';;c%

share in the pmperties is net    

S. Defendants    amended Written
staicment dcnyingflle  Qf  " ";F'ourth defendant
also filed her   céfififbfiding that she is the
legally   and her marriage took
place o:r,1    3 were beam out 91' the
said   married plaizafifi No.3 without

her cQ;1ja.cnt é:1gi   hack and, therefore, plainfifis 1

 '  me  childnzn who have no right in the co-



  afomsaid pleadings, the trial Court fmmcd

  slevegn iss'ués as 1mdcr:-

"   Whether the defendcmis prove that there has been
an and partition, in. Juiy, I 981' as per the details
given in para Ho, 9?' qfwritien statement?



.5.

7.

Whether the defendani No.3 pmves:V*'i}zi:1g __'f§«fi%' 

dim3rc:erd the plainhfi N03 in the   
therefore she is not entitlegi    ' L. a

family property?

Whether defendant 1%.;     aha: _

Mahadevi and pf  .3 is
his legally wedded'. (de§ezed)?« . 1  
Whether tha2; av3e3fenaE,ZaziVAtvL':'$'Vg;.V'proves ifrfij the lands
survey No.1  '-}f?§*'/  seif acxguired
mg'pr;;;i:hjj"g  they are entitled
jfgr  as prayed?

 zhe».;§:ain:gm».g;;e valued the suit property

__ arigiféae has been paid?

 what  drqtecree?

;'i'ht: t11:ird 'isgiitt wfisa iecastcd as issues 3(3), 3(1)) and 3(:::).

% %%%%3%

V' * . j§é':(z:)

  Et§51:2eu"x3:zt-'Lire  issue was framed. They are as
 the pIain.tfi"s pmves that Maiuzdevfs
 Inarziage with defendant No.1 is mid, as alleged in

plaintijj'?
Wh.e1her the plaintz'}_'f.§; prove that the suit pmperty
exeept Syn 1170.193 are mtoestral pmperties cf the

parties? 



3('c) Whsthgr the pIa1'n.tij§"s suit is bad for  nf

necessary parties?
Additional Issue   

1 Whether the defendants fimfie that p:air§§jg%H§.2L

Basavamj is not  .__sing:e'-.:l¢iS:t:"i1:ufé than
1.3 years in the Qf.Kusnbor_§md h.e has not
been seen   : vby'  inciuding his

relatives?

7.  as PW2. Thin?!
plaintiff Wzag   wimcseses were
cxaminfxi Him.   pxoduced 28 documents
which   ,Lp%1 to P28. 011 bchaif of the

dcfcndants;fi1M93i d§fgn¢a§n§L~was examined as mm and fourth

  '-was  as EJW4. They also examined two

 2 and 3 and pmdtlced 20 documents which

~ia$hv'*"£';'§<s. {)1 to D20.

j 8". 1112 trial Court on appn-_=.ciai:ion of the aforesaid oral

   evidcnm on l'GG()I'd hcid that the oral

V.  paififion set up by the first defendant is; not pmved. The case

" ef the defendant No.1 that he divorced the plaintifi' No.3 in the

year 1967-68 and, themfcsm, she is not entitled to any share in

Q/%__,.. 'H



 

the family pmpcrty was held to be 1301: '.

defendant has failed to prove that i:I;g3»_l_ar1d'-- sy-,%%:~so.?2i%7L;. A' 

dcfcnda11t'3 maniagc   ij'oti1th  "V--.ti'a'fcndant is void.
Further they    except Sy. No.
193 are   Plai:nt1'fl"s suit is not
had for.;ao:'n  It also held that thc
defindagitg : ihat plaintifi" No.2 is not being

'I   11:9 "ihc plaintifis and the first defendant.

 'afiW11n' ed the findings of the trial Court that all the suit

schedule pmpcrties are joint family pmpertiees and third

 



ail,

piaintifi' is the legally wedded wife of am  4'
Fcourth defendant is the second       

Defendants 2 and 3 are the    ifijfst "

 

defendant. But, it set aside.f}I:_'ofV 
the illegitimate children have fa  in a co-
pamenaxy property. It   to the Hindu
Marriage Act, 19'2'6 the gtgiiifins  beam from void
marriages is    'C'J;p81DEnBI'3 and their
share is    of the empacrencrs
   pmpertics defendants 2
and 3  L 5139 get a share in the joint family

pmpcrties ;:i'~..   defendant No.1 and plaintiff

 

 . iighcldh  *5«***«fifi's 1 to 3 are entitled to get 1/4*'!
 gaéh  the items of the pmperfies and aczcmtiingly

 1 to 3 are cntitlfi to 1/6"' share each in
    £03. I to 9 plaint schedule pmpctrtics and the

H : : ' "§i§1E:u<:Ig1:fé 1 to 3 are entitled to 115th share each in all the



 

part:1'tioz1H}:_§etw®n fthcy are not eniiflcd to a

share  the 

11. I565.   counmzl for the respondents