High Court Karnataka High Court

O.G Kushalappa vs O.M Kariappa on 4 August, 2010

Karnataka High Court
O.G Kushalappa vs O.M Kariappa on 4 August, 2010
Author: V.Jagannathan
 

  ?__KoDAe:m DIS'I'RIC'1'-571 251

IN um HIGH comm' or KARNATAKA AT Bmenmsg

mmn mzs Tim 41% ms: or AzI<}UsT£2;;}':: 7]   V % 
BEFORE    _
'rim HC}H'BLE 
BE N  %   

ox; KUSHAIAPPA
310 GANAPAIHY

mznmvnaas    
GARUVALE   % A
KODAGU    

(BY saw  k 

QQ

 A    %%%%% 
  "AGED may 59 mans
 «em
gens 50'~YE.8;;Rs
GAl2'JVALET vxzmcm
 TALUK

.. RESPGHDENT

5STH1"€E'§3.G.BHAGAVA1%', .mv.;

 V   '"'I'I-{IS RS513 FIL£I) 11/0 106 OF CFC AGAIHST 'RE
 ARI") DEGREE DATED:28.4.2C33.Q PASSED IN
 *RA.NO.11]2CE5 O3 TI-E FILE CF THE CIVIL JUDGE

'"(SR.I)N] MAEJEQERI, BISMISSWG TI-{E A%AL AND

 

COHFIRMIKG THE JUDGIVENT AHD DEGREE



 

m'mD:3.1.2oo5 mssm IH 0S.R0.156;1999 on firm

ms arms pm. CIVIL JUDGE (mm!) MADIKERI. 
ms RSA come on ma mmasxw % 

"Ix-mcmmnzmmxnnrrmponmame:    

Hard the imrned caourael fizz'   .'
the appeal prefared by me   % %

the concurrent  of  h' 'The: mixit was
fibé by the  and0
the: Iowa   by dismissing

   d¢ch fa.%--:*1' that he is the absolute own' at'
 measuring 1 acme in suniey

 m;s;x»2  at cm-uvaxe village of Somwarpvet Taiuk
...he  foundatinzx fin' rm afnmsaid right cm the

 rm' téred partttm" 3:: dead dated 22.3.1937 am

  cane mm the am court that the suit property

' 'béibmad to the mm' of me p}a'mtifi' and under the

  partition, suiipz-owty fafita the sham oftln

 

plaix1@'ax3s&thcmtirepmpcrtyt1'xat<:rZ1g153al1yfel1i:cvtbe

Kl»



 

p1ainw' was 2.50 acme in sum:-.y 210.215 and Iatezr
survey mzmher was bifurcated into 215]P1 

and tbmefom, the defendant has no right  _ 

pmperty and the a t dated   

mg: defendant has raised' on is um-erore M 

puma rhemm.-m' n ofthue    
was that by virtue of  «2%5;1;'.é.1937,
dm@'s fiamily has  emit property
for om 30 years:__''   --i:;K'::--...--.9£t*ie:sr1 of plaiatifi'
being declared    Vpmperty does mat
mine and %§=.s:.  the deihndant that
«mm  mg:  partittian deed dated
22.3.1955

; suit cf the pmm” be

3. in the light of the a.fi:umaxl’ etand

. Ex: by tbs pmfiw flamed as many as six

A. afim evidence appzrecciation, imad all the

‘warms 1 to 5 in favnur arm p}a1’1:1tifi’and suit was
‘mm in part by holding that pxainm as the
of the: suit aehadule properly and docuwt dated

25.12.1937′ was mt an the piaizztifi and tim

/EV

defendant was dir% ha deliver posseasion to the plahgtifi’
wflfin two maths. On appeal by the ,

judge of the Iowa’ appellate court it

Courth 6%.

the appenanc and sun s.G.Bmgs§§n _forV”i*.?1§§’:;E’mf$<;nné¢VVlex1t
and pm-usfi

5. ‘Thu : csounsel *3
that Ex.D1 w11i:;:”iz””>;3 ifiatgd 25.12.1987 had

been held and on the my
same ‘ciizght no haw held tlmt the
§§.8.198’7 was also not
Mtg-%«ovm, it is the submission of the
da£exxiant aka belongs to the

T am said Odiymda family has wum’aI

§ the partitiorn dead Ex.P8, other bzranches
family inciudizmg that sf me appellant was not

% % 1 Unda thew as:-cummnm, mm the courm bebw

ia relyirg on Ex.P8 parfition deed and as such, the

5%}. be admitted to mmidm the substantial question of

3/’

law raised in the appeal mmerandum at pgara

Ha.7(a) ‘£33

5. on the oflmr hand,

Shri S.G.Bhagava11 for the rcapondmifg _ 1′ iv

and mm bah that than his
ewnership truer the suit even
ifEx.D1 m talmn dammt will

not confier title in astablish

title am that ‘ ,..- Ema not placed any

x ‘ hand, plainfi has

placed evidence which ms beam

;~aubm:ission xzaadc. is that the evitiemae

as such, no substaatial question at law

k sqrӢgmmm~a:&an

_ 1 In tha light afthe aformaid ccntenfimn put fin-ward,
hm carefufi! exam’md an reaac+mng’ gxm by the: courts

belawafi Fuflthatthspmfimdomtdfipumfimtflmstfit

property measuring 1 acre in survey 230.215] P2 was for;:_2_._ed

out of original survey R0215 2.5 atxme A’
sub-disrisiaon. £2; was hm-mm am 1 acre V
respectively in survey 119.215/P2 miaxsz ”
the evidence placed by the

imiicated rm. um partition deed
dated 223.1%? and the: suit
pwpmy and the plain.tifi’s
family. Fxzrther. gsmealogr,
the vial mm tree only
indicatm mt crmcxose the
:na.m.of _ gig of the plainfififi
312:3 found that ox-igxfimlly, the
of p1aintifl’s Ether whc was

T certificate. mum these

A the um man; had no dmmmy in act:eptmg’
case. In fact. the trial court aha wok note of
jaagasaason made by the appellant herein that he and
mtbmtlwra am: that dafcndant ia mt mam

aware of partition dae§£;x.P8. Except the era! evfience of
M