.Sfiit.
THE HIGH COURT ca: KA.R.NATAKsX A? BANCiAI..{"}RFI
msrm TI-HS THE 25"' DAY 91: ;L%..?*~EIE;iRY, 2009
B'{€.F()R.E
THE Hom3I.,1%: 1'vfR, JIESTTCE Himi Z\§A.<}AM(}¥~¥A?~E 33gg~s:~--".' Q' "
RF. A, N0. 22;'?,0{15
BETWEEN :
uuuuuuuuuuuuu run
1 Sm: Puitarudmmma
'\<V:"{). {ate Rudraiah
Aged 71 yésars
2. Sri, Bhadraiah
S59. fate Riidraiah _
Ageéi 46 years - _ '
3, Sri, fagvararnu """ "
s:a.1a:eRudra:a1;_ Q
Ag:3d41yrsar§ " '
A3! are $50. "!7h{)re§:ai3A*:':fi..--{iIi;2zgt{ .. .'
Biiaguinbzz D1*w§;3Ié-- " .' .
Kasaba Eiobig Magétrfl tam}: ' "
Ra:°§g_3i;3r¢ 'Rurai !") i§:t[ I
% 353939155»:
13.3.), 33:13 :F%;;dr;:{mh.v~'
.' .:3.g£€§. 51$ ye-5%
Rfag. filkxge:
V Kasaiga Hobii, Magadi taiuk
fiangaiaré Rural Dist'
" 'S;n:A§A--'Ja§?a:nma
= $33-'G. ism Easagzpa
E359. late: Ruéraiafi
Age"-:o:i 53 years
Rio. Athimgere viilagc
Madabai Hobii, Magadi taiuk
Bangaiare Rnrai Dist.
fig?!
aw
" . iéffifiisfvéinma
6. Star. Puttathayaxnxrsa
Win' Revanna
Dfo. late: Rudraiah
Aged 46 years
1" Cross, Vijayanagar
Baxlgalore W 40. Appexzmsv
{By Sri. Sm'; s. Rae, Adm, fog 4'
Sri. T. Sashagiri R39, Adv.) :
______ --
1.
313%. Siddappa @ Siddaiah
SE0. late Rudraiah
Since dead by His V V’
114.. Smt.Chandrammg ‘
Wfo. Rudraiah, Major _’ ‘ A _ _ .
R;"0.Basavana?al}}T*3L.v-' 'V
ThaVarckcrc'Hobfi7.._ " A " 'V V
Magaditalixk .3 'V » é
Barlg-319:: '*--:;., , -» "
1B. Smt, _ é
Wit}. Shivaialt, }seiajnr '~V __ "
Rig. Ber¢:gowdara::ayiaA' .-- V "
Kasaba Hobh; ta'E.;;1<"'
Bagggainge Rurai dist.
' Wm. E{enukapp&,--«.Major
r. Brnpfiatér. pf Shivagangw Hotel
" Lai<.shn1£va§'£j::b£ta Kaiyarza
Read
Vras¥;abhav3fi1i nagar
Kamaxsfipalya
% V, " Magadi Main Read
vsmngalore 56:5 079.
' Smt. Puttaihayamma
' " Wiifi. PVI131'{h}',
Rio. Thattcksre, Solar Hobli
Magadi taiuk
Bangalore Rurai Dist.
ww
ER)
313', Parznnashjvaiah
Sfo, Sicidappa, Major
3. T Sn'. Chandrappa
SEO. Siédappa, Major
4. Sn'. Nagaraju
SE0. Sidciappa, Major
R-2 £0 4 are Rio. Thmepalya village
Hamlet of Belagumba Village
Magadj taluk
Bangalore niral dist.
5. Sn'.K.Ha1inath
Han" Enterprises W
No.1433,Piw1ineRoad " '
V.Nagar ; .,
Bangai0rew560_1}£€s{). ~..;,Respundcnts
(By Sn". S.N. G3t1g,adi3ara;iA_ctv.; f§c;:_ .
Sri. N. Subbashasky, g.”:§y.,’ fa; R~i(§:§&<,$}' amt R42 :6 4
Sn'.K.1~J,Pa:11,g;csv;,fx5:»i»:¢§)V , * "
V map,
This am is fuea':n;dét'se&;riqi:' 935 read with Order 41 Rule my of
CPC against the Ivdg1nent'a11<é'.Vi)earee dated 25.10.2304 passed in Q8.
No. IQ./1993 _ on tit: life of Pr}. Civii Judge (Senior Divisien}
'di§nfissi1§gthe.Asuit fer partition and separate pessessicm
.qand'Am¢s:r: préfi'£s. ' ~
been hearé and reserved for orders, this day,
2 NAGMGHAN gprtmetmced iixe foflowing
JIEDGIVIENT
Regula First Appeal is directed against the judgment and
dated 25.10.2804 in 0.3. No. 1011993 dismissing the suit cvf the
'v " 'p1éintifi's for partitien.
%W”
VI. Wkwther suit filed the plaintiffs is barred by time’?
VII. swhcther piaimiffs have filed this suit withcut any cause of
action’?
VIII. Whether plaintifiis are entitled $0 the reliefs sm;.gh_’i” ‘4 3
this suit’?
IX. What decree or order’?
I. Whether plaintiffs prove» Vsuit :-a<_;I1£:c1;,:1!e'::"j:'s
a1so the joint fmmjxy propemx alléggfi?
4. Before ghc three witnesses as
aw. 1 t0 m%,V3 §cg_ ;t_1z£1r_l<j:é~:.¥.:: 1A3:!~i.P'.:,:A1VVVV.*§<:t§ Ex,P.28. The defendants
examined tfigee ilW.3 and get marked Ex.D.1 to
Ex.D.3G. The the parties and on agpreciation
of pleadiggs 3:31 arid" evidence hald that there is no joint
'bgtween piaintifis and iiefendants a3 on the date of
Vi§2;::f passed {he impugneci judgment and decree
dismiséizag the; sci; mace, this appeai by the piaintiffs.
= Stmil S. R30, teamed counsel for the piaimifis acntend that
K tgfiai Cmxri comzmitted an iflegaiity in hekding that the fmiiy 0f
__4'41j§air1£iflf"s and defenéants are geparaied hang back. The $133! Conn
committed an arm" in ant taking into consideration the documentary
£;~L~..x..,w
evidence on reeord and misinterpreted E:=«:.P.16 and Ex..P.1?. The triai
Court failed to notice that the defendants have failed to demonstrate the
eariiet partition by eiacing aeeeptabie evidence. The tziat Court eemmttteti
an errer by oniy £'8§}'i3:'lg on the written statement filed in
I35.:"19?(3. The trial Court faiied to ceasider that there were j"
statements filed in (3.3. No. 135:'I97€}, In the written stateme3:1t— _ u
04.08.1978 there is :10 reference to the paztitiett between {?t1elrt;'tiV'a%1"azi§;?§t,___ :, At
Siddaiait. Further it was eat}; in the written et__atemei1t.v_fiieti on;
there £5 a reference with regard to the ;3ettitit§i:._t1nd_that in reepeet
0f heruse coesttuction in surve3tf"':'!-Ft}. f'3t3._ :Ti'.eV Caurtu vtitholzt
considering this documentary evidence on an ezmr in
holéing that there is 'I't:e Cattft be§e¥§?:_"eo_mt;§itted an error in
hotding that Rtidreiah separate applications before the
Deputy Commiee1:anjez*tfefiz1efi:,VAt}t§ii-tietittfer grant of occupancy rights in
reseect of iteme 'cf_ela?irzt Stheduie properties and therefore there is
:'a._peititiot1V;" Sear: without ctmsidering the RTC e:~;tract and the
eerttfiett teeth; ttte" éfdetipassed under the Imam Abolitimt Aet had came
the eta:-teiusiext thetttthere is at partition, In the abeenee cf rebuttat
~ jvwieéieztee by " defendants the trial Ceurt ought ta have raised a
4'~–.vVx1:3reeI:9£t:13ti(tti'A_'th3.t the plaintiffs ané defendants constitute joint family and
H grreperties are the gem: family pmperties. Merely Because the
.»pe:ties are residing separateiy it Wiil not amount to a eartitien among
gkvw
:'€ii(i¢iEaiaI1f " '1': isE"f;i:;x"f§1R:er.¢_conten{§';c§3 that the plamtifis with an intentit:-n to
V mopeniésfif and their family members are alse izxeiudaé in
" jgfai-1::_ scfieéuie ";::fi§pertie3. There is no aceeptaisie evidence on recatd to
jéstablisii that the-rs waists 3 joint fzzsnih-' and ihat tha piaint
' grerperties are the jeini familgs prepertiea. Reliance is placad an
V' A Vfailoawing deeisians.
them. It is ccniended that the reasoning of the trial Court is cenafary to the
evidenae can record. Reiiance is placed on the feilcwing decisiezms.
1. Raghavamma and another Vs. A. C7hencham1}j;i’,,
amther, AIR 1964 SC’. 136
gm)
Bhagwaznt P. Sulakhe Vs. Dig§un’i3’a;*
othfls, AR1986 SC $9 : V V 1
3. Duid1iDibya and ushers;
Am 1973 O1issz§__182 F? » . V»
4. Addspalii \r’6n§§3″ié:V:i,axi«;x§ ‘?:§”s; Nayasimha
Rae mlemthm 53$-19942b.?”‘?3″ ‘V
6. Per czentra §Sri’g: ={}a:.:g3:ihair«,. ‘iea_i*nc_;i__fi:-nunse! for the
ziefendanis s:11:*,-v;v_)<3:11_3:fi.=:«:'_ii'ig:".1g21:;.f, and éecree of ihe trial (L'-eurt.
He contends x;1at'::«.:;=; nuaraga;1%%g¢.n;a@g béfore the triai Court in ash 323.
§
135519136 34£§atingthatat§1er€:_V i's a pértition between himseif and his brother
harafi éizd ii&1ti.'3v{ii:d;-lute u1',h:=3 riefendants have filed the suit. The self-acquimé
1. Adan Singh V3. Karla: Singh and others, AIR. I95}. SC $93
O****~*”””‘
Z1
10. It is also seen from the reeerd that bath the parties have
separately deait with some ef the schedule preperties on their own
individual right. This is evident from the RTC. extracts as found at Ex.D.1
is Ex.D.-‘t, Katha certificate -~ Ex«I).5, Reeerd cf rights -» Ex.D.l2..
Ex,D.13. index of lands W Ex.{).14 to Ex.D.25, the gifi deed -~ ;. it
the sale éeed W Ex.D.11. The Trial Court by carefillly examiiaingi ezitire
documentary evidence en record had rightly gatiierexi. inteizticm bf A f
parties and concluded that a paxtition elgeady ltekzeti place» there
no existence ofjeint family as on the date effiling of shit. fmiiing of
the Trial Ceurt is supported by Jeiiidentfe Q31’: theveattie is in
aceerdanee with law. 1 fund no j1t_stifiab§e’_ V5gfeundViVi<}–l.}_;2tei–fere with this
finding of the Triai C§_;"uft}:, 11' M
11. The iuelgtnente lreiieclil the learned colmsei for the
plaintiffs taetsupieort ceee. The Triat Court aise censideted seine
the cited. befereiitiie mid had rightly eettciuded that they are
ef tie jtq tIieV”1)la:’eitiffs.
12. ‘Feithe reesens stated above, the apgeal is hereby’ dismissed
._tét*t:li neeféet as to eests. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/…
Judge
LRS .
