IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated: This the 1st day of October 2003 BEFORE THE I~iON'BLE MRJUSTICE V.JAGANNA'F.§iiAfi\}":' *'
REGULAR SECONB APPEAL:No;1.509’I2§§{;§l
BETWEEN :
SHIVALINGAMMA .
w/0 HUCHEGOWDA @ KARiYAPPA- ._
AGED ABOUT 64 YRS
R/AT KELAGERE’VI_LLA.GE * ‘ ”
MALAUR HOBLI ‘
CHANNAPATNA TQ 5’71 5051.:
BANGALORE RURAE.-.D}S’l’–.A ‘ I =
— I . “5’_’.w.__.uAPFELLANT
(By Sri S c \(1;iAY§;Ki;MARj Aiuv,’ 3. V ”
AND:
§:EMPAiAs:V…V_’3’«.% M ;
33,0 ‘:,A*;*9; HEJCHEGQWDA
AGED AB<::«aJT-~25? _Y':z.$" %
. x:f,aovQi;)AV1AH"
3 LATE’ HU._(3E.i EGOWDA
AGED’ ABOUT 57 YRS
ARE
‘ RIATKELAGERE VILLAGE
MALUP2 ‘Hem:
cmxm NAPATNA TQ 573. 505;
BANGALORE RURLAL DIST
H FTHE TAHSILDAR
‘ CHAN NAPATNA TQ
CHANNAPATNA 571 $05.
BANGALORE RURAL DEST
§~?ESPONDEN”}’S
(By Sri ESHWAR M GGLLALE, ADV. FOR R1)
2
RSA FEED U/S. 100 OF CPO AGAENST THE
JUDGEMENT 8:; DEGREE DT.7′.2.2€}06 PASSES IN
R.A.N().48/V2004 ON THE FILE OF THE ABDL. CIVIL
JUDGE (SRJDN), RAMANGARANE, DESMESSING
APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT._’4<'_}§§fj;~
DEGREE m*.1?.3.2oo4 PASSED IN 0.s.No.2.f:6/94:'V'é"N " 4_
THE FILE err THE CIVIL JUDGE;(,}1§.DN:;"AN–fi3'_'v-Jhspe, u 'V
CHAN NAPATNA.
THIS APPEAL COMING VON P;i3R:’2$3i$M:éeiGN
DAY, THE COURT DELIVEREii3__’1″§3E FOLLGWIEG
….-.—- ….—-u.—.-…..–.ae–
JUDeMeeT°
The plaintiff more the preferred
this seeeixd 35.,’/31.; suit filed by her
being and the appellate
court_eonf;1f:11i11g:t:f1eA of the trial court.
‘5Ifhe ea;9e”‘ef the appellant/p1a’mtifi’ is that
the defendants 1 and 2 are the
ef — L Huchchegewda and the said
“~’~.__V”».}–§13eh(§h§¥gowda died in 1957 and after his death, the
A were in joint possession of his three
C …s€;;n$ and the husband of the plainfifl’ lefi; the vinage
V’ abruptly and the defendants 1 and 2 therefore
deprived the maintiff of her share in the suit
9/
, }
properties when she made a demand to give her the
share of her husband. It is her case that eta!’
partition took place before the Panchayat _§u’id.f it
plahltiff was allotted Sy.No.1O/1W(22 ”
(16 guntas), 47/3 (15 guI1tas},,’ 4?jét
114/1 (10 guntas) and 263[1..__(1O her i
ease that the plainfifi has 2 and
mango trees and the iiafee~heen to
iriterfere with.» vthei.-‘– and
enjoyment pf hence the suit.
_ The.-vVdefendef1ts on the other hand, while
admittingthe the possession of the
protigerties bi; fathef, took up the stand that the
had :10 issues and they bmught
Out of them, one died and other
V it . leftflie house and thereafter the husband of the
H ‘A “sdopted the son 01’ the 2nd defendant and
-i heeetlse of this, the piaintifi’ gave i1i–treatment to the
T ” edepted son and demanded her share in the suit
properties and it is their further case that the suit
preperties were divided inte four shares and
2′?
accordingly the 18′: defendant was given Sy.No.4′?/4
and likewise the other emit properties were also
shared by the plalntifi’ and the defendants
this arrangement the plaintiff gave her
thereafter the 15* defendant 1″a_ised…a_
Sy.No.4′?/4 and it is contended in’: 77:
property plaintiff has no it. V
contended that the df._tl1e’ of
the plaintiff is not the plaintiff
cannot tile .3 ezfit a_gai;t1et:’tij§e eO~éew1i’e:’eV’Vuntil specific
‘oi’ the parties led the trial
courtte fra:ee,neees:5;a1j§} issues ané issue 1105.1 and
‘2. *:é:nSikarered the negative and the suit of the
after taldng note of the
evldence parties. The lower appellate court
the same by dismissing the appeal
ptefeeed by the plaintiff.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the
parties and examined the judgnents of the courts
beiew and reasene assiged by the trial court
%
dismissirig the suit of the plaintiff. Although learned
counsel for the appeliant argued that the
entitled to her share in the suit properties
her husband having left the I _ u
whereabouts being not known
referred to the relevant
the trial Court, in my View, the lirvevfifield
that the parties are _ of the suit
properties the plaintiif
cannot maijitein for t another
co-shere1*’;’~ have also taken
the of the pxasntm’ is
eor”;eerr:edV’,t”tiie~ $t,*.g;s«..»§’iled before the completion of
ygears of ri1i’e-oi.;*1g of the husband and as such,
husband is declared dead legally
ori he being not heard for about seven
years,” is not possible to 31101: any share to’ the
out of the share to be given to the p1ai11t1’fl”s
wt .,,_hiisband. it is under these circumstances, the trial
V’ court declined to gent the relief ef permanent
injunction and the lower appeflate Court: also foemd
%
6
that time parties are in joint possession of the suit
properties and a such, relief of injunction carmot.-he
gantod.
6. Having hoaré the submissions of 3 K
counsel and on going through the jf;id;§i1oijts:_.:of.V T_
courts below, I find that the j}_1d@3r_:r1ts oftho’.. V
below does not appear to 2 the
evidonce on rooord or as
such, I see no, substafihtjgl law being
involved in ‘ the admission
stage “bang disposed of.
dismissed. It is however
ti’:<:="disr;1issa1 of the appeal will not
of the plaintiff establishing her title
to properties by way of indeperzdent
"V.,'proooe(_1"i:1gs and in that event, the observations made
A 51' above shall not influence the trial court in any
80%
Judge
Dvr: