RSA NO. 1917,5200?
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH my OF AUGUST 2009
BEFORE
THE HOIWBLE DR. JUSTICE K.BHAKTHAVA'£'3ll\L-49;». '"'
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1917/"200? ('DEC
BETWEEN:
Srnt. Chikkasiddarnma,
I) /0 Kalashetty,
Age: 52 years,
Occ: Household work,
R/0 Sornanathapura Village, _ .
Virupakshipura Hobli, V A
Akkur Post«~562 124, A l A
Channapatna Taluk, A
Bangalore Rural District'; '
(By Sri C H J-Advil, for
appellant) " * '3. . --
AND:
Srnt. Chikkasiddamraa, _ . .
W/o late ShiVa%firna(:lashetty',V A V
Sinee gieeeased 'L, Rs. ,
:41) Uma¢1ev2:'r::ii1';;{\:\l4,,
V{W;!_0 V Seenappa She tt3i.,_ A
Age: 40 years; ' '
A _ R p_S0rru1anathapu;ra Village,
Virtipalgshipura leiobli,
A Al<_iku_r ~P_t}st--S62 12¢,
-- .. p 1, "~.l.pCihannapatna--ATaluk,
' Bangalore' Rural District.
A {.2}. Soubhagyamma,
S'/.o"Siddaraju,
Age': 38 years,
Appellant
RSA N019} 7.-C2007
L.)
3. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the Appeal may
be stated as under:
The respondents' rnother~Smt. Chikkasiddarnrna filed~~a iiji'1_,:"()p S
i\§o.l49/1995 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) at.Vche.hhejpantite,-
declaration and permanent injunction against the ‘defe.ndiant_.V1nrespectof ;
the suit schedule property. It is pleaded that7.sh’e_ is the.”_;le’gal’lyn ‘viiedded ‘
wife of Shivamada Shetty and she has
and Soubhagrarnrna (the resporidentsiv’hereii.n}ifi”itis tuirtriervjstated that
the plaintiffs daughters were living With their
husbands and the was originally
belongs to her ::’h1’0Vther~in~1aW by name-
Puttamadasetty..~I-Iverfifather:-in–‘ldW:vandwmother-in–law died. After the
death of her place between her husband and
brother~in~laW anduiri the suit item No.1 property fell to
the share ofvhusband’ then the plaintiff and her husband
are intp0ssession,and~.enjoyment of the same and khata was also
‘transferred faiiotifof plaintiff’s husband.
AAfL1rther”‘stated that the plaintiffs husband purchased another
item No.2 from one Siddasetty for a valuable consideration
and l<hata**in respect of the said property was also transferred in favour
.of"'thle"plaintiff"s husband. During the life time of the plaintiffs husband,
t/t
RSA NO. 191792007
On service of summons, the defendant entered appearance and
filed written statement denying the averments of the plaintfoplt is
contended by the defendant that Shivarnadasetty initially the
plaintiff. As she did not get any male child, she inducedpflheprhusbandiitoi
marry another lady. Therefore, the plaintilflsiihusband-I'1ra.arried"to her if.
during the year 1980 at lVEadeswaraswamy7._ temple
Taluk, as per the customs prevailing"'vt«in"l.the iffllifter the
marriage, they were living togetherypin their' Twoiyears later, her
husbandwshivamadasetty constructed aiiew an extent of two
'guntas of land in the «land and allowed the
defendant to live thereiini_indep'ende,n.tily.and'ithe,.plaintiff continued to live
in the old house.belo,figi5figfte=herthusbandl.-"lThus, the plaintiff and the
defendant were livgingiin houses. But, the defendant had
no issues through husband died on 13.7.1993 and
the plaintiff 1 performed the obsequies ceremony of
theirhusband. _'fi1e1"eafter, dispute arose between the plaintiff and the
of the expenditure incurred by them. At
that time, ai""panchayiat was convened and in that panchayat, -G S
iiS.D Narayanasetty, Rakhasetty, S V Shivaswamy and
~ – /; particiipated and they decided that the house property in which
.theiiplia1'ntiff and the defendant are residing may be given to them and the
schedule properties shall be divided equally between them and the
L/,,
RSA NO.1917/2007
southern half portion was given to the defendant and northern half
portion was given to the plaintiff in the suit schedule properti'es and
parties were advised to reduce the same in writing..~«~~.Tl_1ougil:,ii" the
defendant agreed for the proposal of the panchayatdarspthe'plaintiff
not agree to reduce the same in writing stating that ..as_the -defendant has i.
no issues, she may enjoy the properties after..th'e_zdivision;A'
they decided to get khata in respect :"the suit._sehe.duleiiiiiproperties
Changed jointly in their names. V I'i'~hereafter',:i.the:i'reyenueiiauthorities also
changed the khata of the suit scheidtulei the joint names of
the plaintiff and defendantaAfterfizeffectiiingijofijoint 1<;§1§liita, the plaintiff was
instigated by her Vs'o_n:s§in_«iaw and tried to file an
Appeal before the-~AssAi*stan5fi.j€.ona:rr1issiior1*er..vifiegarding transfer of khata
and the same from 1.8.1993, the defendant
has been enjoying tliegsoutheirn of the suit schedule property as
ownegrjand plaintiffvivheen enjoying northern half portion of the
suit sehediuleu property;-,and therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to
'seek for de'e.laration.__iifrespect of the suit properties and there is no
rneriti 11.1 the suit ar1d'vt'he same is liable to be dismissed.
4. if’tint/ieW_.of the pleadings on record, the trail Court framed as many
“as-__three_ issuesiand three additional issues.
L/.,
RSA NO. }9l7f2007
During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff died and her legal
heirs viz., daughters came on record. In support of the caseof the
plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and got marked ..In
rebuttal the defendant got herself examined as D.W«l
one S D Narayanasetty as D.W«»2 and got::lirnarl{t:d l’mairria_.ge_Vinvitation ii.
card, voters’ list and endorsement as E;_<s.D–
The trial Court, on appreciation ofjevidence' answered
issue No.1 holding that the p]a:i't<-..t_i1"f shellis the absolute
owner and in lawful possession of properties and the
defendant interfered .the{i.'i possession and
enjoyment of the "suit :the'i*.e'foremdecreed the suit declaring that
the plaintiffs are the schedule property and the order
of the Assistant Ccrninissionerf~in"R:A«{'£.,KP) 171/93-94 dated 18.8.1995
is null and void andliinot'bindingfon the plaintiffs. Further, the trial
Couriitligrantedli inj.urtction irlwfavour of the plaintiffs restraining the
defendant 'f1forns.iriterfelringtwith the peaceful possession and enjoyment of
properties
aggrieved by the judgment and decree made by the trial
t,l_l_the'.defe'ndant unsuccessfully approached the Appellate Court in R
No.36/V2005 on the file of Atitu. Civil Judge (Sf. Divn), Rarnanagaram,
ii"t.Bangalore Rural District. The Appellate Court, after perusing evidence
L,/.t
RSA NO. E') E 7/2007
and material on record, came to a conclusion that there was no merit in
the Appeal and dismissed the same confirming the judgment ani_d'»decree
of the trial Court. This is impugned in this Appeal.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant lithe
appellant/ defendant has proved that she ithiej. l_%ne L
deceased and she was living in the house cons_tru.ctedio.liy husband
and half portion of the land was given ptowaiidsiier ‘maintenance
and the agreement was reached:’i:3efor_ei.the’:parichayatdiarsiV In spite of
placing the material on record invitation card,
voters’ list and endorserrieiiitbat Court as Well as
the lower Appellate not holding that the
appellant/defendant _iiisifl-entitled.golfer _a_’ share in the suit schedule
properties.
5.”Theirei’is.–,”no”cogent satisfactory evidence to prove that the
defendant “is. iithe:”‘l.egally:yszedded wife of the deceased~Shivarnadasetty.
iiThe=’~st0ry of_iitheV.del;eiiidant that Shivarnadasetty got married to her
,h-ec_au.see..he had male issue through his first wife (original plaintiff)
ii life time of Shivamadasetty he constructed the house and
.{n.aiti’ho1itse she was living and half share in the suit land towards her
imiaintepnance in the Panchayat, holds no Water. The appellant/ defendant
not legally entitled to claim any right to the suit schedule properties.
(4/,