A Smtllzlifizuh W/0 Hassan
Mallikarjun C Basareddy, Adv.)
IN THE }~Il.GH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALvCV)1§.E»e.
Dated this the 19"' day of November, «l Al
Before
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HUL:{JVA;Z)Ifiv G l l T, 3
Regular Second Appeal l)' 20053 2 3
Between: V l l
1 Smt Imambi, 70 yrs z
W/0 late Dastagir Sab V
l\)
Mastam Sab @ Mastan l l
Ejaj. 52 yxeesll l
ll
Saieerfi; .38' yrs' ll
Khaleem, _
---.'|O\U'1-D-DJ
2-.7l'a1%ee Vs/0* late Dasiéigif Sab
: '2 4 an: it/O"Rampura Village
" _TariA1<e'1'e_&"l"0lwn
* A3.;5.l47 é11'e."_r.'() Srlriall Mosque Road
'l7,;_1rikerc~ A
A Rig Chikka Masjid, Tarikere Town
Tarikere Tq, Ch.ik_m_agalur Dismct Appellants
l)(g,/
EN.)
And:
Srrit Khatumbi W/o Sabju Sab
55 yrs, We 4"' Cross, Anwar Colony
Bhadravathi
By her SPA Holder »~ Sri Sabu Sat)
S/o Dastagir Sab, 70 yrs
R/o 4"' Cross, Anwar Colony 0 . i _ --. _ _ __
Bhadravathi, Shimoga District Respondent
(By Sri KN Mohan, Adv.)
Appeal is filed under Sf} , of tli.e:tC’PC”ipjra3iing to set aside the
judgment and decree in RA 4/200.1 dated 3i0.6;«2GO.1j~b_y’.. the Addl. District
Judgfi, Chikmagalur. ‘ ” . ‘
The -Appeal day, Court delivered the
following: * = A
Delay of foaur-.years inseekirag for recalling the order of dismissal
‘.for’iion¥pros’ect!.tion is recalled. Matter is taken on Board.
.aVg’a.inst the order for the Addl. District Judge,
Chikin;iga1ur_ ,i’1}’i._r2A 4/2001 on 30.6.2005. Appellants herein are the
defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff before the trial court in a
f.il§)’tZ41″A_’fO1’ declaration and partition. The property in Sy.Nos. 30 and
Al”
31/2 totally measuring about 4.22 acres situate at Raruapura ‘Sp/:.li’il,age,
TE11’Iil(C1’€ Taluk, is said to have been purchased during No.ven?1_i3er_i’
and it is a joint purchase. According to the plai.nt,ivff,._agricu_ltu.ral
operation was jointly carried out and they upsedj.to._sli4are._
Thereafter, according to the piaintiiiyafter the ‘death of Sab, after.”r s
4 or 5 years, the defendants have their alttirudef’landr,aiso there
used to be frequent quarrel the defendants.
Further. the defendants taking the plaintiff and
her husband to part with the
crops which__wyeres.,grow:n. itoffllnotice, suit was filed for
partition the – The suit was contested contending
that there is anoral g’i–f.t ‘m:a.:1e’.”‘*1a§k’ the plaintiff and thereafter, all the
records are “entered ii:-.t_hlefnarn.e of the defendants. The trial court, based
i’~on,the,conten.ti.on*–..of the parties, has raised as many six issues
reglardiih:-g,«enti«tlle.rnent’and mesne profits and also on the aspect whether
V there isle; giftideedl and a declaration made during May 1980 in favour of
defendants by the plaintiff and also whether the plaintiff is entitled
for half share in the property. Initially the trial court decreed the suit.
” -«’fhereafte1′, the matter was remanded back in the appeal preferred by the
W/
defendants. However, on dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff approached
the District Court in RA 4/200l. The District Judge has
the suit in favour of the plaintiff stating that plaintiff_i.s..,en*titled:’for half,
share in the suit schedule agricultural landslagainst wliich:,’_deferidanlts
before this Court.
Heard the counsel representing-»..lthe,parties, howeverglcondoningll’
the lapses by the appellant inpf-lot being”dilil,gent”in. prosecuting’ the matter
due to the fault of the advocate.’ if
As noticed,*f_,hae_p’contention -of the plaintiff is that it is a joint
purchase and being venjoyaed bifthelljoint family, both the parties being
relativesji.e.,*sister in and brother in law. Thereafter, the defendants
of Dastgir Sab who is the brother in law of the
plair2tiff,,lhavefvlftaketihVavvdifferent stand and started disputing the right and
agitatedfthte “matter and also the defendants have set up a claim that there
V’ xan~oral”gift in their favour as such, title is conferred on them and
‘-«p’lair;,tiff is not entitled for any share and also tried to produce certain
ldocuments and evidence was let in. The lower appellate court has noted
35%’
that the property was jointly purchased by the plaintiff and the deceased
Dastgir Sab, is not in dispute. Noting the contention of the defendants
that there was an oral gift in favour of the defendants on 9.5.l980.._hy the
plaintiff, referring to the RTC extract, the appellate court has the
conclusion that the names of Dastgir Sab and Plaintiff i’
mentioned as owners as well as possessors.”i””i’aking, into jcerisideration
Ex.i>3 — Rasidhi Patta and Ex.P8 and 109 –iA:i«ndexfgo’f lanai, ‘~and aigo
revenue receipts since 1986-87 produ’c.g;d’..depicts’thejointnarnes, thus, if
taking into consideration the’ abundant’ ‘evid.ence prodiicechf the lower
appellate court ha’s.h’eld,;_i.hat is not a ease of gift rather, it is a case
of joint purchase arid~posses’sion.._being continued based on revenue
records as wel:l_as other ‘°doc1.1rnents. The contention upon which the
Vdefendaritslf tried to” upon that there is a oral gift and also the
‘vgvideiice letin, dislodged by the lower appellate court.
if__The_:specifie__ground on which the lower appellate court has
rejected__the_conte.ntion of the defendants is that, if at all as contended by
” defendants the gift was made in the year 1980, how the records stood
in –the.n_anie of the plaintiff as well as in the name of defendant even
Accordingly, appeai is dismissed.
An