High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Shivamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt Shivamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 March, 2008
Author: V.Jagannathan
m  Hm:-1 mum cm KARIMTAKA AT BANeA1.0r§:'z.T
mm-2.1:: ms TI-IE new my 05* human    

BEFORE

1 EMT-'E3-HNANMA _  .
J'-"a¢';'=:E»'.'_'é.J5I.".'.'.*%'.I."'..T~"1"     
"Wm flIfiK1*7M~flNIi?fiPP$: 
R} m': 
xmmmmfiafiuamma JALAHALLY

     

{BY E-'.1-IRE M  :'fi,tji?.}

         

' --¢....m-'...-.

1- ' éTA":I.5'E'}V..OF KARNATAKA
»%..m' 

}£a'H£3:fiLORE

    531 M MLTNIYAPPA

 E7' M9." '" TE Kr'i"i'E-i:'iLWF1LE'}';'fl:*u l'uiI:"€I$'§-'u'u';'-'J-'uu""P.'%

.fiGED ABEJUT 85 YRS

H3' f'L'}i'." NG..'?"?' MUNIYAPPA C MPCJUHD
 1'-':'.%.!.F'I.JF.»'¥. CQEIJL PQSI'

E13116 ".?uflaI..£Z1RE 54



---'---uv-\- --n -u----u--1.-guy'-n nu-

3. $121: TE'HDLAEi&MMA

.fiGE»fl Exfi-WET 53 ':"R$

W)' at wmmm SI-I

WAT NCJn83f*'-1» 4TH amass
 RILTIAD
1!uMHflLAE'ISI'fl'uII LAYOUT   
zvimmmi  
BANG-Al.(Z".i=RE as

«I. myflwagwua
$3-.GE-D ABOUT 7:: was  
R*,;r':'?L'T'  f:eaGaRf%%% - 
MAIN ROAD V WARD   
EJQIJDABALLAPTJR T  

E.%l!¥!'_"-i.>'%.L*""'5""'

'1.-uI'J:\ul»J-'.

    

my aim:  Heap FUR R1.
9"" 3*' -~?''-31%''?*'*"35%3*§:=% $13Vr%%F"3R% 331%?

 £'.':*RL£;.U;S.454 cR.P.c PRAYIHG
TO Sm' A;.--'?$IDE   I!3"T'.i3i7f:i00"?" mfisfira Bi'
 JG-EII":3;_I?iIT;IL."'  AND s..J., E'LORE IN
E&.~'2-.I\I§L'1V.211.,I'1'€#_E'J"Tr' k.a1m manor THE s..J. T0 RE"I'URN

nrr .1'Ifi-!t.'l.* 1:31-nr1:t c'|'I!:1"J"II'."l"'!. T!!! 131? aznxnn

  h?.l.'a'J.uI:J.I.'J.I.»!' 1.1! II.'  usrp rug
 iv8:j9'I'";. "2U;""X?  Efifgfi TH FAVGIJR {IF THE

%  comm on 0 I-IEARING 1'1-11s

'I'I'.\ T'."uJ"\'l' 'I' I"'II\"l'fI"IT

k %   wawamnan u.-11:. ruuuuwuu :-

QUDQMEET

.      appml is dirmztad against the order passed by .
  _  "  trial Cmzrt 7m dismiasing thn applicratinn filed by the

1-3 351 _g__r_s__t'I__ n.'311n-r-

.1-an ---upwv---u

ux'r1ar.nm1t:a 'bah-ngixug tn one 

 



'V f-'|I'_....___'__aI..'~;"....._.".' _. ...._ ..T...._......_..d. .-u
 0111!: {my .u:- J] ub_Iesu.1L mum:

 appellant as Well aa by com '

:2" Tim brief facts: tmamaaqr for the purposafiaf

dissmmatsl csf this case are to the efiact 

1.

…….-_.–… …….. -_

mag: ‘

mmpiamt fiksci fig fII’flE= 3’Ifi g .,_;.-L j

Lalmlmmmma by am ” V’

prosmzutinrx. slxbmitxed tlma sud’
twm amused and mée ;_ ~fi ivas in

-In–s_’_ u .-w.——

$.£.1.I-15.21159? aw in :£’t1r1_e; 1 _:;.;1,,:1i ‘ ml

A’- _

my and fl’IIcrA”‘” um

named above

mare bevelled. a.gainst- them.
After the ci’iiEs1c_§;nir:s§g:aLi’ pf sessions case by the

“‘* ” –‘ #.2.2’u’!.’.3, a-.p*-,…….”‘”-**..L..*-2’3

_uni}’aPPaI
herein and Tulaaamnm and

.. L reapnrmlenm 3 and ‘Ir undar Section

Lh-3 (.11-…P,L!,_;., fig: of gold nrnamnnm

11 1- _1__1_ _. _ PHI. 1.u..A…_.

‘ .___””‘n¢iu;:u1:ngim no the above ma manna-:1

‘ L¥’L1dga mm. afl flew appliczatinns with ragard to the

c}ain1 ma-M by mach one: -91’ thenn and ultimately rejected

the applicatiarm of all but second raapondant

91.,»
“..

I*aI.Mu1’1iyappa. It was ordered that propertim 1.T’p'”m

eqP.£’..Na.5w9&1 and pmperties 1 to 4 [I”.F.I’i”o§..1.!§’;_’;:(‘;§’I’_’_J§fi.”

pg’-tagmfiim 1 to l8I_P.F.No.20_!97} and J

_.1’I A…

…1………_.._”. a…

H rnwr.-o
1′

gr.» ‘.1″€fi.21€:f%], W’r€: “‘”‘ifl

1…. . .. . «
l.l’:I’- I §l.l.l..l’ I.u.2tup=’u_uL-.25.» A

rcspu:v.v.rmicx1t hmrein who

appliczaant hrafnr-2 tlrm trial Cosmu-t’V. ‘ £55 is

call-sci in qucatirzn by 1’ » ‘ _

3… 1 haj.re: ;;1fz¢:a1€c:?A1VV’ Aar. Counnol
Shri M..T.Iia;mm’ ‘ _ fh.: %&;g%%A%app.;»11ant& and the learned
and .a1rsdR’-‘t::r1″”‘ r’1.’ ‘ , H”-
m919″‘mi§I1t. = n

» 55″}:-§”‘~1aubmieaion of the laarmd :E»r.fT.’.oumc:i

3.i11~i –wr in that the appellant basJ.1.1g’ the

‘ ‘adapiézgwi. cnf den-ceaaad Lalcshrnamxna is entitled

“ff: AA1’..1iv.:e..Q:r_.’__;1~11_ :11′ in also a will

. ‘if ” gfiiifi ail the fp;”fi*pm”‘wu”* m the

k A %%%%gppe1m herein: and thmfin-e, the 1:1-m1 Court could not

have dianflmcd the applicatiun filed by the appellant.
9:/«

V

\l

5-” Can the other hand, learned Counsel far the

5.=……r.*r-….. -§u5§,I-.r,=z1.rr.7’i;..__’l: that trial court

czmaaidsred the placred ‘I:’.1I3xf4in1′”& it arid 1″”

that the snacand mapondent is the heir *

Cilaasr-1’1 of E1’1It1’y-‘P: to that: 11 sohsmulg afh

Eumaaainn Act and as other

-u.

=-~=’~«+-m+iv=-.¢: thair $1:-.-am t11a_tL”~~..t…¢=i 4.1:

Emma |.1lFI..|l.l.I4a||:i|’l.l J i

cinughtex-as cs-if the
appfima11t:a h.ewix1g tn
mm» that m.-,g¢g;m of the
judga has

Lififiufia. ta.’ ,:. 47.34;-*«~+..%ae: by c.*.’z1….-=-‘-* ;.*.pp1……”*-“*-…;.

i11::1uufEi11g: *:.11’a and has passed the order’

in fammt rgaf

tltma ham-d both sides and upon a

xgflarfififli the ordczr -of the trial court, I find that

Igu …aJt§A.:.;.1.L1;4′:i;3e1l:z1r1t hEnreir1 is -zuxzlcerrwd, though the

é mm *==1-rm h¢f;:1-re t.1:z,e C.’:mn”f t….hwi:. 1511!;

‘W E1’? ‘Jul!-u|v’W’¢’JcJ. PIP’ –u– w’

nt in um” aciupfiefi. ti-f uacuaa'”‘”6éz’i

.’VL.aks1m1amrn:r1a. no matexrial was plaoeozil in support of the

maid mtanmfl. mlm-.r1 and the trial Caurt 1;1’1erafi:m,

lz

7
ft’

dhmimsad. the. rczlaim M tbs appellant. At the same time,

‘l;£:3 Etzzurt. fnund that the 36-«r*..nnti Ifiapundent

ii'”ifl’:ir1 ‘fhfi pm1rfi:1ex’v’ =17-f Suh Se*”ti”‘1 1 (if ‘muiax; 15 “f “”

Hindu fitacctaaaiann Act and he being the *

dmasmd Lakahrnanmm ‘a husbana, tn-.~.%

passearffi. an murder in flavour of film 7

.;.’a…1.J. ‘E.h.=a.1.: “ha applieant ‘E

the i*1e’ir oi’ xi-%’5″3”.§:_ f
MLmi§;appa.. In ‘rim ‘% before
the t1″*i»a.l C-u:n1:.1rt,§J!<rAi:;:;ri by the
lemmafl wank ma claim of the

a._1-,'.awl1*.*f.a-.23.-.'r'. t.ha.t Inf ea-'_*:n;I11r3.

raspznntmieznt.' – wail-aattieci law that rim

£Z:1*i111i::f;al t;2miir1t4V_:isVx1§:vtAtE1é"'"f:ro13er Fonun ta agitatna owr

' fl'.Lfi "" "£119. Under the said

the ljmited pxlrpnae of return1'.ns_:_ the

….,… £"…………'|! …….. ..
L1: .:u|.u uu '£1"u=

.__.._… _- ._._. .. .. 'I… -…

fl '1'. ' _"1i::.==.E1T.G1~' _ "".u 'W

aa11;tlm tima cut' her cieatlu. the Ciourt

ii-«fiaaaad the order that is uruier challenge.

it ia not the final adjudicration in am far as

T3,. In. vicw of the aubmiasion made by the learned

9.:’£«»rs£1m.3:nm:1 Ehri M.T.Nanm’a.}1 for the appellant that

._..-. 1 ‘

f3.*t=£)f’.aii1flE¥ rt: Iii

.:.fi. 3 E’x”:qi.1ea”‘ufifig har p””:’r-‘”f””” ‘

.. 13..

a- !.1.J’-.i_-13.

.5.

appe].fi.sfl1t,. in 111_’y’v1aw’ it is a matter w’hJx:h’ will ‘

adjucliuuabtad before ths proper Foru;r1Ai..e..¢,’ -fC’;»§i:ii;t”1_5z;

and T;.’:’:.a’e: C–‘rin1i11a.I Court camiot

a§l;~i11di’«gjj-i’mu 11¢ rv.-ivfl ‘n’h’I*

In I-V -Iul-Ga wad. 1-ow-um 0|-VII-lull

I ,

E’:–u-nu. in

3. In viaw of the ahfiigw though I :10

rant :5-17″” -“W-=*=-..*”-m *–f-,6-‘v.3-..tf..¢’1*– i..’|’..-e;..-“‘.%
with titw -t:~:v::’.»_.:*l4¢?=i’.:v 2 yet the
appa}.kaun§__ to approach the
aj§J§21’»2~g:a~ria§tas._ ..s’t.ei.ke hesr cl:-ztzim aver that
basing on the will

.”E-*w:’x~.”«’$ ‘Ifii1″=t’iTrE6I.’5’I.’.i.Ea’.’i\”3. 13:3′ ti” &”m=aa% in fawn: a

I”!

At the maxne time, in View of the

.m¢¢:mum;%put4mm by the appellant’s counsel, it is

‘ Icahn tn dimct the trial Court to abtam’

A 3-m’unHm’ mm t_h_¢:= ae:n;ss:_211c.1

71.. J

…………–..-I”, ..

.__””reta§1rr11r:.g’ fin-;~ pmpeerties to him. result, I “‘W *u1a”‘

V L’ f 4: . , : rardver: },

‘D
I O

Irzi

1!
.1’

Eji

:3}

Isaitulg any

qqflflfi jflavfllfifllflll ‘IR
.I- JIJI-ll-6’

Tm mial Ciaurt ahaii mite appropriétig

indemnity band frczm the amend
‘mf¢re tm p:”raper£§mI”i:-no’ hiI.’I 1. _ T

rfhllfii-‘ dimxnisa-£11 of the

1-vs-as-r am” ‘Ln .r;.;.-any V.l|.—-‘I’l&Vu.lK,
w gar um um nag)?’ 1..-uT:_!:?u 1

mmilabie m hflr” 5;; }.a.’s’&”‘i.r1 ,; to her

right mwr dweaaed

:{a£$1fi§B1’J1l’7l.fl3;; tlfi-:«::”‘L» V t1D!1E’ made