IN THE HIGH com? 0?' KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 28*" DAY OF AUGUf.§'T,. fzbinaé
Besogg-
THE HOEWBLE MR..1usTI_<:E K3.§<--ESH§if§NAF*A\§§W1'--..L
REGULAR secomo APPEA£:V:V'I'¢.O.1v?9'9V_G55-fi§f®EC &
mg
BETWEEN: " V a
2. Sri K JAv;*aRAMs"' M - ;
Age:5$'"g.' *. g~= R' ' "%j
S/O,KARI¥..A!?PA.I_@V' §4f_fi?«?'?§I't'5A %
AGEQ .£+~;B€)UT 5Q"'xfE.4§RS
HUL§¥?4%XN€§;='§LA"*\{£LLA(§'EVVV--
:.3iGANA'i5)E~§Qpfii..I,'«s§N-EKAL TALUK
:sAra:3ALorzkE% .RUR'A;;' 'DISTRICT
% . % APPELLANT
{s g_gsr.:; N.VS'iE£VEZ;$sM 'VREQBY, ASVCECIATE)
S'E§"";¢a.i§~£;}V";;:0A¥\},f3sPP/A
._ Agayfi?
g, 320 JGGATAPM
}¥.G'ED ABOUT 5? YEARS
AA R/AT' HULIMANGALA VILLfi.GE
JIGARE HGBLEANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL §3iSTRICT".
2. Sri A NAGAR3
Age:33
S/O ANJANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS % ~
R/AT HULIMANGALA \IIL£;AGE* ._ s
JIGANI HOBLIANEKAL TALLEK 2 '
BANGALORE RURAL msTr<:1_::T.
3* Sri A MANJULA
Age:30 _
sxo ANJANAPPficV~._
AGED ABOUT 3'G"YEA£§S H
R/AT HULIMANGALA *»J._IL._LA'GE
HGANI %H0Bu,TANEKm._ "'¥~'!3\--£._Lii< %
BANG;§\LC£R§ RURAL DISTRI7C."T;'
4. Smt-.BH§JfL_AKE3HMI.' A.
:v:vS/O.AN3.$x5£flAPPA_V"-..__ ~ %
A659kA3ou%T}{2«2'x<E;*«Rs
R/AT %:~1uLIM';As~:€3;'a§%s_A VILLAGE
_JIGAE¥IV'fiOBLI',AN'EKAL TALUK
BANGALQRE RURAL DISTRICT.
n %%%%% RESPONDENTS
+0–0«0-
%’1°i%;M:s%%£:S;a rs FILEI3 15/5. 100 RM} :3 )<'{.II R 1 & 2
<3? Civc AGAINST THE 3U£)GEMEN'¥" & DEGREE DATED:
20.3.2537' msssm IN R.A.F\3€3.8/2065 ON THE FILE
" _{}F if ASDLDISTRICT JUDGE, BANGALGRE
REJJRAL §IST, 8A¥S1GA§..()RE, DISMISSING THE
'fit?'-'PEAL ANS CORIQRMING" THE JUDGEMENT AME")
DECREE DATED: 16.10.2004 PASSED IN OS.NC§.
his son the piaintiff and one daughte:j{:"'§;§rifev_4 ca?
defanéant No.1 and mother af defendahts
his heirs, an at them succeed'éd-t:tties}t of the scheduie property. Therefore they
. :st:;.rt;;Vht”‘ft3_r’V~駒iém§ssa§ cf the suit flied by the plaintiff far’
aeggarmn.
>’ H 4. Or: the basis of the pleadings of the parties the
ma! Court framed severai issues. After the parties ieaf
W
entitled fer cieciaration cf t§t¥e as
respect cf the entire extent of
property. Nevertheless, the
its power under Order VII: F\?_’.£J§ev 7′. “{“}’?
reiief and deciared that m;;r:ram;mggmrea for haff
share whiie defendafifg. M; hair’ §hare am’:
directed a Pr’31imin§n,t..:.;§e<gr§3,§_'£.é'v_.'iééf'Brawn ta that
effect. flower appefiate
Court of the trial court
and :rrr:ismAs;§s}e::r:…_:}grae'rr. ':§pp'e3s. As against these
concurréfifi J_u£:i'g_rr:§§r*z'e::"_.'rwéf the courts beiow, the
appérfién~t-p£ai'n'ti§fi$Abefore this Court.
heard the iearned ceunse! appearmg
'for V'part'ies and on perugai of the hzdgments under
"v.I '::T;ppeai Yam of the opinien that the appeai dares mt
§ri'1a«aIve any qagesfion of Eaw muchiess substantiai
question of iaw warranting interference by this Court.
V
There is me dispute that the suit scheg1;;'EfeVV'}:}ea;5e.rty
was granted by the Government te T'
said Kariyeppa died Ieavm:'g AA»Vb ei*.§vec§ -Iijiei»'wivfé; …A5§'n~T~._
piamtm' and one daugfjter
ef the 15' defendant and eeferjdents 2 to
4. Kariyappa died:_’_i”sf1 hés death,
by virtue of SectEe{3.._.8:’ Act the
suit: scheeeigéeiel’ _’::_\i’ef;f.’vt’:’v. Vf§£13fi1«En6 by him was
succeec¥€e;ia nameiy, wife, son
‘Vee’ee’i\…5r”:a-res, as admittecfiy, the said
Kariy ppe a Theugh the defendants
¢’e§etende.Vd of Kariyappa executee 3 Wm
her undivided interest in the suit
in faveer ef defeneants 2 te 4, as
;;”gn;:y:5ea by the Ceurts below the aefeneants have
Ԥa::4ea%%:a preve the said M: in eccerdance with few.
1AA”3;h’eref:3re, upon the death ef mother of the piaintiff,
‘ her undivided interest in the suit schedeie property
eeveived on her Ciass~–I heirs namely, the
his sister. The piaintiff became the
share in the suit scheduie
became the owner of remai_nintj’.na*:f
rm dispute that the sietetV: eiie év} ieaving
behind her husbandzijéfndi ufirnii_e2fe:3’\’vVvnAe~me!y,Udefendants
1 to 4 as herv heits.~–v:._jf}”titt§;,__’tfivevjieetendants have
succeededtie rathanamma in
the sMqit_.E$r:b:etiVii::§:e”_” pfe}§iVert;;:;,M’VVVV1fnerefore, the Courts
beiovéehavevvv;ti’g2if§ti:y*that the plaintiff is not the
owner {5f,_the”ent’i’re.’:_”‘..extent of the suit scheduie
pre;é{etty’ ____ His entitied oniy for half share.
was filed for cieclaratien, in View of
.t?:e”*3d:;nit’i’i~:§d’i1’tects, the triai court: exercising the pewer
undies: mgr VII Rule 7 of CPC mmiided the reiief and
VA egiiyiaiited the decree fer partition by deflating that the
pisaintiff is entitied for haif share while the defenciante
are entitied fer remaining hat? share. Having regard
-13..
to the facts 8: circumstances of the case, the”‘={.:eurts
beiew are justified in mouicimg the reiief
the preiiminary decree for partition,.t.h:e~–ze;gfiT.:’~tfie3
was flied fer declaration of ti§§e. .:.4The’re’:’i$-%1e.. 1
or irregularity commit!:erJ___ by”‘+§fi’e Ceer;§s:’_V_«¥3e’_§;e§¢
granting such a decree’;’~.’, .f_£”he ” Eelafrneid ceunsei
appearing for the Va’;i.§:eE!e_nt.j_§£; five: ._a pesition to point
eut any pe;*versits,*””in–[th’e the Courts
beiow. 1_It.:~ te; a:epEv¥§’aei:?i3iaintiff to mcwe for
cirewingiyup. for the purpese cf
dividing thé’epreepe*.*.y” and beunds. In this
‘ t_’§?3a=umette¢,V___1__fir1d ne gmend te admit this
this appeai is msméssed.
%/-
FUDGE
e–s.k