R.S.A.N0.565/2009 81 MiSc.CVi. 7349/2009 .1" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY 0:? DECEMBER 20:39 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEA E .
Reciular Second Aooeal
Miscellaneous Civi’i’fZ34V9/ 1′
BETWEEN :
sR1.vEERA REDDY. ‘
s/01.ATEBHADRAjREDDi{ ‘ , _
AGED ABoU’£’54″YE;_A¥<'s " _
R/ATVADAGANM~iAI,_I,,I–'_VILLAGE; .
DODDAKADA'FI-IU-R' poszr . ' '
KASABA I~IOB£.'I~. "' V
MALUR 'rA"LUz<E.5";i1. 4813* A
KOLAR [L}IST_RIC'l' . j APPELLANT
{BY SR1. H;?z[_.1vz:;RA.L1':;§ip,r§;'-A't5v'f)
_ AND; 'V
1 . 'SRI R£§E{€_A¢FI;ANDRA REDDY
.-S'/0 EAKAVERI REDDY
A AGED"A}3OUT*56 YEARS
NJ;',
"R/"AT VADAGANAHALLI \m.1.AGE
KASABA HQBL1
MAI..UR.';'ALUK 571 483
KOLAR _f5IS'E'RICT
.sM"':f. KAMALAMMA
RAMACHANDRA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
. .. R/AT VADAGANAHALLI VELLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
R.S.A.NO.565/2009 81. MiSC.CVI.. 7349/2009
-gL
MALUR TALUK 57] 483
KOLAR DISTRICI’
3. SR}. PADMANABHAIAH
S / O ANJANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 5} YEARS
R/AT VADAGANAHALL} VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
MALUR TALUK 573 483
KOLAR DISTRICT R ‘TEs(p’o1§bENm~
[BY SR1. A.G.SI~IIvANNA. ADV. EO’R_f<=I..f3)
RSA FILED U /S 100,014' cPC—-AG'AIN'ST TI~IE JUDGMENT
AND DEGREE DATE–Df: _ 2i8.GI_i..2OQ8I PASSED IN
R.A.NO.203./2005 ON THE r~-*-IL_E','OI«'~ __ADDI.. CIVIL
JUDGE IsR.DN,}4._f .:ENDING DISPOSAL OF’ THE ABOVE
APPEAL. ‘ ” ”
I RSAV.–& MISCCVL. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION. THIS
“DA’v,_TF;.E COI_I’R’I’ DELIVEZRED THE FOLLOWING:
i/2009 a<z !VIisc.Cvl.73-49/2009
– 3 _
J U I) G M E N T
Heard. T his is a p1air1t.iff’s second appeal.
Perused the judgments of the two Courts below. The
trial Court had decreed the suit of the
appellant/plaintiff by declaring that the V.
dated 24.10.1979 & 17.01.1981 {EXs.lf’__l””‘-.,:<'$z'f_'E52ltall
executed by the plaintiffs fathere'and"ot,hers' J
to the suit land totally measuring lguntaspiil.:fay'0url."
of defendant Nosl 8: 2 respec"ti:y"e]y were binding
on the plaintiff. On the
Lower cr3tg1'1-1:._"1«gs dishiissed the suit. On a
reappreciation of th_e._ev.i_dcnee on record, it has inter
alia held '.l.Z.}"'~1€A.". schedule land bearing
._measiirir1g 34 guntas sold by the
& others was not a joint family
the self–acquired property of the
lather. The saie transactions mipugned are
u.ofV_thef'years 1979 <3: 1981. The plaintiffs case is that
it suit schedule property was a joint family property.
it
/'
R.S.A.No.565/2009 <31 Misc.Cvl.. 7349/2009
_4_
As could be seen from para 13 of the Lower Appellate
Courts judgment. the plaintiff has neither
nor proved that the suit property was either V'
by his father or was acquired out-*"of..t.he-joinftz
income. At para 15, it has furthefijobserved
piaintiffs father was joined
sale deeds probably The
Lower Appellate Court the recitals
in the very sale. — 1 are to the
effect that was the self-
acquiredlfpfropietrtyf father. On the
fact\’ pt”tl§§ infirmity in the finding
of theIiower”~Appel’iate. Court that the suit property
“V”w_as «..grc:quir’e’d'”property of the plaintiffs father
as it is’ 611 proper appreeiatiori of the evidence
on record,. .1n;my opinion, no substantial question of
aris”es’*for deterrniriation in this second appeal.
to admit. the appeal. The appeal is
uf’:”aoC_ordir1gly dismissed. In View of dismissal of the
Ex’?//..
X
R.S.A.N0.565/2009 & MisC.Cvl.7349/2009
-5_
appeal. MisC.CVE.7349/2009 filed for interim stay aEso_..___
stands dismissed.
Appeai dismissed. _ ‘V %
hkh/Ata