THE HIGH COURT OF
CIRCLTET BENCH AT GULBARGA
D§{if'EZ{} mm THE mm DAY 0? DECEMBER ;v'€;3.; "
FRESENT
'£'HE H0?~E'BLE MRS JUST§ifiIf;"?§§;§.?€3U::4§*§~CH$£2E;{fR..
R.§._A,:>:o'772§§gQ_;;V%.w%»
Bzrwfigzv; W .
Subhashchandra,
S50 Sangayya Jaji,
z%g€é:Maj0r, é
Occ:Bt:sines$ ;?snd'»v.r§$gé§i_g::;§tur;i,__
R20 Twin Hi1f.3',£aI'I:i§fl.C§ "' '
"§a}uk:f1;;mana"md; '*<;,__ _
Dist. Bid;%ar580ee1;_V % .. APPELLANT
{Sri San} E3:€%?I'<:iIi'i;1a1' Mzinikappa Patii, Advecate)
AND: .
Sf'9'Sangay:¥% Ja3'i--, _
-535$? 5'«'l'8;~§'<2:; - " '
036:" Busiiiefi: }Fig"icu1{:,:re,
K50 Town Eiumgmafiad
V -- 'fa§ukfi' Eiigémaéxzébad.
'§3§S§'i. Bifisif 585 $9} .. RESFGNDENT
B;S;.Bharashefiy, Adwcata fer CXR}
This REA is flied mfg % SPC agaixist '(ha jtxégament and
= 'i;'i'é¢ree dt.i33,01;20{}'? passed in as Nmxoz 0:: the me ome Ciivii
" . judge (Sr.Dn} Basavakaiyaxx, ciecreeing the suit for deciaraiien sf
jaini ewnership.
This RFA seeming an for ADMISSION this Bay,
delivered the faiiewingz
JUDGEEvIE;;\ET
Heard the learned Ceuzzsel for thé§';éi;; 3§é:i}a;1t<.;1n:d
respenderzt.
2. The agpeilaai hereig was tifzV¢..LViV1:jiz~:%.2_<:«*.*.c.*;ss1'.'Lxhl'éefégzéggjit befere
the t:'ia§ ccurt, In briafthe faéi-:;i§2at"E¢§{';?£<: 33¢ present appeefi
are as under:
The ;es;;0§d;%§_%t§p1a{:;t_§_%f ap{V:rf§§zi§¢iVi%iiVVV' the trial court
cantandixig brother and the family
evmeé z1:i:§ve:¢bEAe;?§ii:d:'V-i%i1*:;é'x?»$ét~¥e' firopefiies which were divided
mtween the %--ryn_3t3i.<:;*sV¥;3{ aflzfniijfgtfazzgemeni in ihe preseflce of raiders
an it if; fi._1§ther rfientezaded that an: of ssverai prapefiies,
V. _1;1':;:~V,%"aiix5ir;i4Vfe':;3V and aiiotiad in each of them specific properties
the saici property was an agicuiturai lazzé and
V -Vboth intendeci to convert the same and than gel} tize
firagerty pints jeintly. In ather words, except Sy,}€o.§3I
10 acres 18 guntas, ail otfler properiies said ta have been
" diiiided 833 mates and bezmds.
2, If is 3139 cantended that certain propertias '2 V
subject matier 0f fznniiy arrangement dt. 15.6.1992' --
the name cf the respondent Manikagfipé "and
purchased by the appefiant herein aiang s§ri$I’;»1z;.Vf.l1ird ‘§)j;?’ ”
Gmzinéa Raw. Therefare, it was the'”€%§e.of the xthe
trial cmm; that in the pr0pe§’t§z_ presen’:
appeiiant Subhasiz Chancira, dt.6.I.84, the plai11tiff~respnde;:t' with his brother Sszbhash c;m.i§a_%fL:'%-k%ji'% % « B 4% M 3. matter and canle up with
a defenceiiizatl £5 an orai paztitien between the
brothers. by niétesgv’ b€3unVc§3s’.LVand the property in questien was
V’ ‘p:31fch§_§ééi..o3 6; L84 ‘ipresezit appellant and the same is his self
which he: has abselate right, tfitie axzd iaterest,
Théfaiféire, ‘$313; éenies the right ef the respondeni herein, but
‘«.__ c3ain1s tax? the absalizte ew:’:er cf the pwperty in Sy.No.I31 $0 an
If) acres 18 gumas. He alse denies the so sailed famiiy
:a;ifa§::gefi1ent chimed fly the reswfidezré: which is mid is have keen ifi
e:<isfe:2ce siace 11.136 198?.
V’ piaifitiffdid any active part at the time ef registratien efthe
V V ‘t.he piaintiff-resgaendent that both Govind Rae and his bretizer
taking equai shares as they had jeintiy purchased the propert}/.
Apparently, the respondent-plaintiff was nefiher :1 ~ V.
decument ef £984 nor the partition between Govixfif: —
Subhash Chandra in 1995. In support of c¢;;ii¢nt«:an Vgfgggt
there was an oral pafizition in 1978: ‘T
even piet Nos.8G & 91 came to be”‘ee:§IV’1″etted she
constructed house on plot to his name
in the year 1983 er he fieeument to Show
that subsequent’ eeeiduct of the parties apart
fiom this Vci3aI1geAV.;__;§A§es.911ae}.fi2;.iéés*a…}?1a0 have also come forward to say that
‘:fii1iS Tw-as gurehesed in the year 3984, the respondent »
_ .€i,(_}£’§ui}’ii’3#f1’i;. flifhey trial C’0til1; was _§us1:£fied ii} saying that mere absence
Lfefipondent-piaizztiif would not indicate that the property was
éimehaeed by the apyeiiant izz his izzditzidual capacity. It is the case of
Subhash Chandra have paid sale congideration in equal am_¢::_z znt.
Eveii the evidence ef DW’-2 is to the effect that 59%. a
consideration for purchasing Sy; R1131 was paid 1 ”
Chandra am! the cather 50% was pa£>d TP:e:*e
hard and fast rule that whenexzér'”‘2;:1*nemié§}er’– ‘VVf{m? 1ily
purshases a, prosperty in his £’i’z:if”‘1:}.;’&;§’ ghiyuld lfiéntion of
such purchase on behaif of .AA”;§;V{‘zi”S’t€I]C6 ef a joint
fam:i¥y has ta} bf: 1%: geveral facts and
brought an record. If
there was’ apparently, neither of
file pax1ie§ha§zé_ tfie p1otN.9I was purchased in
the yegru ~.ir1 ‘£§’z§V the respondezfi my piaintiff in his
V’ «-étxdiwv-i§€§a1p_’–2fa;n.§. IfAfi}.t’e2i:i3.’? there was a partition in the ‘year 19358,
§lf;iIned this pI:3tNo.91 as the property earning ta
39138 i£se§f. The Municipai records show that in
‘ afifxe yeéw ‘~}VVi§’S8-V89, piet N991 which was standing ii} the zzarne of the
‘ ;i}%;;3;:;)f;L1§iient-plaintiff was transferred t0 the name of the apgeliazzt
jiémch is get denieé by the appefiam. On the other hané, the
‘4 appellant has adxrfified that afier chazige cf Katha in respeci sf pie:
was the famiijv’ pmperéies atanie is be éivééeé in {he ‘year LE9$’f.__b§=
famiiy arrangemeni ‘Between the two brethers and the ggéég 2,
arrangemsnt was acted upon and therefareg ihare e:E”.;an’g§é’ “sf H
mutatien in rsspeét 0f piai NGSEG ‘{;:”..’supp{§:’€’._a}f sérid
piaadings, he breught {he évidexéce Q31 reeéré. 1′}f}_{eref:3f§% is rzaiifx-s: ”
simatian where the appeIIa.;&:t*..~g§;as £Siith”f%:gard ta
ihe acttxa}: case ofthe p1a,intifi’g ” V ” x V’
‘.1 9:1 per1;:sa3:?vBW~i, the aciuai
aharacter of ‘gees ta the efieni sf saying
that he dgéfigtzaéeay »:§ is:1:.it,’i:’;”»=_§’Vi{‘i;VE’ <;:'V<:.'i in as Na, iaazgs by him
along The sa:i& §i"3CE£¥I{1rE3fit is
marked 3% E:=:.4P.3V_ a1ad.5-ihé"v.siVg2'iat:;§es of the pzzrfies are marirgeé 33
"Exs.?;.I§(&§"L€0 Siéfiamrés ef resp0néer:t«pEain€%fi' is at E:={§'.3{g}
*f;1:1é_.a§pei}a2';1. admits iha: ha camstructefi a hamge in
Fifi that ii is; mazaifié besfiée iha }'i{§%i$€ of Suiaizagiz
'§7ajgashefij,~s;__ 3%3e réézzatiazziéy admits iaier :32': £333: 3.: the insianea :35
big bmiézez he Eizas mi': 2/'gig sigraaiisre an $33 p3ai§::i. '§'%:%s
ja§§:_2i;§<§ §;=:*':E§: raféefi fizc fififififiiiiii Gf fiifi aprgeiéani. 2%-'%1e:*2e¥ef éi is
a:<:s21*e.renie.:2£. $23 Ezim ha wmzié accepi ihe cage :63? ifie §¥a%:::§:Eff and the
E8
rzaixmis aéimiggicmie gmég agaimi hint; he wzmlé my he saiei $9 :33" déé
:10': a': inzztance Gf his b:"’pi;a.z”fy’ ‘V
reiief of iiijlliififififi. .
8. in ‘auppsrt of ;::c::2:§;~.;i;;a; piéé;§§}§’g;V ;:::¢. the ‘c:’a§ée, %:ot}1 the
parties have iet in eviéence Elfié has came: an
record, the}: ham t1*zAséE:’b’L’.f}i<)~<:1v3;::_':'V1:e7:'3':';s arxé examining
wiizlesses. 'paxties is gane thraugb.
incizzééizgvfiiéév 55 wii&§:§é$’Ség, it is noticed that era}
pafiitien is “net at 33% esiabiished. 3:: was
expected :9 exL1§E:1i;_i £3012? pic: §\§{§s.8€3 & 91 came is his share if i§:a$a
‘ Ewe §;0:’parEi.es’v~-vgere nét””e’ve:3 gmnzhageé in }§?8, iha smsaéisd am}
p.a:’%i%:ii§::; afiygr hand, the fafits 0:’: recaré wouié p3’z:§a§§;§§se
the case <i:f§he";fg€ {}fi}}’ ti} preducs EX,?.2, {ha f3_sa3i.§y anfmrigemagzi mi Wag aége
VA i;e:§f;ré§:g an 3?’=ita3{1;ii”駒1€ znaéayiaé in Sizimz $213: $36 $0~=a:afi$é famfiy
: §’_{“}_”‘.’f;§i;}gt3.’1.’§§€E”E%E 3,? Z§Zx.?%E{ was zwiazi i§§€}I1 E3}? ghazzging ‘$5.32.: kafiza in ihé
fiéame sf éhe zzgpséfaizi kereifi whézzh is; <3per:l§:' adznitted by the
11
appeiiani befere this Court. In that View of the mattezc, the plaintiff
was }ustifi»::d in saying that he also has a share in the pr0p§ai*€g?§”%;;
Sy.’;’€z§.13.’t measuring 10 322165 E8 gunias siitmte at Humnghéaél.’ A4 %
9.’ ‘$51163 we go through. the eontefifs
S§=.N0.}33 is concerned, it Woizid t§1a{.”as.__”c»f ifiis
éacumeni in Euna 1987, iizegre é’§v.%.§:aA. §m§efi}r
between Govind Rae and {fie C.1r1a_§2d§’a.
“iherefereg with §e.f{e;:*e:3€e hrathers have
aafirzzified that in Syn?’-$9.13} is.
zsshaiwer er: 6.}.’3§84 aivsng with
§QViffifi ” i.:s:%’ be 2% agsres: 35 gxzzlias, in “%”i§EE’¥
Q5 éévisioii %>é’i¥.;é@:z G::*2_:-=’§f::§’ E3′-13% 353$ $23 pregezzz apgefiani in 19%:
= ._fFg%’;’:/cs_’:@’§3.p§e:g§:ts”f;_§z ‘w§;§z:’Eé..3._;G.acm:~; 18 gsmtas ix; Sy.N0m}3£. E.:>;.P.2 aim
sagzé “:’:%3pa;%_§é<i3§:€.–§§a%;1:i£f has hajf sham in the said prvzygeriy which
::e§::.%§"i:§ 'ézé {Sf Subhash Chandra. A: the and 9f {fie éocumanig
f£?§':ar:=.: $4 2: gmgievfizat if the gmpefljg were is be c0nve:'£eé arzé saié, tbs
A gigrea 'E9 3&1} {ha mine jointly and 'aka: the sake groseeés
je§§§sf:§§;. E': is the cage 9f the piaintiff~res;3:"::1§:;%:'s': ihai: fixing}: sash an
'4 unéemiafidifig and ayeemerii was there Exeiaasaen £23 pariieg. the
AA _ £§.'v…4»§ppare11t¥3g £112 Earzd in question in S_*»;.E\§0k}31 nzeafiuring
A T:.«}9VVa€r%§ £8 gunéas is an agécuiturai land. {:1 this, aha respeizdefif;
piaintiff ciaims 59% share. fie Ems sought fer dec§a:'ai§<::n of his
" s§':am 0:" jerim ownership ahimg W'§'§§'} the app€1§3.ii'ii as {big §E'0§:'.'2'§:;"
1'?
new
ap§eIEar:”€ irieé 10 36% away this pmpe3’iy in Sy.131 i;1é%vid2.;aEEy,
iherefore, an occasion amass is {fie {he suit Seeking éiractiarz ggginsi
the appeiiam The pmyer if} the piairii wads as under: »
“;’s.) That it be fiat:-iareé fihai 131:3 Pgaéntifi Cf j”
aiefendazlt are fin: joini cawnersg z1,2;锑p::$se$%:a:sr$’%3€’:. ‘4
the: iand Sy,’;\.?€,ai3i. .1 $
i’«?..;~’§. Rs46=~§5 pg Tag,
‘V V
be kifidiy-‘
Vééfitghorities {<3 eater
é:hevv"§;z§.%2f:¢ ~.%§§"Rw0-R of the gait land
V;}%1e:::;f£*ofiéd Véféxxwe 0f Efiimnabad aieng
– é:;§é3i1L:t%~;e–:;a:ne ofviiéfendant, as jaéni awn-er,
3 ” ether reiief be grantefi be which the
X ééntiziaa
was miztz GE Ehe aazbjeci mam.-r af gZ€.§.2′ IE. $3 3139 ii’; ‘ac ézgiagéi ~ V
en the date sf £:%:.?.2§ Ehe praperég’ was sfiéé finéizfiéafi H
Ggrvind Raw 311$ apgeiiani S1ih§’}3S§¥; €i”x2iii§i’éi;’ “§*:3$i§f:§EEy
{fie §’£3$p€€E§Vi: $ha:*::es af §§a§:::%ifi” 2:215′: &9§:.’~:_§§é§z1 in AS§’.?xE:§.’3,3*:.A ”
ceuki mi be iéeiztifieé ag an that da3f;’;§;3§§are&::t1}!. £27 @135
fize exam: grayerty that ca;n$’:'”Ea.A_be j4E?:;*;’Vti%;ar.§a21 §’0V\}%i’nd Raa ané
the §I’€:’»Ss’i=fi’§ apm:-Eiant was contents at
Ex.P.2 déscieses 3fi’1§”!:$:,f2’»?8I1:=’_’TLL§1 £318 brothers have
equal ghare i.€f in fi72éé:s11fé;i?::=:;§%; V:3fA’V-1C3’=,;asz*e:s E8 guntas, fixey have
aqua} s%1a;fé ‘}”§ze.i331a.E:1%§§i§?’§ p:}§’iion §%;%é£:1d {we 3 acres 9 gurzias’ As
{hers wasfifi §_dént§VfiC:{§iQ£:v«:3_f’*-rgsgective shares if 336 prospaffies,
they seems €a h37i.:§e ;::fsa’,–.:§e a:_ zécée £323′: in case the larzds are acid 0:’
V’ ‘-:%.r;>2:<.?::'*¥x%<4::§:/,A;i:;":*{:;vM. giats; {fie}: '$33 ameum will be distributed equaiiy
"A§ ;*3'i*:':.¥if:§_g by seiiing {ha game joinfiy. The §:'ape:'iies which
s€06d,__ the Bf p§aintiff~resp0:2ésn€ wags aimafiy i:"ar=:$§a;:'*:"ea'§ ii}
'the z3a§n£:_§*<.§?::e.a§*::é§%i"§:, E13"-siéiag
V' is fizz: aagpefifianis Eggs: §'i?f§§}i3E"%€§$E'1f di& 39: as}; {gr ahazzge af
-.._ “%a?3′:§?:a ‘ac iiicézsésx his mama aiscs as jarézzi awzaer sf éhe §i”‘G§€f§}’ fir:
S}’.:’§=.i}.§3§’ Bi3i.’饔€$1′.§ 198′? azzé 28$}, five years gap is them mad
E4
much wafer flew made? E116 bréége, In ihis view’ of ihe n’:a€i€::;n.f;he.
trizfi Cfiéifi was jusitifieé in rejesting the defence
appeliaai herein by balding that éhe pEa§nt§f’i’-r::3p<3r:dé§%§:– K
share in S§*.?€<3,13£. '@1222; {E25 pm";/er ::';1x'<;-Q'
axiarés ihereia are menticmezd in such 3 fa3hiV«._m €hat '£}ae:fE”;E_.%:1cé’-{“f£se;:’§’.:<3"ié2:§£d
the reiief depagafiégg upen gm: ‘3’sg§§i3fiC€3
éémughi 9:’; ieceré; A ‘ V
£1. £3”: Ez¢§he3;$h Chandra ami
<:9:1seq;:€_;}§;§3;: V;;§;sp:;:§'1_2§;:'§'é' " Subhash Shaniim £5: regiraizzed
' V' ";;3~a§:3§a§'§£e:1i:§L§»* §':mf:21 ::e'?V1'ifig"'%}9:e Said ;::mpert§,=' §i'id§"if'§<.'§%ja1§§=' without the
§;s;;a_2i(ie:§i«._be§x€gT_jéined as a seiler whenever an Gccasien arises ta
$e§E'é}3§§ prégéfig,
s§;<:;:§~;dingE3f, the appeal is éismigged.
Sd/-»
Judge