1N THE HIGH COURT OF §<lARi\?ATA§<lA AT BANG,/i\LORE
DATED THIS THE 17"' DAY OF FEBRUARY 20
BEF'C)RE:
THE HON'BL,E MR. JUSTICE ANAND E3YR'}§RvE{j:;)O'§, }
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL Np. 1 z_%2O*2,'Oo"':: T
BETW EEN:
1. Thippamma, __ _
Daughter of Late VéE:';=;'._1I1n;:{, _ A 1.
Aged about 50 ytztzirs} ' '-- _ } IA
House Hold Work, Ka)d'i}1ai$.iV'. ' "
Hamlet of A-'i:ii:2.I1ek<;»'{§::V' ' '~ 'O -
Thalak 'V
ChalEakéré T£I'E~uEg§5'72 .._1'il"2_.V A
ix)
Sfm11t'ha:'nshiflf-»._O »
Da1L1gJ_1t"c1f of L:.i1:::' 'V éi;=--w.i;..1'1'1':1"é1..
A ged ;1"h0u1 4'7 - _yéuOV1'S;«
4gcmnnobanahaiie, %
TOOOO\M<sOe.1<au_nm1~uO'r;a---:%u%:<.572 mo. APPELLANTS
_(_.B"y' Sfi%'i:.:R.:.V'*v_3'£1§%Ei§l'Likt1Sii, Advocate)
-- AN 15:
_ C_'BaS2i':°...na,
_' SQV11'*m"'Thipp£1jj2z,
, " Aged about67 ye-Ms,
"A'gricuEturist.
IQ
Kodihz-tlli,
Hamlet of Manraekote,
Ttmlak Hobli,
Ch'dH'cEk.€I'C T:.11u1<--572 142. RESP()NDE.\?Tt
(By Shrr. B.%\/i.Siddappa. Advocate)
9,, r9: .5. .1: .;_:
1. , .i..: ._ ,
This Regular Second Appeal
the Code of Civil Procedure, .i»9f)8, ttgainst the.e.'}udgemeh§t arr.rj '*.
decree dated: 09.} 1.2005 passed inR-.A.No.S2/2003 oh the file (1)?
the Civit Judge, (Senior Drvéséorr), Cha1l1ake.Ife, E1Hti)W'iI"1g the
Appeal and setting as.ide~._theWjtrdggr1er1t._ and '1'3eiC1'ee dated:
i9.()8.i999 passed in O.S';'N()..2(}.79i5§if)934E»--josj'the fiie of the Civil
J udge, (Junior Division) and Clhal.-i1;11<ve.i;e__a'.;1d etex.
This Re;_iiVtriéij{£?.e.r-'Seeortd "Ap§e;.;tI "--"l'1z:.x»:.i.hg been heard and
reserved on It;'(_)2.13§}"t*_v().Vart-;i_V'eor"fiir1'g_' rnr; for pronouncement of
Judgment tl1is--.:lra'3»t. the C"ouri"d_e 1.ii%ei'ed'gthe foltowingz -
dogehGMENT
A 2 Counsel for the appetlzmts and the respondent.
A 2. The} zlrtées are referred to by their rank before the tréai
“”–._V”eoLrrt for.'”the sake of convenience. The appelizmts were the
d’ ._’p1{1i’ntti”t”i’s before the trial court. They had sought for partition and
“sedparate possession of the suit properties.
5
it was their case that one Basappa was the propositus. He
had three sons nameiy. Settappa, Thippdjjtt and Veerzmiia.
Settappa is said to have tiied without any issues. Thippaih: had
died leaving behind his son, the defendant and Veerttniraihziti-_a’1so
died ieavirig behind the plaintiffs. On their fttthe-175$ death;
had held Claim to haif share in the suit iteiriis at ‘-21:16’2iVib§r_fi}’i’hg an
app1it:ation before the Tzihsildarto effeetith’ata :e’_ati’ies’ in’; their,
Q
father of the pEaimi’ffs ilrior. incft:i”ijeti” -«!.oa.ri’s.from certain third~
parties. Thesefi, Ellhfifi wéereii discharged by the father of the
dCiEf3(‘§£ln£”£1_i’1Ci’i1’1’Qtitisi’dt§’I”c!.fii)£’i’iOf the same. the father of the
plaiiitiffs had ziigreetito seii his haif share of the suit properties to
the,f_at1*.er’the__de’fend:-mt. Hence the plaintiffs had filed the suit.
The’d.efeii’da_nt.__c’ia’iii’ied that there was on oral partition between his
-V father’ :1f}{iA’hiSx.b1′()£i1£iI’S inciuding the father of the pEait2tii”fs and
.,ftiiat’iit’he plaintiff’s fattiei’ iitiving agreed to seii his share of the
property as aforesaid, had put the c£efei’1(fant.”s father in possession
é
favour. This was disputed by the defeiidarit oitthee footiiag that the
(3
4. The reiationship of the partieg not being in cfis’p_ut’e, the
burden of estabiishing that there was an oral partition wit1::.j'(‘:-ii”‘the
defendant. The summai’y rejection of the finding o’§7.tihe, ‘t.:t,i£iii et>=.h”t’
on this aspect while proweding to acsiieptitirzlt iagr<:'e:t:1e«n't.sjOi""s:1iI'e
executed by the father of the p1;liI1Eii'fS~je'v.W'i1e1']p.ii.i1S.Siillltf'. im-'e-,
admittedly not been sought to hai'titin):1
is a glaring error :fi_i':rit"'ai:)1peilzV1teHtiourt. The
manner in which the first to address
the Points the reasons
assigned_,b.yt at its conclusions on the
isxties f:i'va.;1i1'e.ti fir.'x't uppeilate Court has not
carried out its hiiietioiii:-_ c0.t~ii'ecti.y and the1'efore. the substantial
«..(}uerii:i_h:ng;._Qf' {aw 1'ziiiSed—–we to be answerecl aggainst the reasoning of
the :fii1':»:t"'a;épef'i'Eate–"Court (See: San.m.s"/1 Hczztari 1:5', Ptarus/zotzczm.
, SCC 179). The weak attempt on the part of the
A "cQuhse.i' mi" the i'espon<:Eent to sustaiih the jutlgment and decree of
, ithe'fir:§tappe1iate Court negated.
é
Acc:o:’di11g1y the zipped! is aliowed. The jL1dgmc.1_1_£ and
decree of the first appeiizite c:L1:*t is set aside with cosE.~;.
i} V