E;_ IN THE HTGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THES THE 14"" DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2o_1__o BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No."i359/2oo4E'_LL3_ESC_:1--?S«T A BETWEEN: Thippamma W/o C.T.Gopaiaswam,y',~..V_ Aged about 66 years, " A -_ Resident of:Kottare Channarnma :'Ro.ad'--,.x_'~».V' Chatiakere, _ d Chitradurga ...APPELLANT (By Sri "BMTSqddd:f§Vo'a,"Adv'oCEai§é)" AND: 1. J 4=§f'haSnnamh1..a_V"' v.\rv/,9, iate C.G.M---o-ban Agédé ab'o;Jt: 29 years, ~ S "C/Cs-v.f_T;T,hi.rr1'maiah, RSI Po,E_ice_',~" V S Bar _Li'rs.e_, "*-Chi.-__tradurga. c.MfRakshita _ ':3/o late c:.<3.Mohan 'C/o C.G.Channamma Aged about 10 years, Since minor represented by Her Guardian Mother Chitradurga. ...RESPC5NDEE\iTS to (By D.R.Rajasheit'siii;~Of th'e«pVlaintii'f, the present appeai has been filed .A by tlievilielainltifff parties would be referred to as per their rank"inV__Athe trial Court. The case of the plaintiff is that she is the mother of _the deceased C.3.ir'iohan. The 13* defendant is her dai.ighter~in~law and the 2" defendant is the grand 2? ufiirifww 2' :-W"""'¥""" 4.534.: daughter viz, the daughter of the 1" defendant. That the marriage of the 15' defendant with C.(3.iVi0han was soiernnized on 11.05.1995 and 2" defendant was_4t>or'.nfo'ut of the wed lock. That her son was working Department as a Forest Range _Qffi_<:er. _:"Uni:'his"r»:de.ath; if certain retirai benefits were granted to.h'irn;.._'Sin'ce"th.e defendant refused to share"the_ ben'e.fits,Vtti~e"'P.iai.,ntiff3 fiied the suit seeking for a de&'r.e_e--..that.'she:v.hasi got haif share in 'A' scheduie'~..'amo--unt»';a'r'iid:g.foir__ partition of 'B' seheduie property andifor» rn'esneri.profi_ts§" :The_ defe'n<.ia:n'ts»"o_n'-entering appearance denied the suit averrner.-tVs.V"' They-- ieointended that the house property wa,s_§gpurchase'ti~i them after the death of Sri.Mohan, out . o'f.,the_arnoiuii.t received as their iegitimate share. 'tri~a_iV"_jCourt on framing five issues partly decreed ti*ae4_Vsuif:.hti*i--di.ng that the piaintiff, 15' and 2"" defendants are entitle for 1/33"" share in 'A' schedule amount of i?is_.f8,8,673/-- and in View of the part payment already ___€et:eived by the piaintiff, she is entitled for the balance y§ic<'f"W Wwr s.:.1_. amount of Rs.?,327»66. The prayer in so far as 'B' schedule property is concerned was disrnissed. Hence the present appeai by the plaintiff. 3. Sri.B.lVi.Siddappa, learned Co:i'ri'sel:jappeaprino for the appellant contends that and decree is erroneous and':li'a..i;le to'-be set so far_'7 as the dismissal of the regard .,to:v.:'B':vfischedule property is concernedA;«-N"H_e":coi',7'ten'd's».iAijhat the trial Court should have also. decreiedrhthe 'B' schedule property as the decretal of He contends that the plaintiff being at also entitled for 'B' schedule property. ' Sir'i'§'ii).RRajashekarappa, the learned Counsel apupear'='i:ng""Vfor the respondents defends the impugned
“judgn”ient and decree. He contends that the property has
purchased out of her own funds and hence the
“”‘plaintiff is not entitled to any share.
riflziw”
§
3
e5.
5. Heard Counsels and examined the records.
6. The averment in the piaint wouid
the 15* defendant purchased the site and~i–co_:nstr’uctediVa
house after receiving the moneytary.-Ahfienef.its*~.f4rorn__’Vt.he.’
Forest Department due to the -death” It’:;is”‘in
the evidence of the defendantuthayt she a ioan
of $15.3 iakhs for the Vofwthe house
and that in terms of the..I,o_an shows a
deduction ioan. Therefore,
the inatyerialx Vfiiciearly show that the
property by the 1″ defendant in her
individuaii4i;gpaci’tya”ou»*t’fi:§f4her own funds. The property
cannot be relatahie to the deceased, entitling a division of
» a’ishVar,e’in~f:a\~r.o_ur of the piaintiff. Therefore; the triai Court
H ~hAa.sui’ri§hAti’y__ decreed the suit equaiiy between the piaintiff
and theiypdefendants in ‘A’ schedule property.
?. The materiai on record would disciose that the
if “purezihase and the construction of the ‘E3’ seheciuie property
was not oniy subsequent to the death of the deceased but
”
ego
also that the purchase was made by the lean obtained by
the 15′ defendant. Hence, the piaintiff wouid not be
entttied to any part of the share in the ‘B’ s.§i:e’d.a.;_ie
property.
8. In view of the sameggi 3of3the’é::o’nsid_eeevd.*
if
View that the ‘B’ scheduiep.ropetty”‘§sV V
property of the defendants W?i§i4’tf’i1V.,v:i’S.Viji0tV”{.i”EiiIii§V.:fOffl§DaFt§ti0E1.
The contention of the;”«..i..é?’a_rAn”ed;V’_>$vou~nS.a:i’~5?33’E3eaAring for the
appeiiant therefore becerrieis is iéahie to
be rejected,
._ — _’af_or»e_said reasons, I ‘am of the
consideted’ viewV–th’a:t is no error committed by the
tria.i§Coart tha’t-§;VaiVis for any interference. The appeal being
.’ ‘devoidiidof merits is accordingiy dismissed.
?rs*’:
__acq_i1iired:
