Loading...

Thippamma vs Channamma on 14 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Thippamma vs Channamma on 14 September, 2010
Author: Ravi Malimath
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:

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information