Z V
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THES THE 13?" DAY OF JANUARY 2010» j
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR.JUs1*1CE__\z.,Q,sAB_'HAh" '
AND . . . .
THE HONBLE MR.JUsT1c{E'~s,N.SA:IY3.NA1~§AiigxlM.AV
REGULAR FIRST .,1:\_1Q._»416./' 1«.9:'3f7
Between: . « .
S/olate Boraiah, I
Adult, Kothoor village' _ _ 4_ '
Sjiodagu. ' . Appellaat
(by SI'i.S2:,_Vfia,t1;1'_A Adyfl)
And:
, .1. Vf»gk.fievamrna,. __
. A "AdL1it;
= A Atlultg V
Adiz.1 t_;$
V Respondents 1 to 4 are
V. R’/a C/0 Ramappa
? Chem1agiViliage,
Poiiibetta, Kodagu.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Volifiayaxzthi.
W/0 Devaraj Adult,
Hebbale village,
Kappdi, K.R.Naga1′ Taluk.
V.K.Sannappa
Adult, W/O Kempaiah,
V.E.Armayya
Adult, S/0 Erappa.
V.E.Jayara1I1,
Aéult, s/0 Erappa
V.S.Vishwanath
Adult. S/O Sannappa”.,_
V.S.Vittal,
S/0 Sam1appa,ad111t …. ‘V l
8/ 0 Sa1}nappa;’»-a£lu1t;._V-..__
V.SlSu’résh, V’ * -~ l
S/0 Saniaappa, A ” =
Rc.€«DOI1d€r;t,$ “to l 8 A are
R?/0 Kothur Villagg, ,
‘ – é “s.Kcaag”u,
= A S/0 Joixéarappa, Adult.
V.lJ.ӣդ1riSlilr1a;)pa
S/”u,__Ibwrappa, adult.
V’ r .Saraswathi,
D/0 Jewrappa, adult.
V.J .SaVithIi,
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
W/ 0 Sannappa. adult,
Periyapattana Taluk,
Panchavalli Post.
V.S.Bhagirathi
W/0 late Surendra,
Adult.
V.S.Chandrashekar,
S/0 late Surendra, adult.
V.S.Shobha,
D/0 late Surendra, adult.
V.M.Ningamma, V -_
W/0 late Madaiah, adult.” ‘
V.M.KeshaVa.ial1~,._ H _ ~
S/0 late adult ”
V.M.Jagade+éel1, ‘ _ «_
8/ olate ad _ it,
D/0 l~.£ad1.ah, ad’ult. ”
Respondents 1.9,’-t0d?_..9l’2’ire r/0
Kfipthur village, ‘S.K0vdagu. Respondents
V_(l:)y’S1fi.A.K.Subbajah, Adv for R2, 9, 10, 13 and 15,
. V _Sri..vM.,Rai11,_Bl{;at. Adv for R12, 14, 16-18,
~. ” -Sri.M.U…POQ1’lacha, Adv for R27, 28
‘ __R4, 5., 6~,?._7,’ 19, 24, 29, 26, 1, 3, 8, 11, 25
1’\re»fserve’d by way of paper publ}.C8.t10I1
R20,’$d.,
A. , _.R2,”23 service held sufficient, R22 sd.,)
and late Boraiah, the father of 10th defendant and since
the said wet lands are attached to the wet lands in
Sy.Nos.44/1 and 44/2, as described in the A schedule,
and in Sy.No.48, the plaintiff and defendants
for proportionate bane lands and at the
the said bane lands may be allotted A
attached to Sy.No.43 and 44/2y__ (AAvschedu1e»”‘}ands)
wherefore, the suit is filed for thVe’a_boV’e sa1d_t’:ellefs’.}
A schedule lands comprises .zo’f__’ty§ioy lands with the
followiflg desc1’iPtion: V
“1.Sagu Wet of l xbotlnded
by: East by “€j_-.y..No.44/ 2,
and 56/1, North by,syc.No,44y/2:}md 44/1 and
south__by sy.y1\fgjg5;’5s/1.’ ” ” V”
2. Saga ‘v1r;et»Sy..l:\lo,4%l/2__of 3.60 acres bounded
Eastl’l)y”sy;nlo_:’4_4,_ ll’§”V{7est by thodu, north by
t2;§au% Sy.1\Eo.4§”and 50/1 and south by
\}J.
210-
8 Schedule Iands (kothoor Village)
81. K1113. Sy. Area in Tenure
No. No. No. Acres
1 23 53 /2 100 Unpril. sedge 111119111} ~
23 50/2 6-28
23 30/25 2-00
23 30/20 2-33 ” = id
22 53/ 1 3-2531/if.un.pr:1.% S:.ag_’t_:1
66 57/8 2-00ffj M
76 57/9 ”
76 57/ 10 _ 76 35155 Sign bane 76 " " 71 .... « 72 L " 1-<5'©OO\1CDUlu§OOtO }._a §_.a. 1-- ND
3. Defefxddamtsd -2VA’t0 had filed written statement
re1ati0i1e.h..i.p’ of plaintiff with Nirigamma and
he has succeeded to the property of
L 1\1mga:§1:11a,_*3d;111ghter of Siddalingaiah and plaintiff is put
pydof of the same, but, however, the relationship
defendants 3 and 4.» and defendants 5 and 8 with
f’i’€1E1%1daI1″{S 1 and 10 is admitted. It is averred by the
V”
-11-
defendants that as Erappa was known with an alias name
of Doddaiah, Sannappa is also known as Ningaiah andthe
plaintiff has intentionally avoided mentioning of
in the piaint with ulterior motive and the reiatiohshsiphiilllolf= V’
Venkatappa and Lakshmamma as stated
not admitted and the plaintiff is putllto Zlpijoof
and the plaintiff is put to st1’ict”‘p:i:*oof of ‘t=h_e’~vgé;nealllolgieal
tree given in para 3 of the ftirt._her averted that
it is true that late Kempaiah h.roth’et__’Venkatappa,
Siddaiingaiah partitioned to 1923, but
it is clemezdlltliatiifhe bornewout by the jamabandi
records and 2 the was oral one and is
pertained’ not onlyitolthe lands but also to the bane
Valid fnrtlier, in such division the said sharers were
put ‘iii segiatate’-..-possession and enjoyment of their
lrespective s’ha-reds and as such, the jamabandi entries do
if ll_:’V:’l.’fi;o.t_.”presuppose any aliotment of shares as Claimed by the
and plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. It
i isfdehied by the defendarlts that Ningarmtna was the only
\/>
‘”‘§’
-12-
legal representative of Siddalingaiah as Thimtnanima was
married out of the family and therefore,
became the sole owner of the alleged share of .
late Siddahngaiah and the plaintiff is’! putto sie¢t7pr6cft_’oi’ ”
the same. It is also denied that
entered in the jamabandi shov.d:n~g> her
enjoyment of the alleged :”prope.rti’es’c_:’of “late.’Siddali:ngaiah
and that Ningamrna wast of the wet
lands shown in time and the
plaintiff is ” same. It is averred
that the jtla the defendants have
trespasseddtipon lands which were in
possession of lithe’ and the said lands had been
Vollsiddalingaiah in the partition that
1920 and the other bane lands were
V it not partiti.oned”‘ and continued to be joint family property is
” asvfalse. It is averred that though the plaintiff had
presented a suit in OS.No.82/ 1991 and since the court
“-tididdnot have the jurisdiction to try same was returned for
\)
-14-
wife Thirmnamma who had a moiety share “in
S1’dda1ir1gaiah’s properties and it ought to have devol:Ve_dw.V
on her heirs and plaintiff has conveniently bypas-sedA ~
and their rights in the suit, which i.s1a3y K V’
and the plaint A scheduie properties
possession of Ningamma life if
defendants 1 and 2 were~..V_to z in’ arf1’ana’éement
Ningamma would not have’ aliowed to
continue their -in her death in
the year as set out by
the plajnttfthvalleged allotment of
sy.no.44/ \r£11_age to Siddalingaiah is not
true as he was”giVe’other areas in wet lands in settlement
fwhich sold by her daughter Ningamma
ajxa -sale wet land sy.No.43 and 44/2 as
V dd described A scheduie fell to the share of Kempaiah
H K ‘@,.’V:PAor:_ra1eg’ovsvda, who along with other wet and bane lands
–.WasV possession and enjoyment in his own right
K/’
-22-
6. Having regard to the above said pleadixigsjtlie
following issues were framed» l
“1) Whether the plaintiff proves
the sole surviving heir off; the’ ‘
Siddalingiah?
2) Whether the
sy.no.43 and 44/ Kothu1″ve_vg*efe.._givefito the
share of Siddalmgaialj was in
separate posAsession”‘a;r1tl the said
proves that the
share __of thrown into hotch~
potch of the .fa1i?fil_v”af:terV~’his death?
it 4) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is
“to possession of plaint A schedule
it
.5)”‘Whether the plaintiff proves that he is
.. erititled to 1/ Std share in plaint B schedule
it v properties and also C schedule properties?
24. The above said evidence adduced by the
parties has to be appreciated along with the docursents
got marked by the parties to find out as to .
finding of the trial Court that the._plair1tifi’hha1s it” it
discharge his burden of provingd-tha_t “thered
partition of wet lands prior lands * L’
continued to be joint farmly dtli-3.t..iands in
Sy. Nos.43 and 44/2 ask to the
plaint were allott’eds1’to which
was succeeded after the death of his
mother, property and he has
been land by the defendants
and wherefore, he entitled to possession of the said land
is entitled to possession of 1/3111 share in
schedule properties. The question of
e consider%.1’1g-the third prayer to allot sy. No.50/1 in Kula
LB’ schedule property would arise only if the
is able to discharge the burden cast upon-him by
T the trial Court as per the pleadings of the parties.
i.\_{:’–\, .
-50-
has got undivided share, which is admittediy, in
possession of defendants 1 to 8. The facts e1icited..in..4’the
cross–eXamination of PW.1 would further .
entries in the Jamabandi register in.»r~espec_thof Nos..43.V ”
and 44/2 stand in the name
Siddalingaiah as contended vthe * L’
there is no material to .~shoW_.ti1atL_:’Sy-,__NosA}4fi.,/2.V’§and 43
described in ‘A’ schedule’ .§V1)w1:’aj1::n~V:%_\?tra:’s.a11otted to the
‘!
share of Siddalfingaiah record would
clearly shoW€’that’ the’:”sait1.i’f,afopei’tie’sstood in the name of
Kempaiah defendants 1 and 2 have
succeededto’-the’ PW.1 has also admitted
in his :.cross–eXan1;inationVA’that Kempaiah and Venkatappa
.{iv*ereV”‘ 2/(351 dddd “share each in the joint family
prop.erties}and”jth’ey were in possession and enjoyment of
V dd _ the respective’ shares that were allotted to them and after
,death: of Kempaiah and Venkatappa, suceessors~in~
__’1~__tit1e”i:1ave been in possession of the said properties.
‘\;=-A3» X
-54-
does not suffer from any error or illegality as to for
interference in this appeal. Accordingly, we
points for determination and pass the
The Appeal is dismissed cost’. in
and decree passed by the Civil
No.31/1992 dated 30.01.1997 i-s3:’p:”C:€)1’1fi1*hi’11ed’.–._: