{"id":213507,"date":"2010-10-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijaya-wo-jinadatta-vs-devamma-wo-not-known-on-26-october-2010"},"modified":"2014-01-23T15:43:06","modified_gmt":"2014-01-23T10:13:06","slug":"vijaya-wo-jinadatta-vs-devamma-wo-not-known-on-26-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijaya-wo-jinadatta-vs-devamma-wo-not-known-on-26-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Vijaya W\/O Jinadatta vs Devamma W\/O Not Known on 26 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Vijaya W\/O Jinadatta vs Devamma W\/O Not Known on 26 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: K.L.Manjunath And B.Manohar<\/div>\n
1\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2010\nPRESENT  e, _\nTHE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.L.MANJLI\u00a7\\I_2\u00a7f1T:If:1\"e-  ~\n\nAND   e- \nTHE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE B.MAN\u00bbQ'Ij~IAR_ 4. _\n\nR.F.A.No.1382\/2004:=,(PAR;\u00e9& me;  2   \n\nA[W    . 1 \nCROB.5\/200};-JPAR DEC)a\"\"   \n\nR.F.A.N0.1382\/2004\nBetween: .\n\n1. Smt Vijaya.  V\nW\/0 Jina'd\u00a7t:ta,  1: \n\nA8<id1\u00e91b_6u;t:;5Q sr\u00e9ars. ' \nDec: 'FaiEQrir:g. .4 \n\n2. Santhosh  "  " \nS\/ O"J_'i11adat_ta',A. " \n, Aged about 25 years,\n~  Oec: Stud'en_t___.____A .\n\n" "  Boihlfesijding at\n T' Li.fIgEi13\u20ac1n':'akki Village,\n. "'*'Sa'g'a'1'jTa1uk,\n Shimciga District.\n..  ...Appe1la11ts\n\n  {i3ye'$r1 Rajendra S.Ank01akoti, Ac1v.,)\n\n1 . Smt. Devamma\nW\/0 not known,\nAged about 50 years,\nOccfiousehold work.\n\n{Q},\n\n\n\n{U\n\n2. Chmtamanl\nS \/ 0 Devamma.\nAged about 21 years,\nOcc: Nil.\n\n3. Mamatha\nD\/0 Jinadatta,   \nAged about 21 years, \nOcc: Nil.\n\nAll are R\/0\nHenm Vlllage,\n\nSagar Taluk,  _ \nShlmoga D1str1'e.t_."j-   \n' V  '   ~..Resp0ndents\n\n(By Sri H.Jayal{ar.a   to R3}\n\nThis;    Section 96 of CPC\nagamst dated 30.9.2004\npassed' in 011' the file of the Civil Judge\n\n[Sr.Dn],'ASagar', dismissing the suit of the\n\nappellantsll\u00e9heyreirl' if} fespect of Schedule 'A' and 'B'\n\n 3   " ' ..... .. V\n\nBemI\u00a7\u00a7}3--7  '\n\n ' " " --  V  Sn\u00a3t.DeVamma\n\nI  W\/0 late Jmadatta,\n\n ..5Aged about 49*yea:rs,\n\nResldlng at Henm\nVillage. Sagar Taluk,\nShimoga D1'strict--5774O 1.\n\n2. Chmtamanl @ Chldambara\nS\/0 late Jlnadatta,\nAged about 21 years,\n\n\n\nResiding at Henni\nVillage, Sagar Taiuk,\nShimoga District--577401.\n\nMamatha\n\nD \/ 0 late Jinadatta.\n\nAged about 21 years,\nResiding at Henni\nVillage, Sagar Taluk.\nShimoga District--577401.\n\n(By Sri H.Jayakara Shetty,  \n\nAnd:\n\n1.\n\nSrnt Vijaya V \nAged about  years  \n\nR\/o Lingariamakki   _ K\nVillage, S'agar"Taiii\u00a7\u00a7y "  e \nShiitmoga' Dii$triCt?57'740alt. \n\nSzanthodsh  .'  V -~ .__ " 2 \ns\/oiesmtviiayaa   . \nV Aged about.25 years,\n\n..  R\/Jo Ling3;1T!a}:118}.iki\n A  'V?i'i=}age, Sagar Taluk,\n* ~ _ V ShiII10ga_District--577401 .\n\n Respondents<\/pre>\n
(I-3y-..__Sri ieiiidra S.Ankalkoti, Adv. ,]<\/p>\n
V  ”   R.F’.A.Crob is filed under Order 41 Rule 2.2 of
\n_    against the judgment and decree dated
\n  _a<).o9.20o4, passed in O.S.No.4\/1996 on the file of the<\/p>\n
Civil Judge [Sr.Dn}, Sagar partly decreeing the suit for<\/p>\n
declaration and partition in so far as giving a \ufb01ndings<\/p>\n
6\/_<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
or: issue Nos. 1, 6 in affirmative, issue No.2 in negative
\nand issue No.4 in partly affirmative.<\/p>\n
R.F.A.Crob.5\/2006 and R.F.A.No.1382\/.2004
\ncoming on for Hearing before the Court
\nManjunath J delivered the following: — l  <\/p>\n
J U B G M E N ‘1’<\/p>\n
The present appeal is \ufb01iedlhiafltliep appeil.:arnVs,,V:<\/p>\n
are the plaintiffs in O.S.No._4\/1ll396:l’on the of’:<\/p>\n
Civil Judge {Sr.Dn), Sagar are .eliallengi:1g” the giiiidarzierit
\nand decree dated  the below.\n<\/p>\n
2}, The’ faetspl iead._irig to these appeals are as
\nhereunder: -. _V<\/p>\n
 ..epiair1ti’ffs——\u00ab\u00abtiled the suit to declare the 1st<\/p>\n
 pllaintiif:_as\u00b0the..widow of Jinadatta and 2% plaintiff as<\/p>\n
 to the 1st plaintiff and Jinadatta and to<\/p>\n
<._grar1t'~a 'decree for partition and separate possession of<\/p>\n
'tithellllfplaintiffs share in all A, B and C schedule<\/p>\n
 Properties. According to the piaint averrnents, 131<\/p>\n
 plaintiff was married to Jinadatta on 6.04.1974 as per<\/p>\n
the customs prevailed under the Jair1~Cornmunity and<\/p>\n
81\/<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
out of their wed lock, they had a son by name<\/p>\n
Dharmaraj, who died in the year 1984. ‘l’hereaftelr,”‘\u00bbthe<\/p>\n
Qmi plaintiff was born to them. The 18′ <\/p>\n
living with late Jinadatta from 1974    <\/p>\n
husband had addicted for bad Vl:\u00a72\u20acS….’.5l’I\u20ac<\/p>\n
of the house in the month oi”-iJa1’ii,i’a.1jy’ 198.1Lhifhierealiter, <\/p>\n
she Came to Bangalore and   as} a tailor
\nat ‘Namaste (}arrnentVs*’\u00ab._a::1d i_at_e-r.liJ’i–Iiadatta died.<\/p>\n
3. According   .,V<f':'i$(ijerrnents, the 1S1
\ndefendant  in the year 1980 and<\/p>\n
Jinadatta, illicit intimacy with the ist<\/p>\n
defendantapndv  with him. Out of their illicit<\/p>\n
 relationship, stir-e.Vvd_efr:ndants No.2 and 3 were born.<\/p>\n
 \u00bbSi'r1C_,E,  '\u00abIi:V5i?'vplaintiff is alive, 18* defendant cannot be<\/p>\n
 a legally wedded wife of Jinadatta.<\/p>\n
 Jinadatta {alas working as a lorry driver at Karnataka<\/p>\n
  Corporation. He died on 3.09.1994 and after the<\/p>\n
  of Jinadatta, the 1st plaintiff being the legally<\/p>\n
 izvedded wife and the plaintiff No.2 being only son born<\/p>\n
to the plaintiff, they are entitle for all the benefits. It is<\/p>\n
the case of the plaintiffs that after the death of<\/p>\n
aw\/'<\/p>\n
Jinadatta, the defendant No.1 as withdrawn<\/p>\n
Rs.l,80,000\/~ from Jinadatta claiming to be a legally<\/p>\n
wedded wife of him from Karnataka Power <\/p>\n
According to them, Jinadatta had takenl\ufb01  <\/p>\n
retirement and all the amountddddre'(;eivf::d';t_iirn':V"on'.<\/p>\n
taking voluntary retirement. hashebeen in\\re'sted"<\/p>\n
name of defendants No.1 ands.:2".as detailed"V-inllpllaint 'A'
\nschedule property. Tfiiereftjrel,  family
\npension and also the   the credit of<\/p>\n
defendants No}l1\u00a7a'nd  and':plaintf'WB_'…g}:heduie property,<\/p>\n
a residdentilai' and other house hold
\narticles;'Efurther,_.lthey:_'also 'elairn the family pension and<\/p>\n
other benefits-dpayable  account of death of Jinadatta<\/p>\n
dbyI"'the:"ljiiarnataka Power Corporation as detailed in<\/p>\n
A   property.\n<\/p>\n
l The defendants contested the Case, they denied<\/p>\n
A “:dfrelationship of plaintiffs with late Jinadatta and they<\/p>\n
  also denied that the 15′ plaintiff married Jinadatta on<\/p>\n
 6.4.1974 and that she was driven out of the house in<\/p>\n
the month of January 1981. They also denied that<\/p>\n
Jinadatta and the 151- plaintiff had a son by name<\/p>\n
6%<\/p>\n
7<\/span>
\nDharrnaraj, and that he died in the year l984 and that<\/p>\n
gm plaintiff also born out of the said weVdel..l!lo_ek.<\/p>\n
According to them, 18* defendant is the  _<\/p>\n
wife of Jinadatta and defendantsMl\\lo.2 a\ufb02’d=~ 2<\/p>\n
out of her wed lock with Jina:datt_a.e ..i31’an{1t.l ?A’l’2;[u.\u00ab;1 <\/p>\n
schedule properties are se’l_f”-aycquired  <\/p>\n
defendants and Jinadatta  rightllovernpwm\ufb01\u00e9i same. It
\nwas also contended byltheni ft,hat”‘-l\u00e9fjdefendant being a
\nlegally weddedwvvife  defendants No.2<\/p>\n
and 3 were from” dinadatta, therefore. they<\/p>\n
are entitle’ all\ufb02tlie pensionary bene\ufb01ts. In the
\neircurnstanees{tlifeylrgg\ufb01u\u00e9st the Court to dismiss the<\/p>\n
suit. ‘ -V<\/p>\n
  B3\u00a7Sedlf0I’I””the above pleadings. the following<\/p>\n
  isstieslxvere’ framed by the Court below:<\/p>\n
 1., .llt:l3–}’\\fhether the plaintiffs prove the 13* plaintiff
\n “is the legally wedded wife of late Jinadatta
\nand plaintiff No.2 was born to him’?<\/p>\n
 II. Whether the defendants prove that 1*”
\ndefendant is the legally wedded wife of late
\nJinadatta and 2″” defendant was born to
\nhim?\n<\/p>\n
at<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
III. VVhether 15′ defendant proves that the suit
\nschedule ‘B’ property is her self acquired
\nproperty? a *<\/p>\n
IV, Whether the plaintiffs prove  _
\ngot 1\/61″ share in the suit .sc.hedul.e ”<\/p>\n
properties?<\/p>\n
\n\n.<\n\nVVhether the suit is       A\n\n<\/pre>\n
Vl. Whether the pla_i1i.tiffsA”‘are~ent.itl’eCi’*-to: they’<\/p>\n
reliefs claimed?\n<\/p>\n
VII. To what  <\/p>\n
6. In order-to  “respective contentions on
\nbehalf of  ‘l.5F_  was examined as<\/p>\n
P.W.she~reliied~.upon the evidence of P.W.2 and
\n1>.w.3   Va1ls’o.}\u00a2ii\u00e9d upon Eis:s.P.1 to 13.8. On<\/p>\n
behalf of the V’defenda’nts, 15’ defendant was examined as<\/p>\n
   Chanciaiah was examined as D.W.2 and<\/p>\n
  Exs.D.1 to D. 13.\n<\/p>\n
 .7’\ufb02_VAi”ter considering the entire evidence, the trial<\/p>\n
  \u00e9:ou.rt held issues No.1, 3 and 6 in affirmative, issues<\/p>\n
 and 5 in negative and issue No.4 held partly in<\/p>\n
waffirmative. Ultimately, the suit came to be decreed in<\/p>\n
part. holding that the plaintiffs and defendants No.2<\/p>\n
6)\/..\n<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
and 3 are entitle to claim pension till defendant No.2<\/p>\n
attains the age of majority and till the 31*’ defe.nid.:ar:t’s<\/p>\n
marriage. It was also contended that the _j’am”* .<\/p>\n
entitled to 5\/6″‘1 share of the pensionar3I”berrefits\u00bb,  “‘<\/p>\n
claim of the plaintiffs in regard  <\/p>\n
scheduie properties areltldeniedlrto <\/p>\n
aggrieved by the judgmentp_an_d..decree.innpotr.t\u00a7granting
\ndecree in respect of    properties
\nand contended’   i\ufb01fjension to the
\ndefendant; bad in law, the
\npresent’  _thewp4laintiffs. Similarly, the
\n“by the defendants on the<\/p>\n
ground x that granting  decree in respect of plaint ‘C’<\/p>\n
l   p”ropert3}f”‘holding that the plaintiffs are entitled<\/p>\n
  respect of plaint ‘C’ schedule property<\/p>\n
as”bad,.__cross~objection is filed.<\/p>\n
8′: Since. the appeal as well as the cross–objection<\/p>\n
 arises out of the judgment and decree in<\/p>\n
‘Q.S.No.4\/l.996, we have heard these two matters’<\/p>\n
together.\n<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
9. Sri.Rajendra S. Ankalkoti, Advocate contends<\/p>\n
that the trial court has failed to consider tha.i”.tl”l.(i’~\u00bb.lSf<\/p>\n
plaintiff being {i legally wedded wife of Jii1’adatta_;’  <\/p>\n
amount standing into the creditof defer1ldan’tsfV and ll<\/p>\n
2 could not have been treated-yastlpelrsonal..nioneyfiofg<\/p>\n
defendants No.1 and 2. Sinoeifthey have ngo’~.in’:de’pe1’ident”‘ V<\/p>\n
income, in order to ,.\u00abipvesti–thepamountAin tlle Bank.
\nTherefore, he contends’. of decree in
\nrespect of plaiiit  properties is bad in
\nlaw.  of plaint ‘B’ schedule
\npropertyllll    occupation of late
\nJinadatta \u00abproperty is a Government<\/p>\n
property andiafter theldeath of Jinadatta item No.1 has<\/p>\n
l V.  granted to ‘defendant No.1 by the Government as<\/p>\n
*  vllo’fL}~Jinadatta. In the circumstances, he<\/p>\n
contends  item No.1 plaint ‘B’ schedule property has<\/p>\n
 togbeztrelated as property of Jinadatta and should have<\/p>\n
   granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. He<\/p>\n
 ~-ailso contends that movable properties described in<\/p>\n
plaint ‘B’ schedule property are the properties of<\/p>\n
Jinadatta only. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to<\/p>\n
\/<\/p>\n
RV<\/p>\n
1 l.\n<\/p>\n
claim a share in the said property. In the
\ncircumstances, he requests the Court to set aside the
\njudgment and decree and grant a decree <\/p>\n
plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties.<\/p>\n
10. Per contra, the learne_d..\n<\/p>\n
defendants \/ respondents contends    L’
\nhas committed a serious  the 1st
\nplaintiff as a  _V of Jinadatta.\n<\/p>\n
According to plgiril,   defendant
\nNo.1 in  prevailed under\n<\/p>\n
 -‘she was nominated as a
\nnominee  records, where J inadatta<\/p>\n
Wasjlvvorkingn’ as a driver. In the circumstances, he<\/p>\n
granting of decree in respect of plaint ‘A’<\/p>\n
WM; Ct\/..\n<\/p>\n
 has to be set aside <\/p>\n
  g\/<\/p>\n
-V  requests the Court to dismiss the<\/p>\n
 V’ .. appeal and also the cross–ob_\u00a7ections.<\/p>\n
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the
\nparties. We have to consider the following points in this<\/p>\n
appeal and cross–oi:>jection “whether the trial court has<\/p>\n
1′)<\/p>\n
.1\u00bb<\/p>\n
committed an error in not granting decree in respect of
\nplaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties” and “whether the<\/p>\n
trial court has committed an error in granting.<\/p>\n
the faintly pension on account of death  <\/p>\n
favour of the plaintiffs holding t_hat__thegyllarelggititlfed toll<\/p>\n
5\/61″ share in the properties”.\n<\/p>\n
12. In order to conside’r:tIiese   have to
\nconsider the evidencejilcd   order to
\nprove the 181 pla1ntiffsVV_rnarrlage:  she has
\nrelied upon    P.W..’3. P.W.2 is
\npaternal  list of the year 1977.\n<\/p>\n
whereinjthe  is shown as the wife of<\/p>\n
Jin;-idat’ta.  isithe certificate issued by the Senior<\/p>\n
r Combined Hospital, Jogfalls for<\/p>\n
 the 181 plaintiff, when she underwent<\/p>\n
\ufb01z NV g\ufb01.-cc.\n<\/p>\n
 faniily planning, w e has been described as the<\/p>\n
  Wifc.ypofNJinadatta. Ex.P.6 is the birth certi\ufb01cate of 2nd<\/p>\n
 ‘plaintiff wherein, the names of plaintiffs shown as 15*<\/p>\n
“plaintiff is the wife of Jinadatta and 2″” plaintiff as his<\/p>\n
son and Ex.P.7 is the transfer certificate issued by High<\/p>\n
Primary School S.P,P. Colony, Jog Falls in respect of 290<\/p>\n
(K,<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
plaintiff, which disclose the father name as Jinadatta.<\/p>\n
Ex.l3′.8 is the Assessment Extract to show the-\u00abjf1ame’*.of<\/p>\n
Jinadatta in occupation of item No.1   <\/p>\n
schedule property. These documents ‘are n_ot’in4 dlispfeitle.<\/p>\n
By looking into the Witnesses  ,  <\/p>\n
of the opinion that Jinadatta.:h*ad marriedfto plaintiff V’<\/p>\n
and out of the said rxyed Iock,fVc_:’2Ii’~=.plaintiff was born.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the findings of fbeliow in regard to<\/p>\n
relationship:.. of, the  Ise _:’p1aintiff._\\}vith late Jinadatta
\ncannot be? 41″e\\;”ezis’ed., si’nf;e:;”‘t.he saidffindings is based on<\/p>\n
propet H  thhefworal and documentary
\nevidence.  so;~far’the evidence of 15′ defendant is
\nconcerned t0_sh.ow  her relationship with Jinadatta<\/p>\n
 defeiidantsfflm\ufb02\u00e9vand 3 were born out of the<\/p>\n
 lst defendant and Jinadatta. the<\/p>\n
defendvantvsfs have relied upon the other documents<\/p>\n
 1AT*3>T:.D.z1v..i\u00e9s the birth certificate of 2″” defendant, Ex.D.2 is<\/p>\n
it  the birth certi\ufb01cate of SW’ defendant, which<\/p>\n
%   ….discloses that they are the children of Jinadatta. Ex.D.3<\/p>\n
is the Pension Payment Order, which has been granted<\/p>\n
to Devamma. ‘1’ he 15″ defendant as widow of Jinadatta,<\/p>\n
6\/..\n<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
has produced the election identity card, wherein it is<\/p>\n
stated that she is the wife of Jinadatta. Ex.D8.<\/p>\n
pension order, Ex.D.7 is the grant certificate  *<\/p>\n
of item, No.1 of plaint ‘B’ scheduleit\u00bbpropeirt”3}’Vt’o:’..g;io’v.f_l_that ll<\/p>\n
the Tahsildar, Sagar Taluk has   <\/p>\n
defendant No.1 on 7.01.2Ot}24}-Similarly;  d–\u00a75c’unients”‘ V<\/p>\n
produced by the  ddeisclosles-.. that the
\nrelationship of Jinadattaand was existed
\nand the Cotiit; has  that the 131
\ndefendant; wife of Jinadatta.\n<\/p>\n
Evengthev  lltlmdefendant and Jinadatta
\nis  iii?-(ie~iendant cannot be called as a<\/p>\n
legally wedd_ed….’wife  Jinadatta. However, the<\/p>\n
,2 alnld'”lV3 are to be considered as an<\/p>\n
-..illegitinfia_telchiidren of Jinadatta. Since, there is no<\/p>\n
diAs;:)__ute>iri\ufb02regard to the relationship of 151 defendant<\/p>\n
 dinadatta and that defendants No.2 and 3 born to<\/p>\n
 _ it nlate .-elinadatta.\n<\/p>\n
13. Having considering the relationship of
\ndefendants with late Jinadatta and the relationship of<\/p>\n
plaintiffs with late Jinadatta, We are of the opinion that<\/p>\n
\u00abV<\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n
the trial court is justified in holding that the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
are entitle to claim family pension. Similavrlly,_:llthe<\/p>\n
defendants No.2 and 3 being minors <\/p>\n
children of late Jinadatta, the trial. courtfisl   it ‘<\/p>\n
in holding that 3″‘ defendant is entiiiledl to’clai_n1 <\/p>\n
till her marriage and that “Z36 de’fen_da_ntv.vis*:e’ntitl’ed to” V L’<\/p>\n
claim pension till he attains..t.h.e’iivmajority.’ ‘Similarly, 2nd
\ndefendant is also entitled’ to  till he attains
\nmajority. As on  and defendant
\nNo.2 have;   but there is no
\nmaterilallllp}\u00e9:,(f’i\u00a7’Cll:  to show that 31″”
\ndefendarithas In the circumstances, we<\/p>\n
cannot  _i\u00b0au.l.t’– \\2ifi.th””.the trial court in granting the<\/p>\n
jespecltlllllof plaint ‘C’ schedule property.<\/p>\n
  have confirmed the judgment and<\/p>\n
decreeiof  trial court in regard to plaint ‘C’ schedule<\/p>\n
 property and the cross–objections has to be dismissed.<\/p>\n
it  far as, the claim of the plaintiffs in regard to plaint<\/p>\n
  and ‘B’ schedule properties are concerned, in the<\/p>\n
plaint ‘A’ schedule property, the plaintiffs have<\/p>\n
mentioned the amount standing into the credit of<\/p>\n
<<,i\u00ab"\n<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
defendants No.1 and 2, to show that the amounts<\/p>\n
shown in plaint ‘A’ schedule property were..,:’rea1ly<\/p>\n
deposited by Jinadatta in the name of  ~<\/p>\n
and 2 out of his retirement benefits .inyes’ted4″tiie’ arnoiint if<\/p>\n
in the name of defendants Nofipand<\/p>\n
have not led any evidence, Vtl3.er~efore’,V” it is.di’f\ufb01c’nl’t’  the” V<\/p>\n
Court to reveres the find’in\u00e9s– for the “court below
\nconsidering the   .;the plaintiffs.
\nTherefore, we of  plaintiffs have
\nnot  ‘A’ schedule property.\n<\/p>\n
 \ufb01ndings of the trial
\ncourt   schedule property.\n<\/p>\n
1.   regafrdfl’-toufplaint ‘B’ schedule property is<\/p>\n
 A~.e;x.ceptWitem No.1 house–hold property, the<\/p>\n
  fpinlovable property of Jinadatta has not been<\/p>\n
proved___.”E’he plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any share<\/p>\n
  soyfar  the item No.1 of plaint ‘B’ schedule property is<\/p>\n
‘ concerned. Admittedly, no document has been produced<\/p>\n
 ”  the plaintiffs to show that Jinadatta was an absolute<\/p>\n
owner of the said property. It is no doubt, true that the<\/p>\n
property extract has been produced to show that<\/p>\n
(3\/_<\/p>\n
3.7<\/p>\n
Jinadatta was in possession. But based on the<\/p>\n
documents produced before the Court below, \ufb01acannot<\/p>\n
be declared Jinadatta as an absolute  <\/p>\n
property. During the course__,..of__ ar,_:giirn’eAnVts;”‘  <\/p>\n
contended that Jinadatta ivqas;’_’_’i in <\/p>\n
cultivation and the same has””bee11Aregularised:’i’r:~faivour”V 2<\/p>\n
of Devamrria later.   choose to
\nexamine the Revenue’  their case.\n<\/p>\n
Admittedly, \u00a71S.:0iv’l_   in the year
\n1996,    either to Jinadatta or
\nto  dddd  the year 2002, the
\nGovernnrreintd T Taluk dated 7.01.2002 as<\/p>\n
per 5 EXX.D’\ufb01V h;as~allo’t.ted the said property to the 1st<\/p>\n
0  ” dVe’fend=a’n.tV\u00a7’ subsevddtient to the institution of the suit. The<\/p>\n
  _hai\\A:IeV’–also not led in evidence to show that it is<\/p>\n
a ti*ans_ierre’d property from the name of Jinadatta to the<\/p>\n
 name of 1st defendant. This Court cannot hold Oitern<\/p>\n
0′ 1′: of plaint ‘B’ schedule property as a property of<\/p>\n
-iv-Jinadatta in order to grant share to the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n
According to us, \ufb01ndings of the court below are just and<\/p>\n
proper based on proper appreciation of the evidence.<\/p>\n
52\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Vijaya W\/O Jinadatta vs Devamma W\/O Not Known on 26 October, 2010 Author: K.L.Manjunath And B.Manohar 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2010 PRESENT e, _ THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.L.MANJLI\u00a7\\I_2\u00a7f1T:If:1″e- ~ AND e- THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE B.MAN\u00bbQ’Ij~IAR_ 4. _ R.F.A.No.1382\/2004:=,(PAR;\u00e9& […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-213507","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVijaya W\/O Jinadatta vs Devamma W\/O Not Known on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijaya-wo-jinadatta-vs-devamma-wo-not-known-on-26-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vijaya W\/O Jinadatta vs Devamma W\/O Not Known on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijaya-wo-jinadatta-vs-devamma-wo-not-known-on-26-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-01-23T10:13:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijaya-wo-jinadatta-vs-devamma-wo-not-known-on-26-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijaya-wo-jinadatta-vs-devamma-wo-not-known-on-26-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vijaya W\\\/O Jinadatta vs Devamma W\\\/O Not Known on 26 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-23T10:13:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijaya-wo-jinadatta-vs-devamma-wo-not-known-on-26-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2407,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijaya-wo-jinadatta-vs-devamma-wo-not-known-on-26-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijaya-wo-jinadatta-vs-devamma-wo-not-known-on-26-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijaya-wo-jinadatta-vs-devamma-wo-not-known-on-26-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Vijaya W\\\/O Jinadatta vs Devamma W\\\/O Not Known on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-23T10:13:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijaya-wo-jinadatta-vs-devamma-wo-not-known-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijaya-wo-jinadatta-vs-devamma-wo-not-known-on-26-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijaya-wo-jinadatta-vs-devamma-wo-not-known-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vijaya W\\\/O Jinadatta vs Devamma W\\\/O Not Known on 26 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Vijaya W\/O Jinadatta vs Devamma W\/O Not Known on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijaya-wo-jinadatta-vs-devamma-wo-not-known-on-26-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vijaya W\/O Jinadatta vs Devamma W\/O Not Known on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijaya-wo-jinadatta-vs-devamma-wo-not-known-on-26-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-01-23T10:13:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijaya-wo-jinadatta-vs-devamma-wo-not-known-on-26-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijaya-wo-jinadatta-vs-devamma-wo-not-known-on-26-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vijaya W\/O Jinadatta vs Devamma W\/O Not Known on 26 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-23T10:13:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijaya-wo-jinadatta-vs-devamma-wo-not-known-on-26-october-2010"},"wordCount":2407,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijaya-wo-jinadatta-vs-devamma-wo-not-known-on-26-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijaya-wo-jinadatta-vs-devamma-wo-not-known-on-26-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijaya-wo-jinadatta-vs-devamma-wo-not-known-on-26-october-2010","name":"Vijaya W\/O Jinadatta vs Devamma W\/O Not Known on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-23T10:13:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijaya-wo-jinadatta-vs-devamma-wo-not-known-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijaya-wo-jinadatta-vs-devamma-wo-not-known-on-26-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijaya-wo-jinadatta-vs-devamma-wo-not-known-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vijaya W\/O Jinadatta vs Devamma W\/O Not Known on 26 October, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/213507","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=213507"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/213507\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=213507"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=213507"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=213507"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}