Partly allowed

Mahadevi v. Sankawwa Mareppa Ragi

Karnataka HC7 Dec 2012RFA/329/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against a partition decree. The High Court validated the trial court's finding that the plaintiff is the legally wedded wife but recalculated the share based on notional partition and exclusion of movable properties, allowing the appeal in part.

What did the court decide?

Preliminary decree to be drawn granting the appellant 3/4 share in house properties and the plaintiff 1/4 share.

Mahadevi Vs Sankawwa Mareppa Ragi — Partition | Karnataka HC (2012)

��

��

��^��

��

��

��

� �! "#

�� $��%�%& '(�!)��%+ ,,%��%-(. �- #��%/+.�*00�#��*12 �*3&.

¶9

�)����)��.��%3$ 2�!%+

¶10

�%&.�4%&%-%".�� 3-%1$�

¶11

�� $��%$%3%!!%��%"5%+ ,,%��%-(. �- #��%/*+.��00�#��*12 �*3&.

¶12

�)����)��.��%3$ 2�!%+��%&. 4%&%-%".�� 3-%1$�

¶13

6��,, 33%"�2

¶14

7�8��+(��%-%"1+(.��&'*0%� 9

¶15

�"&

¶16

�$��%"5%!!%��%+ ,,%��%-(. �- #��%/+.��00�#��12 �3&. �)�0)��:��"-%3. ��:2�#�� 2�"1+. �%3�#��%(3�"-%3.��(2�� 3-%1$�

¶17

6�� 2,*"& "�

¶18

7�8��+(��%+%8%"�4��%/(.��&'*0%� 9

¶19

��(2�%,, %3�(2�;(3 &�1"& +�� 0�("�<=�*;��:��%-%("2�� /1&-$ "�� %"&� & 0+ � &%� &� �>��?� ,%22 &� ("� �� ��@)��"�� ;(3 �;��&&3��('(3��1&- �7�+��"�9.�� 3-%1$. & 0+ ("-�� 21(��;+�,%+�(�("�%"&�2 ,%+%� �,22 22(".�%"&� �0�

¶20

��(2�%,, %3�0*$("-�1,�;*+�;("%3�� %+("-��(2�&%8. ��& 3(' + &�� ;33!("-�/1&-$ "��

¶21

��

¶22

��

¶23

�� One Shankrappa is the propositus. The suit property said to be an ancestral property. One late Mareppa is the son. The second plaintiff is the wife of late Shankrappa and mother of late Mareppa. The first appellant is the second defendant and claim to be the wife of late Mareppa. The respondent in the appeal is the plaintiff and she claims to be the legally wedded wife and dispute the fact that the second defendant is the wife of Mareppa. The plaintiff has filed the suit for partition and possession on the basis that she is the legally wedded wife of Mareppa. Hence she is entitled to succession to the suit property. The defendants in the suit stoutly denied the contention of the plaintiff and dispute the fact that she is the legally wedded wife of Mareppa.

¶24

The trial Court on the basis of the disputed contention has

¶25

framed the following issues for consideration.

¶26

ISSUES

¶27

Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Mareppa Shankarappa Ragi?

¶28

��A��

¶29

Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property along with the defendant no.1 as alleged in the plaint?

¶30

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession? If so, to what extent?

¶31

What decree or order?

¶32

¶33

The plaintiff has examined herself and two witnesses before the

¶34

trial Court and their evidence is to the effect that P.W.1 is the legally wedded wife of Mareppa and that P.W.1’s marriage was the earliest marriage with Mareppa. The first defendant is not examined. Defendant no.2 is examined as D.W.1. In the evidence D.W.1 states that she is the legally wedded wife and has produced the ration card and the survival certificate issued by the Taasildar.

¶35

The trial Court on the basis of the evidence, found that the entries in the ration card are discrepant. It is in the evidence that Mareppa is the only son to his parents but in the ration card some other person is also shown as son and that is struck of. The survival certificate issued by the Tahasildar is also cancelled. Because of these doubtful documents and in the face of oral evidence of D.W.1 corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses has held that

¶36

��?��

¶37

the plaintiff is the legally wedded wife and thus decreed the suit granting ½ share in the suit property. Defendant no.1 is not examined. D.W.1 in the evidence initially states that defendant no.1 is an old woman and she cannot come to the Court. However, in the crossexamination admits that D.W.1 is hale and healthy and she can freely move around without any assistance.

¶38

Sri M.G. Naganuri, counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the evidence of P.W.1 is flimsy and according to her evidence she is shown to be aged about 40 years. In the evidence she states that she married about 35 years ago, that means, she was aged about 5 years at the time of her marriage, which is a very propositus situation. However, in the cross-examination she stated that when she was married she was aged about 15 years.

¶39

On thorough consideration it appears that the age stated in the affidavit prepared by the Advocate appears to be a typographical error. The evidence of P.W.1 is substantiated and corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, who are the independent witnesses.

¶40

��>��

¶41

Defendant no.1 who is a pivotal witness, has withheld herself from giving evidence. Therefore, adverse inference to be drawn. In that view of the matter, the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiff is the legally wedded wife is sound and proper. With regard to the share in the property Mareppa, Shankrappa ad Kamalawwa, in a notional partition would take 1/3 each. After the death of Mareppa, his share would equally devolve upon the plaintiff and first defendant. In that view, plaintiff would be entitled to ¼ and defendant no.1 would be entitled to ¾ share in the suit properties.

¶42

In the ‘B’ schedule properties power looms are said to be shown and the same are not in existence. The power looms are movable properties. There is no credible proof adduced to prove the same. Therefore, only in respect of the house properties the plaintiff is entitled to ¼ and defendant no.1 is entitled to ¾ share. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Preliminary decree to be drawn.

¶43

��)� ��

¶44

B''

Mahadevi v. Sankawwa Mareppa Ragi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahadevi v. Sankawwa Mareppa Ragi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Ganapathi Prasanna

Mr Wilfred C Pais Vs Diana R Pais

M/S S M Trading Company Vs Stanpacks (India) Limited

Sushila Vs Shankar Alagouda Patil

Bhimappa Vs Tarawwa

Ramappa S/O Hanamappa Vs Bhimappa