The Karnataka High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Defendant No. 1 against the trial court's decree in a partition suit. The court upheld the rejection of the plaintiff's claim to specific properties, finding no evidence of adoption or joint family relationship.
The appeal filed by Defendant No. 1 is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SREEDHAR RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.V.PINTO
RFA No.526/2006
BETWEEN:
T. THIMMEGOWDA, S/O. LATE NANJUNDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, TORE BOMMANAHALLI, CHIKKARASINAKERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK - 571428.
APPELLANT
(BY SRI M. VINAYA KEERTHY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, LAXMEGOWDANADODDI, HAMLET OF KADILAVAGILU VILLAGE, CHIKKARASINAKER HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK – 571428.
RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M. SHIVAPPA & ASSTS., ADVOCATES FOR R1) (R2 TO R6 – SERVED)
3
THIS RFA IS FILED U/S.96 R/W O XLVI OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT.2.12.2005 PASSED IN O.S.NO.291/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN), MADDUR, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
This R.F.A. is coming on for final hearing this day, SREEDHAR RAO, J., delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
Defendant No.1 is the appellant. The plaintiff and defendant
No.2 to 5 are the sisters of Defendant No.1. Defendant No.6 is the son of defendant No.1. It is the contention of the plaintiff that their father late Nanjundegowda and late Thimmegowda who were
brothers and constituted joint family. The plaintiff was said to be given in adoption to Thimmegowda in the year 1940. After the adoption, the plaintiff was brought up by her adoptive father Thimmegowda. It is the contention of the plaintiff that Thimmegowda and Nanjudegowda both died and after their demise
the joint family property is being managed by Defendant No.1. The plaintiffs submit that their adoptive father Thimmegowda would be
4
entitled to ½ share in the suit property and that she is entitled to succession after the demise of Thimmegowda.
Thimmegowda to his father Nanjudegowda. The theory of adoption is denied stoutly. It is submitted that the plaintiff has not included the property standing in her name which are joint family properties and seek partition in the said properties. The contention of defendant No.1 implies the joint family of Defendant No.1 and his father. The trial court has found that the plaintiff has not proved her adoption by Thimmegowda and also about the existence of Thimmegowda. The plaintiff and defendant No.2 to 5 who are daughters of defendant
No.1 have been given 1/12th share in the suit properties. The defendant No.1 is granted half share plus 1/12th share in the suit properties. The claim for share in the properties standing in the name of the plaintiff is rejected. The defendant No.1 aggrieved by the said rejection has filed this appeal.
5
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
psg*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal by the defendant No. 1 challenging the rejection of the plaintiff's claim to suit properties should be allowed.
Whether the trial court's finding that the plaintiff failed to prove adoption and existence of her adoptive father was sustainable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
T. Thimmegowda
Nanjamma
Thimmamma @ Nanjamma
Nanjamma @ Sottamma
Laxmamma
Chikkammamma
K. Sreedhar Rao
B.V. Pinto
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
