The High Court dismissed an appeal against a decree confirming joint family property status. The court held the appellant failed to prove, via independent evidence or income, that the property was self-acquired when granted as a minor in 1977.
Appeal against order confirming joint family property status is dismissed. Interlinked I.A. No.1/2012 is also 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 7th DAY OF JUNE, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.ABDUL NAZEER
R.S.A.No.1647 OF 2012 (PAR/POSSN)
BETWEEN:
NANJAPPA S/O LATE PUTTAMADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS MARAYYNA HUNDI GRAMA, YELWALA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK 571130.
… APPELLANT
(By Sri. NINGE GOWDA, ADV.)
AND:
2 SMT SHIVAMMA W/O NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT KODAGALLI VILLAGE & POST,BANNUR HOBLI, T NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DIST - 571124
3 SMT. MANGALAMMA W/O SHIVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.138, 1ST STAGE, GAYATHRIPURAM, MYSORE - 573110
2
4 KARIYAPPA S/O LATE PUTTAMADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT MARAYYANA HUNDI, YELAWALA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK 571130 ...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 21.4.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.1234/2010 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 22.12.2009 PASSED IN OS.NO.1234/2007 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), MYSORE.
THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is directed against the judgment in R.A. No.1234/2010 dated 21.4.2012 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Mysore, whereby the judgment and decree of the trial court in O.S.No.1234/2007 dated 22.12.2009 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Mysore, has been confirmed.
3
“Whether the 2nd defendant proves that the item No.3 of the suit schedule property has been granted in their cost to the 2nd defendant in the year 1977 and as such it is his self-acquired property?”
4
why, the trial Court has held that the said property is the joint family property. The First Appellate Court has again re-appreciated the materials on record and has rightly confirmed the decree. The appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. It is accordingly dismissed.
d/JUDGE
KLY/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the property item No.3 is self-acquired property of the appellant or joint family property.
Whether the appellant proved that the property was granted in his cost in 1977 when he was a minor.
Whether the appellant had independent income in 1977 to create the self-acquired property.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
NANJAPPA S/O LATE PUTTAMADAPPA
SMT PUTTAMMA W/O SHIVANANJAPPA
SMT SHIVAMMA W/O NAGARAJU
SMT. MANGALAMMA W/O SHIVARAJ
KARIYAPPA S/O LATE PUTTAMADAPPA
S. ABDUL NAZEER
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
