Dismissed

Chandrappa S/.O Late Puttasamappa v. Nagamma W/O Krishnegowda

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2013RSA/1986/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Regular Second Appeal challenging a partition suit decree was dismissed. The High Court held there was no merit as the trial court correctly established that the plaintiff succeeded the undivided rights of the first wife in the joint family property, and no substantial question of law arose.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed. The incidental application was also dismissed.

Chandrappa S/.O Late Puttasamappa Vs Nagamma W/O Krishnegowda — Partition | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER

¶6

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1986/2012 (PART)

¶7

Between:

¶8

Chandrappa, S/o late Puttasamappa, Aged about 62 years, R/o Kallahalli, Hanagudu Hobli, Hunsur Tq.Mysore Dist. 570 001.

¶9

…. Appellant.

¶10

(By Sri Mahantesh S.Hosmath, Adv.)

¶11

And:

¶12

1 Nagamma, W/o Krishnegowda, Aged about 66 years.

¶13

2 Gowramma, W/o Ramegowda, Aged about 64 years.

¶14

3 Puttannaiah, S/o late Puttaswamappa, Aged about 56 years.

¶15

¶16

R1 to R3 are r/o Kallahalli, Hanagudu Hobli, Hunsur Tq., Mysore Dist. 570 001.

¶17

4 Smt. Puttamma, W/o Kalegowda, Aged about 62 years, R/o Doddakamaravalli Village, Haranahalli Hobli, Periyapatna Tq. …. Respondents.

¶18

This Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 14.8.2012 in R.A.No.60/2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Hunsur, etc.

¶19

This Regular Second Appeal coming on for Admission this day, the Court passed the following:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in

¶22

R.A.No.60/2010 dated 14.8.2012 on the file of the Senior Civil

¶23

Judge at Hunsur whereby the judgment and decree in O.S.No.10/2008 dated 24.9.2010 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Hunsur has been confirmed.

¶24

¶25

The appellant is the second defendant in the suit. The first

¶26

respondent is the plaintiff and the other respondents are the other defendants in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their respective ranking before the trial Court.

¶27

The plaintiff filed the above suit for partition of half share in the suit schedule properties. According to her, the properties are ancestral and joint family properties of Puttaiah. Puttaiah had two wives. Puttamma is the daughter of the first wife and Thimmamma is the daughter of the second wife. Puttamma was married to Gopalagowda and she had two children, namely, Nagamma and Puttamma. Thimmamma had three children, namely, Nagamma, Chandrappa and Puttannaiah. There was no partition of the family properties between Puttamma and Thimmamma. It is further contended that with an intention to defeat the right of the

¶28

¶29

plaintiff, the 4^th defendant has changed the revenue records and entered her name in respect of the properties. That is why the plaintiff has demanded for partition of the properties.

¶30

The defendants have contended that plaint schedule properties belong to the second wife of Puttaiah and that plaintiff has no right, title and share in the properties.

¶31

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court

¶32

has framed the relevant issues. The parties have let in their evidence. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court has decreed the suit. The said decree has been confirmed by the first Appellate Court.

¶33

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I do not

¶34

find any merit in this case. The plaintiff has established that there

¶35

¶36

was no partition of the properties between the L.Rs. of two wives of Puttaiah. The plaintiff has succeeded the undivided right, title and share in the properties of the first wife of Puttaiah. Both the Courts have appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and have decreed the suit. I do not find any error in the said findings of fact recorded by the courts below. The appeal does

¶37

not involve any substantial question of law. It is accordingly dismissed.

¶38

In view of the dismissal of the appeal as above,

¶39

I.A.No.I/2013 does not survive for consideration. It is accordingly

dismissed. No costs.

JUDGE.

Sd/-

BMM/-

Chandrappa S/.O Late Puttasamappa v. Nagamma W/O Krishnegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrappa S/.O Late Puttasamappa v. Nagamma W/O Krishnegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Vs Sudha

Rama K Kunder S/O Late Kalu Madiwala Vs P S Krishna Rao Since Deceased

M.Riyaz S/O Mohammad Fazlulla Vs H.S.Jagadeesh

Smt Housa Bai Vs Jai Hind Rao Sindhe

Smt Yallamma Vs Smt Laxmidevi

Sri Padmaraju Vs the Secretary