In this Regular Second Appeal regarding a partition suit, the High Court of Karnataka upheld the lower courts dismissal of the appeal, holding that the disputed properties were self-acquired by the defendants' father and thus dismissed the revision.
Appeal rejected as devoid of merits.
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 BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
R.S.A No.546 OF 2013 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SRI N SUBBOJI RAO SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS'
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.17, 2ND CROSS, 14TH MAIN, MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. P. SURESH, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
| 1. | SRI DASHARATHA RAO |
|---|---|
| S/O LATE SIDDOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, |
|
| 2. | SRI.VIJAYA KUMAR |
| S/O LATE SIDDOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, |
|
| BOTH ARE RESIDING AT ANUBHAVA NAGAR, NAGARABHAVI BANGALORE. |
|
| 3. | SMT.HEMAVATHI |
| D/O LATE SIDDOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, |
|
| RESIDING AT NO.314/12, 8TH C CROSS, 2ND BLCOK, NANDINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 096. |
|
| 4. | SAVITHRI BAI SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS, |
| 4.a. | SRI.BABU RAO, S/O LATE GANGOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, |
| 4.b. | SRI.NARASIMHA S/O LATE GANGOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, |
| 4.c. | SRI.KUMAR S/O LATE GANGOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, |
| 4.d. | SRI.GIRIJA BAI D/O LATE GANGOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, |
| 4.e. | SMT.LALITHA BAI |
| D/O LATE GANGOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, |
|
| ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.36, |
3
1ST A CROSS, ANUBHAVANAGAR, NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 072.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. S.K. NAGARATHNA, ADV., FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS R.S.A. IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 12.12.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.54/2009 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, DODDABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 25.4.2009 PASSED IN OS.NO.90/03 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA.
THIS R.S.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2012 passed in R.A.No.54/2009 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Doddaballapura confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2009 passed in O.S.No.90/2003 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC Doddaballapura dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.
4
5
consideration:
2. Whether the defendants prove that the suit schedule properties are the self acquired properties of Siddoji Rao, father of defendant No.1 to 3?
6
3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for the relief sought for in the plaint?
4. What order?"
7
8
defendants (Siddoji Rao) and therefore, the nomenclature employed in the sale deed had been considered by both the courts, and have rightly rejected the contentions of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties are not the ancestral properties of Siddoji Rao and they are selfacquired properties of Siddoji Rao.
9
deed dated 25.06.1902. Thereafter, the said Venkob Rao, as per the sale deed dated 25.11.1963 (Ex.D-10), sold the same in favour of the one Narasa Hanumegowda for valuable consideration and thereafter, the very same schedule properties were sold by Narasa Hanumegowda in favour of the father of the defendants - Siddoji Rao as per sale deed dated 05.03.1964 (Ex.D-11). I have carefully considered the recitals in both the sale deeds, namely, Ex.D-10 and Ex.D-11 which would clearly establish the fact that the Venkoba Rao has sold the suit schedule properties in favour of Narasa Hanumegowda, who in turn sold the said suit schedule properties in favour of Siddoji Rao by receiving the sale consideration amount and in that view of the matter, the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants cannot be considered.
10
finding recorded by both the courts below is on appreciation of material on record holding that the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of Siddoji Rao.
Sd/JUDGE
Mds.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties of the parents of plaintiffs and defendants or not
Whether plaintiffs have made out grounds for formulation of substantial question of law under Section 100 of CPC
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SRI N SUBBOJI RAO SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
SRI DASHARATHA RAO
E.S.INDIRESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court