The Court rejected the regular second appeal filed by the appellant challenging a partition suit decree, relying on an unchallenged relinquishment deed executed by the appellant.
No specific relief granted; appeal rejected based on prior relinquishment deed.
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 8th DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.653/2010 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
M T MALLIKARJUNAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O.LATE THAMMANNA AGRICULTURIST, R/AT. THOREKOLAMMANA HALLI NAYAKENAHALLY HOBLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522.
(BY SRI M.T.JAGAN MOHAN., ADV.,)
AND:
(BY SRI B M SIDDAPPA, ADV., FOR R1 & R2)
2
THIS RSA FILED UNDER ORDER 42 RULE 1 AND SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.09.2009 PASSED IN R.A.NO.93/2008 ON THE FILE OF ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT, CHITRADURGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 26.9.2008 PASSED IN O.S.NO.61/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) CHALLAKERE.
THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2009 passed in R.A.No.93/2008 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Chitradurga, by confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2008 passed in O.S.No.61/2005 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Challakere in Chitradurga District.
time. As the matter is of the year 2010, of the year 2008
3
in terms of RA and of the year 2005 in terms of original
suit, adjournment sought for by the appellant’s counsel is rejected.
for partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share in Item Nos.1 to 4 of the suit schedule properties, which are all ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendants. The plaintiff and defendants are the brothers and they have not partitioned the joint family properties.
and filed their written statement contending that Item No.1 of the schedule property was purchased by defendant No.1 on 27.06.2004 for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.3,000/-. It is the self acquired property of defendant No.1. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have got divided Item No.1 of the suit schedule property on 12.07.2005 and they have got half equal share in the
4
suit schedule property. The plaintiff and defendants have sold Item No.2 in favour of one Basanna s/o Gundappa resident of Obannanahallil Village. The plaintiff was separated from the joint family on 01.10.1984 after receiving Rs.2,000/- towards his share and executed the relinquishment deed, which is marked as Ex.D1. Ex.D1-relinquishment deed is a registered document, which is stated to have been executed by the plaintiff. The relinquishment deed is said to have been executed in favour of defendants by the plaintiff by receiving Rs.2,000/- as his share and has relinquished his right and interest in the joint family properties. The relinquishment deed is not challenged in any case or by any other concerned. It appears that after the relinquishment deed, the defendants have acquired certain properties.
the matter is posted for admission and it is a regular
5
second appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC. There are no material, on the basis of which, substantial question of law could be framed and in the light of the relinquishment deed executed by the plaintiff as stated therein, appeal is rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
PB
M T Mallikarjunappa
Channabasappa
N Chandranna
N.K. Sudhindrarao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
