The High Court dismissed this second appeal where an unsuccessful plaintiff challenged the rejection of his claim to property. The court upheld lower courts' findings that the plaintiff failed to prove an alleged 1948 oral partition, noting revenue records consistently showed the defendants' father as the owner.
The second appeal 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1374 OF 2016 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
N. SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, S/O LATE NINGAIAH, R/AT MARBALLI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 570 008.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI: P. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. PUTTADEVAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LR'S
Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S/O LATE GURUSIDDAPPA,
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5 ARE R/AT MARBALLI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 570 008.
(BY SRI: N. NANJUNDA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 9)
…RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.03.2016 PASSED IN RA NO.365/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.07.2012 PASSED IN OS NO. 223/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSORE.
THIS RSA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is filed by unsuccessful plaintiff wherein the plaintiff's suit seeking relief of declaration and consequential relief of injunction on the ground that the suit property was allotted to his father in a family partition (oral) alleged to have taken place in 1948 is negatived by both the Courts and the suit for declaration based on oral partition is rejected.
to as per their rank before the trial Court.
The present plaintiff is asserting title over the suit land on the ground that the suit property was admittedly purchased on behalf of the joint family, though in the name of defendants'
father, subsequently it was allotted to the father of the plaintiff in a family partition. On these set of pleadings, plaintiff claimed that on the demise of his father, the property devolved on him and therefore, claimed to be the absolute owner and in possession of the suit property.
respective claim have let in oral and documentary evidence.
decree of the trial Court preferred an appeal. The appellate Court on re-appreciation of entire material on record was not inclined to interfere with the reasons and conclusions arrived at by the trial Court. The appellate Court having independently assessed the evidence on record has also come to the conclusion that plaintiff has failed to substantiate his father's title over the property in question. Referring to the document on record, the appellate Court was of the view that plaintiff has failed to substantiate and prove the alleged oral partition and
allotment of suit schedule property to his father in the said partition. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
NC: 2023:KHC:40877 RSA No. 1374 of 2016
defendants was the subject matter of family partition as alleged in the plaint.
Sd/JUDGE
ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16, CT-Sw
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff successfully proved title based on an alleged oral partition in 1948.
Whether the suit property was part of the joint family corpus or self-acquired property of the grandfather.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
N. SHIVANNA
SIDDARAJU
RATHNAMMA
MAHADEVASWAMY
GURUSHANTHAPPA
SHIVAPPA
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
