Allowed

B.N. Malleshappa v. B.N.Jayanna

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2024RSA/1107/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal over divergent findings on whether granted Gomal land was joint family property or defendants' self-acquired property. The court found the grant was obtained by misrepresentation without any application by the defendants, restored the Trial Court decree awarding one-third shares.

What did the court decide?

First Appellate Court judgment and decree set aside; Trial Court judgment and decree awarding 1/3rd shares restored.

B.N. Malleshappa Vs B.N.Jayanna — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^th DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

R.S.A. NO.1107/2018 (PAR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . B.N.MALLESHAPPA S/O LATE NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶9

2 . B.N.MANJUNATHA S/O LATE NAGARAJAU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶10

BOTH ARE R/O. BEERALINGA TEMPLE STREET, KOTE, BANAVARA, ARSIKERE TALUK-573112. … APPELLANTS

¶11

(BY SRI T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

1 . B.N.JAYANNA S/O LATE NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶14

2 . SHARADAMMA

¶15

W/O B.N.JAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶16

BOTH ARE

¶17

R/O.BEERALINGA TEMPLE STREET,

¶18

¶19

KOTE, BANAVARA, ARSIKERE TALUK-573112. … RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI A.V.GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶21

THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.02.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.23/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE 5^TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.02.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.28/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARASIKERE.

¶22

THIS R.S.A. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 28.06.2024 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and

¶25

the counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶26

The parties are referred to as per their original

¶27

rankings before the Trial Court to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

¶28

This second appeal is filed questioning divergent

¶29

finding given by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.23/2017

¶30

¶31

by setting-aside the judgment of the Trial Court in O.S.No.28/2014.

¶32

The factual matrix of case of plaintiff before the Trial Court is that plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are the sons of one Nagaraju. The 2nd defendant is the wife of 1^st defendant. The plaintiffs and defendants are the members of Hindu undivided joint family. The suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.230 measuring 4 acre 2 guntas situated at Banavara Village is joint family property and the plaintiffs and defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. The suit property originally Gomala land. The father of the plaintiffs was in unauthorized possession of suit property more than 40 years and he gave application

¶33

for regularization of unauthorized possession. The 1st defendant has given wrong information to the revenue authorities stating that he is the only son and got the grant in his favour and in favour of his wife vide NCR.DR.163/2002-03 dated 22.02.2003.

¶34

¶35

It is contended that consequent upon the said

¶36

order mutated the properties in the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2. The plaintiffs requested the defendants to effect partition and allot their legitimate share in the schedule property. Despite of request, the defendants are refused to do so. The plaintiffs came to know that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have mortgage the property to one Beerappa R/o Banavara to run brick small scale industry. The said Beerappa has constructed shed in the property. The plaintiff requested the said person to vacate and handed over the possession of the said property, but he refused to do so. Hence, the plaintiffs have constrained to file the suit.

¶37

In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have appeared and filed the written statement and they have denied all averments made in the plaint except admitting the relationship with plaintiffs. The defendants also admitted the existence of the suit property

¶38

¶39

but they contended that property originally belongs to government and based on the possession of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 granted the property in favour of them. It is self acquired property and plaintiffs have no right or interest over the schedule property.

¶40

The Trial Court having taken note of pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:

¶41

1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule property is the joint family property of them and defendants?

¶42

2) Whether the plaintiff prove that they are in joint possession of the suit schedule property along with defendants?

¶43

3) Whether the defendants prove that suit schedule property is their self acquired property?

¶44

4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs as sought for?

¶45

¶46

5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for mesne profits?

¶47

6) What order or decree?

¶48

In order to prove their contention, 1^st plaintiff

¶49

examined himself as PW1 and also examined two witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P22. On the other hand, 1^st defendant examined as DW1 and also examined one witness as DW2 and he relies upon document Ex.D1 to Ex.D7.

¶50

The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record answered the issue Nos.1 and 2 as affirmative coming to the conclusion that suit schedule property is the joint family property of plaintiffs and defendants and they are also in joint possession of the suit schedule property along with defendants. The contention of the defendant that it is the self acquired property is not accepted and granted the relief

¶51

¶52

of partition of 1/3^rd equal share in the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and 1^st defendant.

¶53

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal is filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in R.A.No.23/2017 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds which have been urged in the appeal memo and also submissions of the counsel for respective parties, framed the points for consideration which reads as follows:

¶54

1) Whether the Trial Court had erred in coming to the conclusion that the suit schedule property was granted in favour of the joint family?

¶55

2) Whether the Trial Court had erred in arriving at a conclusion that the existence of joint family is proved, the properties has to be

¶56

¶57

constructed as joint family property and the presumption will be in favour of the same?

¶58

3) Whether the Trial Court has not appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence in proper perspective?

¶59

4) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court calls for interference by this Court?

¶60

5) What order?

¶61

The First Appellate Court having re-assessed

¶62

both oral and documentary evidence available on record, answered all the point for consideration as affirmative in coming to the conclusion that the Trial Court had erred in suit schedule property was granted in favour of the joint family and also Trial Court erred in arriving at a conclusion that the existence of joint family is proved, the properties

¶63

has to be construed as joint family property and the

¶64

¶65

presumption will be in favour of the same. The Trial Court has not appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence in proper prospective and hence comes to the conclusion that it requires interference and reversed the finding of the Trial Court in coming to the conclusion that grant in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and set-aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.

¶66

Being aggrieved by the divergent finding of the First Appellate Court, the present second appeal is filed. This Court having considered the grounds urged in the second appeal, framed the substantial question of law which reads as follows:

¶67

“ Under the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record, more particularly documents Ex.P6, Ex.P7 and Ex.P13, whether the finding of the First Appellate Court the suit property was granted to defendant Nos.1 and 2 suffers perversity? “

¶68

¶69

The counsel appearing for the appellants in his

¶70

argument would vehemently contend that the land is Gomal land is not in dispute and extent measuring 4 acre 2 guntas also not in dispute. It is the specific contention that the said land was cultivated by the father and he gave an application on 28.09.1998 which is marked as Ex.P21. The counsel also would contend that by fraudulently the respondents herein have obtained an order on 28.11.2003 by suppressing the fact that an application was given by the father inspite of they have not given any application and obtained the grant. The counsel also would vehemently contend that Ex.P6-report by Revenue Inspector is also very clear that he got the grant falsely submitting that he is the elder son of his father. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court Ex.P12 Genealogical Tree is produced before the authority making false information that only Nagaraju is having two sons and he claimed as the elder son. The counsel also submits that he has categorically

¶71

¶72

admits that he has not given any application but claims that application was given by his wife. No such application is also filed before the authority before obtaining the grant. The counsel also would vehemently contend that he has filed affidavit stating that he himself and his father were cultivating the property. When such being the material available on record, it clearly discloses that grant was obtained by misrepresentation. The property belongs to the family and all of them are cultivating jointly and when the joint family is in existence, they are equally entitled for share. The Trial Court rightly considered the material available on record and granted 1/3^rd share, but the First Appellate Court committed an error in reversing the finding in coming to the conclusion that grant in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 even no such application is filed for grant.

¶73

The counsel appearing for respondents in his argument would vehemently contend that the land is

¶74

¶75

government land and the same is not an ancestral property and no material is placed on record to show that father was cultivating the property and also father did not do any agricultural work. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court that Ex.P21 the age is mentioned as 26 years and hence it clearly discloses that the said application is not given by the father and his father name is also mentioned as siddaramaiah and his father is not Siddaramaiah and application was not given by his father. The counsel also would submits that the grant was challenged before the Assistant Commissioner and the same was dismissed and the same was attained its finality. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court that in the cross-examination of PW1 he has categorically admitted that father was a tailor and his eye sight is not in order from last 15 years and no material is placed to show that father was cultivating the property.

¶76

¶77

The counsel also would vehemently contend that

¶78

though R.I has given the report and he is not responsible for the said report. The counsel also would vehemently contend that even the evidence of PW2 is no consequence and the same is not useful to the plaintiff. Though PW2 claims that he was a tenant, no material is placed before the Court. The PW3 is Revenue Inspector and his evidence is not helpful to the plaintiff. The grant not enures the benefit of the family and nothing on record regarding cultivation by the family members. The counsel also would vehemently contend that in paragraph No.14 of the Appellate Court in detail discussed while reversing the finding of the Trial Court. The counsel also would vehemently contend that some of the documents are filed before this Court and said application is not filed along with application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and hence the same cannot be looked into.

¶79

¶80

The counsel in support of his argument he relied

¶81

upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2003) 10 Supreme Court Cases 310 in case of D.S.Lakshmaiah and another V/s Balasubramanyam

¶82

and another and brought to notice of this Court discussion made in paragraph No.9 proof of existence of the joint family does not lead to the presumption that property held by any member of a joint family is joint and the burden rests upon anyone asserting that any item of property is joint to establish the fact. But where it is established that the family possessed some joint property which from its nature and relative value may have acquired, the burden shifts to the party alleging self-acquisition to establish affirmatively that the property was acquired without the aid of the joint family property. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.14 wherein also an observation is made that the onus of proof has to be placed on the manager and not on his

¶83

¶84

coparceners and possession also to be proved and any such joint family funds or as to value or income if any and the same also to be proved. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.18 wherein also discussed with regard to there is no presumption of a property being joint family property only on account of existence of a joint Hindu family. The one who asserts has to prove that the property is a joint family property.

¶85

The counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1965 Supreme Court 289 in case of

¶86

K.V.Narayanaswami Iyer V/s K.V.Ramakrishna Iyer

¶87

and other and brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.17 wherein discussion was made with regard to the joint family had at the date of acquisition made in the names of the first defendant’s wife, his son and his grandson sufficient nucleus from which these properties could be acquired. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.18 wherein also discussed with regard to

¶88

¶89

acquisitions admittedly for the joint family were made came to an end in about 1931 and also brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.23 wherein discussion was made with regard to average receipt per year from the dry crops the receipt from these crops during the nine years under consideration amounted to about Rs.648/-. The total income from the crops grown on the joint family lands during the year 1931 to 1939 thus works out approximately to be about Rs.15,624/-, adding to this the sum of Rs.1,1000/- received on repayment of the mortgage loan on Ex.187 the joint family earning during these nine years appears to have amounted to about Rs.16,724/-.

¶90

The counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in (2007) 10 Supreme Court Cases 602 in case of Makhan Singh (Dead) by Lrs. V/s Kulwant Singh and brought to notice of this Court the discussion made in paragraph No.7 and held that we find no evidence in this respect save a self-serving and stray sentence in the

¶91

¶92

statement of the defendant that the property had been purchased from the income of the joint Hindu family. It bears re-iteration that the defendant had denied the execution of the two agreements Exs.P1 and P2 dated 03.05.1992 at the initial stage. Further it had been observed that a property could not be presumed to be a joint Hindu family property merely because of the existence of a joint Hindu family and raised an ancillary question.

¶93

In reply to the arguments of respondents’ counsel, appellants’ counsel contend that an affidavit is filed on 12.02.2024 wherein categorically admitted that the property is cultivated by himself and his father and also counsel by producing the document of order passed by the Assistant Commissioner along with memo would vehemently contend that grant has not been challenged and only M.R has been challenged that is in respect of revenue entry and the same is discussed and liberty is given to file a suit for partition. The counsel brought to notice of this Court

¶94

¶95

Ex.P12 signature available and the same is admitted by him that the signature belongs to him and hence it is clear that he gave the false information before the revenue authorities. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court Ex.P6 wherein he claims that he is the eldest son. The counsel brought to notice of this Court there is an admission on the part of the DW2 that the property is in joint cultivation of plaintiff and their father and defendant. The counsel also brought notice of this Court Ex.P3Saguvali chit and also Ex.P4- order . It is also clear that the respondent is the 2^nd son and not the eldest son but false averment is made that he is the eldest son. The counsel would submits that avocation is in respect of residing outside cannot be a ground that they have been ousted from joint family. The First Appellate Court committed an error in appreciating the evidence.

¶96

¶97

In reply to the said argument, counsel submits

¶98

that plaintiff has to succeed on his own and signature not confronted and re-iterates the judgments referred supra.

¶99

Having heard the appellants’ counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondents and also the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra, this Court has to analyze the material available on record since there is a divergent finding whether the material on record has been considered properly or not by the respective Courts in keeping the substantial questions of law framed by this Court.

¶100

Having considered material on record and also finding of the Trial Court and also the First Appellate Court and though defendants disputes that father has not given any application and records were summoned from the revenue authority regarding process of grant made in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the same is marked as Ex.P13. It is important to note that the plaintiff relies upon

¶101

¶102

Ex.P1 –Genealogical Tree and no dispute with regard to the genealogical tree and also it is admitted fact that the 1^st plaintiff is the elder son of Nagaraj S/o late Keremallaiah and 2^nd plaintiff is the 3^rd son and defendant No.1 is the 2^nd son of said Nagaraju. The fact that father died on 13.01.2009 is also not in dispute since death certificate is produced. The Ex.P3 grant order discloses that grant was made in favour of 1^st defendant and 2^nd defendant and DW1 categorically admitted that he had not given any application for grant under Section 53, but he claims that his wife has given the application but not produced any such application before the Court. The counsel mainly relies upon the document of Ex.P6 that is the report given by the R.I wherein report is submitted that the 1^st defendant is the elder son of Nagaraj who is the son of Siddaramaiah and hence it is clear that this document came into existence mentioning the name of Nagaraj S/o Siddaramaiah long back. Now, the respondent cannot contend that his father

¶103

¶104

name is not Siddaramaiah as mentioned in Ex.P21 and documents are also produced saying that the 1^st defendant is son of Nagaraj S/o Siddaramaiah as elder son and in Ex.P7 also. No doubt age is mentioned as 26 years, but father name is mentioned as Siddaramaiah. But, the counsel appearing for respondents brought to notice of this Court some corrections in the application and he did not deny the signature but only contend that he is not having any acquaintance with signature of his father. It is pertinent to note that while getting prepare the documents for grant, he himself has given the genealogical tree in terms of Ex.P12 and has signed the said genealogical tree and the same is confronted to the DW1 and he has categorically admits the signature wherein he has given false information that only father Nagaraj S/o Siddaramaiah and wife name also given as Gangamma. He has given his name as he is

¶105

1^st son and Mallesh is 2^nd son and false information was

¶106

given to the revenue authorities that he is the elder son.

¶107

¶108

It is important to note that Ex.P13 is the

¶109

document of grant records. On perusal of office note also, wherein the father name is mentioned as Nagaraj S/o Siddaramaiah but, his contention is that his father name is Keremallaiah, but not only in the office note in paragraph No.1 it is mentioned as Nagaraj S/o Siddaramaiah and specific note is also made that the said Nagaraj sought for grant of land and also in paragraph No.2 it is mentioned as Nagaraj S/o Siddaramaiah and wife name as gangamma both of them have passed away. The elder son of Nagaraj is Jayanna and recommendation is made to grant the land in

¶110

his favour as elder son and also the reference is in respect of NCR No.21/1998-99 that is the application given by the father for grant. It is important to note that entire original record was summoned and original R.I report is also marked as Ex.P14 wherein also it is mentioned that he is the elder son to the said Nagaraj and in Ex.P15 only shown the column No.3 name of Jayanna. The other Ex.P18 is the

¶111

¶112

original of Ex.P12 and father name is mentioned as Siddaramaiah not Keremallaiah. It is important to note that Ex.P20 is the document of application given by the 1^st defendant wherein he categorically mentioned in paragraph No.2 that he is cultivating the land unauthorizedly and he has given Form No.53 and based on that R.I and village accountant came to record statement and he was very much present and no such application given under Section

¶113

53 but falsely claims that he has given application.

¶114

It is important to note that though he claims that

¶115

he has given Form-53 in terms of the Ex.P20, it is admitted

¶116

that he has not filed any application but he claims his wife has filed the application and no such application is filed by the wife also, but managed to get the grant in favour of him and his wife that too without filing any application, but he claims that grant made in their favour. Independently, grant was made in favour of him, there is no any application and records are put-up only based on the

¶117

¶118

application given by the father, grant was made. No doubt DW1 admitted in the cross-examination that he has also not given any application and suggestion was made that he gave false information in terms of Ex.P12 –Genealogical Tree and the same was denied but admitted the signature in Ex.P12. The suggestion was made that he was sworn to an affidavit that he himself and his father gave an application and the same is mentioned in the affidavit. But, he claims that it is only a typographical error and the same has not been substantiated and there is a clear admission in the affidavit.

¶119

It is important to note that he had examined DW2 and though he claims that defendant No.1 alone cultivating the property and plaintiffs are residing separately and he categorically admitted that suit schedule property was cultivated by plaintiff and defendant along with their father Nagaraj during his life time. This admission also not considered by the First Appellate Court. But, the

¶120

¶121

First Appellate Court carried away with the admissions that they are residing separately and they are doing separate business and fails to take note of the fact that no application was given by defendant Nos.1 and 2, but grant was made in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 without filing any application. The document Ex.P12 is also contrary to the facts of the case and he claims that he is the elder son to the said Nagaraj and fraudulently he has obtained the grant without any application making false representation.

¶122

It is important to note that the Trial Court while appreciating the material on record in paragraph No.14 taken note of the admission on his part, he categorically stated that he has not given any application to show that he is cultivating the land from last 20 years, but he says that the application was given by his wife. But, he admits that he cannot say when the application was given by his wife and he categorically admits that when his father was alive, he has given the application by his wife, but he says that he

¶123

¶124

has not given the application. But, all the records discloses that only based on the application given by the father only, grant was made. Even the Trial Court also taken note of the admission on the part of DW2 who stated about the possession of defendant Nos.1 and 2 over the suit schedule property, but he failed to withstood the same in the crossexamination. He categorically admits that during the life time of father, all of them are cultivating the property together and the same has been discussed in paragraph No.18 of the Trial Court judgment. However, the First Appellate Court proceeded in an erroneous way in answering the point for consideration in paragraph No.19 that there are severance of status and there is no any severance status and merely residing separately is not a severance of status and also comes to the conclusion that it is noticed that they were enjoying the property separately and the said finding is also erroneous and they are not enjoying the property separately and no such other

¶125

¶126

property and comes to the conclusion that they were not in possession over the suit schedule property and the same is against the evidence of DW2. When the First Appellate Court even discussed that even otherwise, the possession in case of joint family, need not be actual possession even constructive possession can be accepted for the purpose of seeking partition, inspite of this observation is made comes to a conclusion that they are not in a possession and further observation is made that it is settled law that possession at the hands of one coparcener has to be construed as possession with other coparcener also and even discussing the same, comes to the conclusion that factum of joint family itself is disputed and comes to the conclusion that in the case on hand, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have specifically pleaded that the property was granted in their individual capacity and not in the capacity of kartha of the benefit of the joint family. This observation is erroneous even for granting the property in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2

¶127

¶128

there is no any application filed by both of them under Section 53. Apart from that grant is based on only the application given by the father and committed an error in considering the Ex.P3 which is grant certificate in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and fails to take note of the fact that no such application was filed with regard to they are cultivating the property. All records are manipulated in obtaining the grant in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the said fact has not been considered by the First Appellate Court considering the entire records of Ex.P13.

¶129

The First Appellate Court committed an error in magnifying the document of Ex.P21 wherein age is mentioned as 26 years and no doubt age is mentioned as 26 years, but the fact is that Nagaraj is son of Siddaramaiah is not in dispute and in all the revenue records which had been put up to grant the relief in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2, the father name is mentioned as Siddaramaiah and though he disputes the father name is

¶130

¶131

not Siddaramaiah, I have already referred the name of the father as referred in document as Siddaramaiah and also he is called as Keremallaiah and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 cannot blow hot and cold disputing the age mentioned, but the very basis for granting the property in favour of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 that is application filed by the father in the year 1998. The fact that he died in the year 2009 is also not in dispute in terms of Ex.P2- death certificate. The First Appellate Court fails to take note of the admission on the part of DW2 the witness of defendant No.1 that he categorically admits that all the plaintiffs and defendants as well as their father cultivating the property during the life time of their father i.e., Nagaraju. This admission is very clear that all of them are cultivating the land and only comes to the conclusion that they are doing their independent business and the same disentitles their right and the said conclusion of the First Appellate Court is erroneous.

¶132

¶133

Having considered the material on record also,

¶134

the First Appellate Court fails to take note of the fact that throughout the defendant No.1 played fraud before the revenue authorities in colluding with the revenue officials and he got the report that he was cultivating the land after the death of their father Nagaraju and as a elder son of the said Nagaraju and the fact is that he is not the elder son, he is the 2^nd son and 1^st plaintiff is the elder son and throughout he has manipulated all the documents even giving the genealogical tree in terms of Ex.P12 and original of Ex.P18 and these are the factors ought to have been taken note of by the First Appellate Court and the same has not been taken note of by the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court ought to have taken note of conduct of the 1^st defendant in getting allotted the property in his favour without any application filed by him or by his wife. Only basis for granting of the land is Ex.P21 filed by his father, but now disputes the very signature of the father

¶135

¶136

but all revenue records discloses that Nagaraju is his father

¶137

and father name is also mentioned as Siddaramaiah and now he cannot disputes that father had not given any application and if father had not given any application, he ought to have produced the application filed by him under Section 53 and even not produced the application filed by his wife. All these material aspects has been considered by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court without looking into the original documents which have been marked as Ex.P13 before the Trial Court and though some of the documents of certified copies are produced, but originals are available and produced before the Trial Court. The First Appellate Court fails to take note of on what basis the 1^st defendant has claimed the grant in his favour and only with an intention to defeat the rights of the plaintiff, he played fraud in collusion with the revenue authorities and obtained the grant in his favour and the contention that grant was challenged and the appeal was dismissed cannot be

¶138

¶139

accepted and no such cancellation of grant of order is filed and only challenged the revenue entries and this Court can consider the nature of grant while considering the relief sought in the suit and in the appeal an observation is made to parties to seek their relief in civil Court.

¶140

The First Appellate Court committed an error in ignoring the material available on record particularly oral and documentary evidence available on record. The other conclusion that both of them are not residing along with 1^st defendant cannot be a ground when the relationship is not in dispute and father had filed an application for grant of order and grant in favour of 1^st defendant is an individual grant based on fraud and coming to the conclusion that the same is self acquired property is nothing but erroneous observation made by the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court committed an error in considering both oral and documentary evidence and hence, the contention of the respondents’ counsel cannot be accepted. Hence, I

¶141

¶142

answered the substantial questions of law particularly documents of Ex.P6, Ex.P7 and Ex.P13 have not been relied

¶143

upon by the First Appellate Court and other material on record and finding of the First Appellate Court suffers from its illegality and perversity. Hence, I answered substantial questions of law accordingly.

¶144

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

¶145

ORDER

¶146

i) The Second Appeal is allowed.

¶147

ii) The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.23/2017 is set-aside. Consequently, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in O.S.No.28/2014 is restored.

¶148

Sd/JUDGE

¶149

RHS

B.N. Malleshappa v. B.N.Jayanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.N. Malleshappa v. B.N.Jayanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shekhara Achary Vs Rama Bai

Smt. Rathnamma Vs Smt Kenchamma

Shri. Kemparaju Vs Smt. Chamundamma

Dasarappa Basamma Vs Lokappala Nagaraja

K.M.Nanjappa Vs Sri. K.M.Yuvaraj

Sri Raju Devadiga Vs Sri Anni Devadiga