Dismissed

Sri Dejappa Mugulia v. Sri Gunapala

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2024RSA/1526/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal against a decree confirming partition of leasehold properties. The High Court rejected the challenge to the Lower Courts' finding that the defendant filed Form-7 representing the family, not individually, and allowed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree in the first appeal and original suit were confirmed.

Sri Dejappa Mugulia Vs Sri Gunapala — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:19177 RSA No. 1526 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1526 OF 2015 (PAR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. DEJAPPA MUGULIA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O SRI. ANNAU MUGULIA, R/AT YERMALA HOUSE, ARLA VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-574 211, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS,

¶8

SMT. THUNGAMMA, W/O LATE DEJAPPA MUGULIA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

¶9

Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA LAKSHMAMMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI. SHASHIDHARA, S/O LATE DEJAPPA MUGULIA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.

¶11

SRI. NARAYANA, S/O LATE DEJAPPA MUGULIA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.

¶12

SHAKUNTHALA,

¶13

D/O LATE DEJAPPA MUGULIA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.

¶14

SHOBHA,

¶15

D/O LATE DEJAPPA MUGULIA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:19177 RSA No. 1526 of 2015

¶17

ALL ARE R/AT YERMALA HOUSE, ARLA VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-574 211.

¶18

…APPELLANTS

¶19

(BY SRI. PRASANNA V.R., ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

SRI. GUNAPALA, S/O LATE LAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

¶22

SMT. JALAJA, D/O LATE ANNU MUGULIA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.

¶23

SMT. SUSHEELA, D/O LATE ANNU MUGULIA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

¶24

SRI. RAGHU MUGLIA, S/O LATE ANNU MUGULIA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.

¶25

SMT. VASANTHI, D/O LATE ANNU MUGULIA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

¶26

SMT. PADMAVATHI, D/O LATE LAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶27

SMT. SULATHA, D/O LATE LAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:19177 RSA No. 1526 of 2015

¶29

SMT. LALITHA, D/O LATE LAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶30

ALL ARE RESIDING AT YERMALA HOUSE, ARLA VILLAGE & POST, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-574 211.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(RESPONDENTS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶33

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.4.2015 PASSED IN RA NO.6/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANTWAL, D.K, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.12.2009 PASSED IN OS NO.235/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DVN) BANTWAL, D.K.

¶34

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The appellant is before this Court seeking for following reliefs.

¶37

" Wherefore it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set-aside the Judgement and Decree dated 18.04.2015 in R.A.No.6/2010 on the file of the learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., Bantwal, confirming the Judgement and Decree dated 18.12.2009 in OS No.235/1998 on the file of the learned Prl. Civil Judge

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:19177 RSA No. 1526 of 2015

¶40

(Jr. Dn.,), Bantwal, D.K., and the suit be dismissed with costs throughout.

¶41

In the above second appeal the concurrent finding of the Trial Court in the judgment dated 18.12.2009 in OS No.235/1998 and judgment dated 18.04.2015 in RA No.6/2010 is challenged by the appellant/defendant.

¶42

OS No.235/1998 had been filed by the first respondent herein against the appellant and other respondents herein seeking for partition of the suit 'A' schedule properties and for mesne profits. The contention of the plaintiff was that, the suit 'A' schedule properties are the leasehold properties of one Annu Mugulia i.e., the grand father of the plaintiff. The occupancy right was conferred by the land Tribunal as per TMC No.3392/74-75 in the name of the first defendant i.e., appellant herein on behalf of the entire family. This enures to the benefit of entire family. The said suit came to be decreed by declaring that the properties were that of the joint family and that the plaintiff was entitled for 1/40^th share in the suit schedule

¶43

'A' properties. It is further held that the first defendant

¶44

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:19177 RSA No. 1526 of 2015

¶45

herein i.e., the appellant herein had not established that the properties are self acquired properties.

¶46

The reasons for the same given by the Trial Court is that the grant made in the year 1974-75 though in the name of the first defendant was for the benefit of the family. Since, the statement made by the first defendant in the Form-7 filed by the first defendant is that he was in possession of the said land for 18 years, then as on the date of filing of the aforesaid Form-7, he was 24 years could not be believed. If that had to be taken into account, the first defendant could have to be held to be in possession of the property from age of six years and has came to the conclusion that Form-7 was filed by the first defendant on behalf of the family taking into account possession of the family for last 18 years. It was considered by the authority and grant made.

¶47

This finding was challenged by the first defendant in RA No.6/2010 which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 18.04.2015 confirming the finding of the Trial Court on the very same grounds, the First Appellate Court had

¶48

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:19177 RSA No. 1526 of 2015

¶49

come to a conclusion that Form-7 was filed on behalf of the entire family and is therefore not the individual property of the first defendant, challenging the same, appellant/first defendant is before this Court.

¶50

Having considered the finding of the Trial Court as also of the First Appellate Court, it is clear that the decisions of both the Courts is on the basis of the documents and evidence on record. The finding of both the courts is on the basis of Form No.7 which has been filed by the first defendant claiming that he was in possession of and carrying agricultural activities in respect of the properties for 18 years. The first defendant-applicant being 24 years of age as on the date of application, if this 18 years is taken into consideration, then it would amount to first defendant/applicant being in possession of and carrying agricultural activities from the time when he was six years of age. It is in that background that both the Courts have concluded that the possession and agricultural activities referred to in Form No.7 by the applicant is with reference to a joint family and not individually that of the applicant.

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:19177 RSA No. 1526 of 2015

¶53

The above finding of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court is sound and based on the evidence on record requiring me to intercede in the matter while exercising jurisdiction relating to a Regular Second Appeal.

¶54

There being no substantial question being raised and the reasoning of the trial Court and First Appellate Court being sound, I see no reason to interfere.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

KBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Sri Dejappa Mugulia v. Sri Gunapala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Dejappa Mugulia v. Sri Gunapala

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

Shri B R Suryaprakash Vs Shri R S Kodandaram

Sri.L. Biharilal Vs Sri.M. Vijayakumar

Smt Razia Khanum Vs Syed Asgar Pasha

Sri H.J. Sathynarayana Vs H.J. Padmanabha

S. Gowri Vs State of Karnataka by

Kurre Radhakrishna Reddy @ Vs State of Karnataka