Second appeal against concurrent decrees granting the plaintiff half share in two suit schedule items as joint family property. The court held defendant No.3's admission that the properties belonged to propositus Venkatappa required no proof under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, found no substantial question of law, and dismissed the appeal.
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 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1800 OF 2021 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by B VEENA KUMARI
Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. FAYAZ SAB B.G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. MUNILAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE T.V. MUNIYAPPA, D/O LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT KAMMADATTI KAMMANUR VILLAGE, AVANI HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 563 131.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. DEVENDRA GOWDA R R., ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.01.2021 PASSED IN RA.NO.177/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT MULBAGAL. DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.07.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.20/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MULBAGAL.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
ORAL JUDGMENT
This RSA is filed challenging the Judgment and
decree dated 29.01.2021 passed in RA No.177/2014 by the Learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mulbagal and the
Judgment and preliminary decree dated 21.07.2014 passed in O.S.No.20/2013 by the Learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mulbagal .
per their ranking before the trial court. The appellants were the defendants, and the respondent was the plaintiff.
The Plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession of 1/2 share in the suit schedule properties. It is contended that one Venkatappa was the propositus. He had a son by name K.Ramaiah and a daughter by name K.Munilakshmamma. Venkatappa died intestate leaving behind his son K.Ramaiah and the defendants as his legal heirs. It is contended that, during the life time of Venkatappa, he was in unauthorized possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties, which were Inam Lands under mutt. After demise of Venkatappa, and
his wife Munivenkatamma, his son K.Ramaiah who was the father of plaintiff and defendants became the Kartha of the joint family. K.Ramaiah filed an application on behalf of joint family for the grant of occupancy rights over the suit schedule properties which are the Inam Lands before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Inams Abolition, Kolar. The Special Deputy Commissioner granted the land in favour of K.Ramaiah on behalf of joint family. The K.Ramaiah died intestate leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendants. After his death, the defendant No.1 became the kartha and is trying to alienate the suit properties. The suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants. The plaintiff demanded for a partition and separate possession, but the defendants refused to effect the partition. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file the suit for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prayed to decree the suit.
defendants. Despite service of summons, defendant Nos.1 and 2 remained unrepresented and they were placed exparte. Defendant No.3 filed a written statement contending that item No.1 and 3 of the suit schedule properties were granted in the name of K.Ramaiah and it is his self acquired properties. The plaintiff has no right to claim a share in the suit schedule properties. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit in respect of item No.1 and 3 of the suit schedule properties.
pleadings, framed the relevant issues.
declared that, the plaintiff is entitled for half share in item No.1 and 3 of the suit properties only. It is also ordered and declared that, the defendants are also entitled for half share in item No.1 and 3 of the suit properties. The defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.20/2013 preferred as appeal in R.A.No.177/2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mulbagal. The appellate court, on re-assessment of oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 29.01.2021. The defendants, aggrieved by the impugned judgments filed this Regular Second Appeal.
that, the item No.1 and 3 of the suit schedule properties were granted by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Inam Abolition in favour of the defendant's father. The said items of the suit schedule properties are the self acquired properties of the K.Ramaiah. He submits that, the plaintiff
is the sister of K.Ramaiah. She is not entitled to the share in the item No.1 and 3 of the suit schedule properties. The courts below, have committed an error in granting share to the plaintiff in item No.1 and 3 of the suit schedule properties. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the appeal.
the RTC extracts marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D4. Further, the defendant No.3 has clearly admitted that, the suit schedule properties originally belonged to the propositus Venkatappa. The said admission of DW3 itself is sufficient to hold the item No.1 and 3 of the suit schedule properties are the properties which belongs to the propositus Venkatappa. The trial Court considering the admission of DW3, had held that, the item No.1 and 3 of the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants. As observed above, defendant No.3 had admitted that, the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties. The fact admitted, need not be proved as per Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act.
that, the suit schedule properties in item No.1 and 3 are the joint family properties. The trial court was justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in part. The appellate court on reassessment of oral and documentary and admission of defendant No.3 had rightly affirmed the
judgment and preliminary decree passed by the trial Court. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgments or any Substantial Questions of Law that arises for consideration. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following.
ORDER
i) The Appeal is dismissed.
ii) Judgments and decree passed by the courts below is hereby confirmed.
iii) In view of dismissal of the appeal, IA No.
1/2021 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, IA.No.1/2021 is disposed off
Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE
RCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether item Nos.1 and 3 of the suit schedule properties were the self-acquired properties of K.Ramaiah or joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants.
Whether any substantial question of law arose for consideration in the second appeal.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri Narayanappa @ Narayanaswamy
Sri Nanjundappa
Sri Balarama
Smt Munilakshmamma
Ashok S. Kinagi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
