IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V,G. SABHAHIT AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.V, PINTO R.F.A. No.505/2004 (PAR> BETWEEN: 1. Sharnappa Channappa Galappanavar. Age: 17, 0cc: student, 2. Muttappa Channappa Galappanavar. Age: 15 years, 0cc: student. Both arc minors and represented by their Mother and natural guardian Smt. Ravawwa, W/o Channappa Gaiappsnavsr, Age: 35 years, 0cc: Household. All rf’ 0 Doni, Mundargi Taink, District Gadag. 3. Rekhavva s/ o Channappa Galappanavar, cc ar r’ 4. Rayawwa w/ o Channappa Galappanavar, hoi, 5. Ratnawwa d/o Channappa Galappanavar, 6. Prernawwa 6 /o Channappa Gualapeanavar, F I \gc. ‘1 icars. (hi: Household and agriculture. ‘iiayana d. qb Channappa (Jalappannar. k ‘c 20 ‘,ears 0cc 1 lousehold and agnc alturc, MI rc r c Dciii Iq Mur dargi I)istrict Gadag - pjwJiantc 13i Sri t’bandrasliekhar P nil. 4dvocatrj AND 1 Cl annappa I3asappa GaIappunaar Me 2 scars 0cc A ‘nc ukure I Mallappa (‘hannappa (Ialappanaiar Agt 30 years, 0cc Agriculture Both ate i , Don. ft1. Mundargi. Distiji t Gaddg. Respondents (& Sri M M. Hirema’ and Sri S.P. bulkarni. Ad’n tc It’r R2. R’ spordent n 1 is ‘ned) a s fit d 1d Sect’ ft I si it 1 1 1. t)f t nil . Dii nt: a th ii p a i ird %cpar OSSt%%aO • ‘i.’..q s In:... is ii £ 0” .t01 ‘JjspLaC Ii• ‘Sr. — . —4.... ‘ •‘ , Afljf :JIT 1. . t. ‘• I JUDGMENT 1 u appeal i’ filed ‘n thc plaintiffs in 0 S ‘k 16 1QQQ in th’ tilt t’ Addiiioiial (‘nr Judgt (Sr. Dij. (kida btrng a...gntnl b hc dgmcnt aid dec.r edit d 2, ii 2001 hercn tht suit f the pla.ntiffs has been dismissed in respect (it properh des. ribed in suit ‘ehedialu propern 1(F) snd 11’i and it has been dec ‘ed •n rc spa t of suit schedule propc flu s 1(A) to 1 (D; and 1(11) h holding that th’ plainriffs are .‘ntiiled to 7 aLl share iii the quit. 1(A) to (Di. (0) anc (H) properties witF costs being aggrieved b the dismissal of the ‘ilLat in iespc(t (.1 propert clesenbed in sLut schedule propeit lilt) and 1(F) naincl ‘Ii. No bhl 1A + lB measuting 11 acrcs 26 guiwis nd a No. 349 2 mtasunng 12 cic .itt *tcd w Doni ‘iage • he 3tr Ha ci ktJ) ap 11 u nc . iii, . r.k1fl& c $ I Ht” , befl’!’ Vt 1! Idi C olirt ire j’t r)I1c,; 5 • 4) La. itT a. i n us. i ‘1 ie.1r .. ,j fn i’.j’,: .• a II t 1 S .iDj.t’. •ittci (id.Z a —, ,c” !flL 1 1 • I U r • .1 :. . • S t(a “ ‘I. I Chann ippa-propositus is the lather of defendant no •‘ and plaintiffs 1 to 3. (‘haniiuppa has ihru ies i.e . Dtarnan€i. who d’ecl ‘n the sear It,2. B isrnanc%v : cecc’nd ife and ‘hnI waft R4 .n i iilaintit’t 4 Plain: jfl Tn . r ii g . ifl% elI nlainnf’ no. 4 and clefrndanr no 2 s the s°n of first ‘vile lJtanirt’a and plaintiff 3. n and 7 art th lilbiren ‘.1 Chann.tppa and Basa nntva second wife of Cliannappa Therefs.re the plaintiffs onstitute a jnint. larnll5 and the suit -chednb- properties alt ‘he anrestral properties and SIflL C the defend 1 nts refused to gr e share of tht plaintiffs in the suit chedu e p1 opens in qpj of their dc mand the stilt was filed for oartit’c r and separatc possession and to &t plaintifts share in F ‘,c u iale propc’rtit and icr me icrt a r Ii I Ic ii ‘ d b itt ii itil ed e a raw airL ,Int -n estril r , ‘tic iii i. 1 tC dant ties s n 101) C a.” V1 ii . , Ccfcr: I 4 Cf’ra.’t ,. sta tn. iiii ‘h ‘F — q.— .— s!i .‘ — ._ • . ••••.• , not in joint possession of the scheduh properties It is ac.rrecI that U c second dcfendan is in possession of scheduk projx rUes 1(K) ar 1 1(F) from 24 09 ) 2 as there is seieranc.e cf st t’is of jcirt I n lj’ bctwcc i defer lant i. 1 irid Therefore pluntiffs ar not nit tied to an share in the snd properties. lie also denied the awrmc it made in the hint tint defendant in 1 md 2 art orkins in the in the mte rest of plaintiffs and sought for dismissal of the suit in respcct 4 propc.rt3 at 1(F) and 1(G) It ;s use aerred that in the partition the properties destnbcd at lb and iF arc gii t ra to defendant n 2 b3 defendant no 1 and ewdcra C of defend tnt to I in 0 S NC) 389 1 is itself sufficient to sho th’it the sui propc rtic s have been come to the share of defendar t ix That I 1° ejar 1 he ibovc aid plc adins he followin ssa s re idi tic l urt I ate t e C C. 6 (3) Whethei the plaintiffs are entitled for 7 9 share (4) hthri the 2 defendant prores that h has a aired right, title md posst sion m ( r pr )( r tir s i (I ( md (f) sin( 24 0) 1 72 from he dat o semeranc e from ioint fami1 as pleaded in para 2 ot W S? ) Whether thc 2 defendant prov s ‘hal r ) t 09 ) plaintiffs I to 3 and to mmerc not bori as phaded in para 3 of W S (6) Whethr the suit is time barred? (7) What order dr On behalf of th plaintiffs 4 plaintiff was xamined as P XV 1 nd got marked Ineum nts as per F3x P 1 to Far P 11 On behalf f he Iefcrdar 1 t fmrst delcndant did r t enter ‘to he m tne ho arid dek nda t n u is examined a ) W I in 3 aot r 7 rc specS of suit schedule propert’ lit and 1 F was disniiw d In answer ng the issues as fc’ilcrn s Issut’ \‘, i Pun1 in the ittirwatn t Issue N”. 2 In the negative Issue No 3 Arcoidinglv Issue No. I In the affirmative Issiiw Nn i In the affirmatwe Issuc N” 6 In the negati’ e Issue N’ As per final order Being ;igunn ed b’ the said judgment aind decree wheren. ti-ic suit of tilt’ plaintiffs was dismissed in iespect of suit behedu’e properties iF4 and 11’ the plaintiffs har piefenc-d this appeal Fhc defendants hauje not prcferred an appeal being aggrieu-d b the iudgmt-nt and decree passed in tavoui “f the pituntif’s granting shari’ i; the propert described in I - t.. 10. 10 id ‘II lie p Iferciog, i udgm nt and e set n :c ,tn% .i iii 1a ffs dr. ‘1’4, ‘h ..e nwltd tr : S’ s ‘,n Jilt 1 .. st clef. i il ia’ ‘S ‘. i-led S St ?t ;r V,t ‘.j’t .A t’ ID 4.id ‘(T jid if sj’( ‘I: ft4t. ia1.l Iifr. ,t t fliit. j l j at. (I x. 1. ‘ S 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for respondents. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submit that there is no dispute about the relationship among the parties. There is also no dispute that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties, however the trial Court without considering the evidence on record has arrived at a perverse finding that in respect of the suit properties of 1E and iF there was partition among defendant nos. 1 and 2. Therefore plaintiffs are not entitled to any share of suit properties and the suit properties belong to the ownership of defendant no. 1. He has taken us through the oral evidence adduced by the parties before the trial Court and also contents of the documents got marked before the trial Court and submitted that having regard to the facts elicited in the cross examination of D.W. 1 and D.W.2 and also the averments made in the written statement, it is clear that the stand is inconsistent and according to him, through a registered Partition Deed and a Registered Relinquishment Deed and in fact no such document have been produced. Therefore, the entries only show that there Ut n as R 11 ncjuish mont l)ee: I whk h was in a cordanc e n it h law rheroP r he plaint ills ai entitled to shan in suit proper! ies 1 E ad If als 11110 rhe ap cal mj b€ allowed and suIt run be iCc1 IN ieSfn-o1 !)lititY !\\ plojIerlies aisr )n the oihoi hand learned eoi msrl for re1pon tent ‘delcida ot n 2 submits that on 2 4 ,0 1 0 ‘2 the UartitP i }Ct\k OII 1€ t(n(ialmt in 1 and a lId properties des<’i ihed at sijil ‘ehrdu1e 1 E and 1 l were riven to the share of defendant no 1 3nd he is in possession of the same from I 072. The mutata ii entry has been made in that behalf and Ex.D 0 which is the deposition given by defendant no 1 it 0 S No, 385 1991 mOul I arh show that h n i a prt1tiow betw n d1ealant Os nd and t n refon the finding of the trial ( urt s justified uL r t It tI i 1 n I r t i I t ‘It t on rOt rss box pn mc0 ln ii s a noon he 151011 1 jOrt r e (1 tl ‘ 1 a 1’ oio 10 is held that non exanunat loll of tht parts in the itnc-ss bin gin tNi to nfeienc c adcIse against him He submitted that finding ol ni€a Court ic iusttlwd intl dues no all for intri fert-ner in this ‘p il iii— 1 tas also n !ird up ;t rht dcri%ion ‘if the I-I’ in 1,1.— Supn me Court itt the casc’ of Prakash Chand Sliarma and (thers Nrrndra Ntth Sharnei repnned i’i AIR !7o ciqre.iin. (‘,rlrt 245b lternit it is held ii at in a partition suit, the deposition by olaintir’ in comi prcweeding in rhc Cnurr ‘if Tuhsildar so°n alter rht- sit:; of the plainiilfs and drfendaIlt’b families had not been joint ‘ince I Q2 1 amounts to an admission. Theretore the suit is nghtl3 iisinissed In the lcarned trial Court. is sahd Savilig reuard fu th stentiuns ut°td h xii its fin ow or id ati r iithisappc lire i th I rh f r r a cdvl r ) s tl’e p f itt.d a t1’ 1 a f 1 s P ‘3tsllCta 2, W tat )itiLI ‘ n’s” it ‘h’ ax” a jr , :1 • t I. •—‘ •r I. .—.:i — • •, • 11 shari ii respect of suit schedule 1(E) and 1(F) properties Point No 2 In vies of our finding to point no 1, the appeal s entitkd to be 2flowed For the folkmlug reasons REASONS I POftITNO. 1 I isdearfromtheavermentsmadc in the plant nd the written statement as also the eiIdence of defendant no 2 ho is exanuncd as I) WI that the suit schedule properties 1(A) to 1(H) wr the anustral properties is not disputed It is also not disputed that plaintiffs are entitled to share in item no 1(A) to 1(D), 1(0) and 1(H) properties However in so far as the properties in item no I (P4 and 10 of the schedule properties, the contention f thc econd delindant a the suit is that there ns ipirtition &titee kim mdbi fatltrdtnnp 1912 in the preset coteicler dh 11 cen oel,r,pc 4snbedm cmn Q nd o cc pep 2 e ak C ic I a t I.’ S nc, 2 in possession : the said no properties as uwner and plaintills ate not cntitled to share in thc said properties In cjrcler Ii’ wjjs. haigt- the said hijrderi clelc..ndant nfl. t ho is cxamined as 1) W I and he has reiteiated the ncrments madr i. rId. ‘vnt tell si ate,nern a’ ernng that in respect of I ht said tao pr perues, i c 1(F) inch 1(F) there ‘as partition in the prcsent’ of t ldt-rs bettetn defendant nos 1 and 2 and on 24 OQ 1972. he was given the possession in the presence of elders of the such propertics nan CI) s’ No 66, 1A and lB measuring 11 acres ‘ad 2b guntas and sv. No. 349 2 measuring 12 acres and Vardi ‘.. as irnen and enif aas made to thit effect However the dts urn• lUli id rc j odui ed b’ tiIt drfrndaiit coniprsr o ExD.1 n FAD 4 H IC Ftiacts w rnpect L’l s. N I4 ) and P )z Kt R.)R tat jt T .N 6 lAir liLt I) .q t 1( .1e’ptsiti ‘•l cit C. ! .an sa,1,)ei I.’ U.S No iti c.j wlwrajn d a u C it t ‘P .1 Rur ‘iii ?iJ. . I’•I .%t •. rh— 1j.c . ‘ % .a pan It .fl • the U, p ii’s’ I.. ‘ %r khk ch’n ‘it. ) a.., ‘s U 1 ‘ a. a’ 1 U. ii 1,e. .. ..‘. I.••.•’ ..‘I%.i%2..e..tJ::’ F’ is eliciud in the cross examination of I) W 1 that the suit scheduir promrr cs are thc anc stral properties Hr has produred H urn nts ngarding p rrt tion hr has produr ‘d partition teen he has dt red the sugge stir that f is father did rin partitir i he properlies in SO far as possession of the propertr in respect of the disput d properH lie h s further stated th t hr annot ro id or write part from Ex P 1 his father had not given any report or \‘arda rnd Rrlinquishrm nit 1)erd nas rcgisternd and h has produ d th same in the suit. lie has denied the suggestion that the said Relinquishrn-nt Deed is not produced. He has dcnn d that Ex P 1 is not binding on hr plaintiffs I)W ha spukc c ttc rclati rnship anion’ al hr arties and has t ated f a a per h Var adi give r r tr r c I r ad f a 1 )ef da 14 Theret re, t is clear on ap reclat ian f the e idenet’. that on behalf ot p1arti1Ts. P’vV I has tcd diat ill lie suit properties are am est’ .1 plJ)CFtlCc I r’ tI inn alleQed in Detc’ndant ‘ is d flied md on appre 1aU1e of le aba e said evidence on u cird. is cleat that Defendant Nod does not dispute that th suit prop rt s 1 to I H n en th n esti al properties of Deft ndant No 1 and he has also n t disputed the relationship among the parties However a ordi ig to h tin, then was a partilion between Delend. mt Nos. 1 and 2 n 24,U i72 nd the facts elicited m the cross- amHiation show that there was a registered relinquishment riced a mcI the same has I cun urocluced. is not supported h his ntvri dence nor tn v. t’rmcnts n the written statement and adn lhl ‘il\ no u ai ion deed has ce i pi minced ar d tc a ugg 1 1 tind at r s oh do t r r )iU d i g is d i 1 Ii ur nr In I tess Deiiic i rr. ld I bc idl rco n he . 1 e- a r-hm a’: ie 15 produricI below the Court On the other hand. Ex.P 11 is the mdv clot Unit ut. dccnrdliiQ In Il:e flirts cileited in the cross examination S Deli ‘idaiit No.2 w½fr’z would supp. n the partition and the omenis ul Ec P 11 o alci show that the said ent.t is made on tEa basis ci Varadi pursuant n relinquishment of share and not due to panitic i of propertic s in thercfou it is clear that ha’vmo regard to the inconsistent stand of Defendant No 2 and the facts chcited m the c ross-examination that then as partition deed irid wgistert cI relinquishrnen’ deed, none of whit h were produced before 1 he trial court though. he states that he hits produced the same Non examination c’f Defendant N” I would not assume an importance in this case and the deposition of defendant No 1 in ) S Nc .389 199k w dcl .lso not inure U thc benefit 01 Dcfc ndant N id ac diip ci’k.n )f lkfendant k i n r sui e. nqi. I r F s viGtcl t cd iehr ced an a is c ontra ,ul. . g”ci 1 ci len. \o.l \ 3$g 1)Qj stir’ iS eta.. ‘‘it s..t’ % ‘it?; ti’ l rp, , i ‘.1 t 4 ’sp h.’Q ‘%% ,1ts’1 .t isU! in rr..Qr.ct.1 ‘ ! :“ ‘t t 1 ‘.iic ii : •‘ •. .“. •• . .• i. j . ._,r i T’ ‘ “ ) ‘ p 6 Defend tnt No. 1 n mun tion has been sought for Mallappa Bannif ppa in respe t of i he disputed suit S hedule properties lb i IF a’td therelort’, ho totdtns t I ho triol aiurt based up ri the conren s ‘I Ixs.F—0 10(1 1 fl\ ( Cl lOOk]flQ tiiO iJ IS eii(iitC] [1 crosst\aminati( )n ot D\\ I is olearix erroneous and (‘01 inor ho ustaa ihie fl0 loihi to o Set :1 sd In th bsenoc d r’i )o1 (0 said pr 101 partition and relinquishment as it is admit ted h )cfcnd tnt No ) that the suit schedule properties nero initialhi am esti ii propc rtics md tlicrc fore, the plaintiffs are entitic d to shalL ii rospeet 0f sUit shedul if and IF properties also cord ngh. we anst er th Point No. I for determination POINT NO2 In ‘mw t ui orisxver t i-he ikjinr N I for dere ri rOilofl. tjn opucil is entit ed to he ailoned ORDER 9f) ii i5 0110” i itCili st 0 ( 1 ft 501 ‘ ti1 0 ( in respect ol suit schedule I E and if properties. is set aside and the S’i t nf the Plaintiffs in respect ‘1 tb ‘—“it prnpt’rti.’ 1E n’I iF t th Scntduk 1.) the plaint is dc rccd li holding that thc p1 ‘int’ff are entitled to 7/ t ‘h ire in the said properties ilso as dccrccd hi, the trial court in rc pc c’t of othc r properties and thc dcc ree shall be drawn accordingly, (iii) Ft rther in the circumstances of thc casc then shall be no order as to costs Sill JUDGE B’\ i;.