Karnataka High Court
Sri. Chikkarasanayaka vs Smt. Manchamma on 2 February, 2022
Bench: N S Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.2182 OF 2017 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Chikkarasanayaka
S/o Late Siddappa,
Aged about 45 years,
R/at No.2500, 3rd Main,
5th Cross, Vinayakanagar,
Mysore District-570005.
2. Sri.Mahadevanayaka
S/o Late Gendremanchanaika,
Aged about 52 years,
R/at Hosaramenahalli Village,
Bilikere Hobli, Hunsur Taluk,
Mysore district. ... Appellants
(By Sri. Vedachala M.V., Advocate)
AND:
1. Smt. Manchamma
W/o late Kapaninaika,
Aged about 65 years,
2. Sri. H.K.Mahadevu
@ Mahadevanayaka,
S/o late Kapaninaika,
Aged about 42 years,
2
3. Sri. Ramanayaka
S/o late Kapaninaika,
Aged about 42 years,
Respondents No. 1 to 3 are
R/at Hullenahalli Village,
Bilikere Hobli, Hunsuru Taluk.
4. Sri. Lokesha
S/o M.H.Puttaswamaiah,
Aged about 45 years,
R/at D.No.422, ,
Near Naganna Store,
Chamaraja Mohalla,
Mysore City-570005. ... Respondents
(By Sri.Y.K.Narayana Sharma, Advocate)
This appeal is filed under section 100 of CPC.,
against the Judgment & Decree dated 27.07.2017 passed
in R.A.No.26/2016 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge
and JMFC., Hunsur, allowing the appeal and setting aside
the Judgment and Decree dated 14.01.2016 passed in
O.S.No.69/2007 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC,
Hunsur.
This appeal coming on for admission, this day, the
court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This second appeal is by the plaintiff and defendant
No.3.
2. Chikkarasanayaka, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking
for partition contending that his grandfather Ramanayaka
had two wives namely Devamma and Manchamma.
According to him, Manchamma had two daughters namely
Ramamma and Chikthayamma. He further stated that
Ramamma had one son by name Mahadevanayaka i.e., 3rd
defendant while Chikkathayamma had one son namely the
plaintiff.
3. He also stated that the second wife of his
grandfather, Devamma had a daughter called
Manchamma, who in turn, had two sons namely
H.K.Mahadevu and Ramanayaka (Defendants No.2 and 4).
It was stated that since the property belonged to
Ramanayaka, on his death, the property stood devolved of
his three children, namely, defendant No.3, the plaintiff
and Manchamma (mother of defendants No.2 and 4) and
therefore, they were entitled to one third share.
4. This suit was resisted by defendants No.1 and 2 as
well as defendants No.4 and 5 by filing a written
statement.
5. Defendants No.1 and 2 contended that the plaintiff-
Chikkarasanayaka and 3rd defendant-Mahadevanyaka were
total strangers to the family. It was stated that the suit
properties were the ancestral properties of one
Manchanayaka who was married to one Devamma. It was
stated that Manchanayaka and Devamma had only one
daughter i.e., Manchamma, the 1st defendant.
6. It was stated that the 1st defendant had married one
Kapaninaika and out of her wedlock with Kapaninaika, she
had two sons by name Mahadevanayaka and the 2 nd
defendant-H.K.Mahadevu. It was also stated that they
were enjoying the suit properties as legal heirs of
Manchanayaka and Devamma and the suit properties were
also mutated in the name of 1st defendant and an attempt
was being made by the plaintiff to knock away the
defendant which was impressible.
7. Defendants No.4 and 5 also filed a written statement
denying the plaint averments. They stated that defendants
No. 1, 2 and 4 were the absolute owners of the suit
properties and they were in exclusive possession of Item
No.3 which they had sold in favour of 5 th defendant.
8. The Trial Court on consideration of the issues came
to the conclusion that the plaintiff had proved that the suit
properties were ancestral and joint family properties and
as a consequence, the plaintiff would be entitled to one
third share. The Trial Court concluded that the defendant
Nos. 4 and 5 had failed to prove that the 4th defendant
had sold the suit properties as its absolute owner and the
defendant No.5 was not a bonafide purchaser. The Trial
Court accordingly, decreed the suit and granted one third
share.
9. Being aggrieved, the defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5
preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court on reappriciation
of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff
had not proved that he and the defendants constituted a
Joint Hindu Family and that he was a member in the said
family.
10. In order to come to the said conclusion, the
Appellate Court opined that in view of the denial of the
relationship, it was necessary for the plaintiff to have
adduced independent witnesses to establish the
relationship pleaded by him. The Appellate Court took the
view that the RTC extract which were produced at Ex.P4 to
P6 revealed the possession of defendants No. 1 and 2 who
had contended that the property belonged to
Moogaramanayaka(Father of 1st defendant and maternal
grand father of 2nd defendant). The Appellate Court,
therefore, came to the conclusion that the Trial Court was
wrong in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff had
proved the relationship. The Appellate Court accordingly,
reversed the judgment of the trial court and allowed the
appeal consequently, dismissed the suit.
11. It is against these divergent judgments, this second
appeal has been preferred.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri. Vedachala
strenuously contended that the evidence on record clearly
indicated that the relationship between the plaintiff and
Ramanayaka had been established and the Appellate Court
was not justified in reversing the decree of the Trial Court.
He also contended that along with second appeal, an
application had been filed, by which revenue documents
from the year 1965 and 1966 had been produced which
indicated that the property belonged to Ramanayaka. He,
therefore submitted, this was a fit case to allow the
application and remand the matter to the Trial court for a
fresh consideration of the matter.
13. I have heard the Learned Counsel and perused the
material on record.
14. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff put forth the plea
that his grandmother-Manchamma was the first wife of
Ramanayaka. The said plea was resisted by defendants
No. 2 and 4 stating that Manchamma was in no way
related to them. They contended that Devamma, their
grand mother was married to one Manchanaika and both of
them had only one daughter i.e., Manchamma (defendant
No.1). Thus, it was clear that the plaintiff was aware that
he was required to establish that his grandmother-
Manchamma was the first wife of Ramanayaka.
Admittedly, no evidence as contemplated under Section 50
of the Indian Evidence Act of persons who had special
means of knowledge about the relationship were examined
by the plaintiff. In other words, no oral evidence was
produced to establish that Manchamma was the first wife
of Ramanayaka.
15. The only documentary evidence produced were three
RTC extracts which also did not indicate that Ramanayaka
was married to Manchamma. It is therefore clear that
there was absolutely no evidence to indicate that that
plaintiff's grandmother-Manchamma was married to
Ramanayka. The Appellate Court was therefore, justified in
coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to
prove that he was entitled to a share in the property which
he claimed to be that of Ramanayaka.
16. The contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the documentary evidence now sought to be
produced could establish that the property belonged to
Ramanayaka, cannot also be accepted.
17. The foundational fact that was to be established by
the plaintiff was that Manchamma was the first wife of
Ramanayaka. Though in some of the revenue documents,
which are now produced, indicate that the properties stood
in the name of Ramanayaka, that by itself cannot lead to
the inference that Manchamma was married to
Ramanayaka. In fact, in respect of certain entries, it is
mentioned as "Ramanayakana Hendathi (wife of)
Devamma" indicating that the properties were of
Devamma wife of Ramanayaka. None of the documents
establish that Manchamma was the wife of Ramanayaka.
In fact, the revenue records and RTC of the year 1981 to
1984-85 indicates the name of one Hanumegowda bin
Kalegowda as the Khathedhar.
18. In my view, these documents would in no way assist
the plaintiff in establishing that his grandmother
manchamma was the first wife of Ramanaika. Even
otherwise, nothing prevented the plaintiff from producing
these revenue records which were admittedly public
documents. Therefore, in my view, there is no substantial
question of law arising consideration in the second appeal
and the same is accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JS/-
