Neelawwa W/O Maraveerappa Huded vs Kalavva Calling Herself As W/O
2022 Latest Caselaw 1651 Kant

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                      DHARWAD BENCH

          DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                          BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

        REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.6110 OF 2012 (PAR)

BETWEEN

1.    NEELAWWA W/O MARAVEERAPPA HUDED
      AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRI. HOUEHOLD WORK,
      R/O MULGUND, TQ:DIST: GADAG.

2.    AMRUTAPPA S/O MARAVEERAPPA HUDED
      AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
      R/O. MULGUND, TQ:DIST: GADAG.
                                                  ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. G N NARASAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    KALAVVA CALLING HERSELF AS
      W/O MARAVEERAPPA HUDED @ GANIGER,
      AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC HOUSELHOLD,
      R/O. MAGADI.

2.    LAXMAVVA W/O VEERANNA TIRAKAPPAVAR
      AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
      R/O MULGUND, TQ:DIST: GADAG.

3.    CHANDRAVVA @ CHANNAVVA
      W/O MAHADEVAPPA SARAWAND,
      AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
      R/O KOPONABEW, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
      DIST: HAVERI-581110.
                                             ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. C. BANDI, ASSOCIATES FOR R1 AND R2;
R3- SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT)
                                 2




        THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF C.P.C., PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE    THE   JUDGEMENT    &   DECREE    DATED   07.09.2012    IN
R.A.N0.24/2012 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK
COURT AT GADAG, AND THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.02.2012 AND
THE DECREE PASSED IN OS NO.18/2009 BY THE CIVIL JUDGE
(SR.DN.), GADAG.


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


                            JUDGMENT

This captioned regular second appeal is filed by

unsuccessful defendants, who are questioning the

concurrent judgment and decree of the Courts below. The

genealogical tree of the family would be relevant to cull

out and same is as follows:

Maraveerappa

Kalavva (plt-1) Neelavva (Def-1)

Laxmavva Chandravva Amrutavva (plt-2) (def-2) (def-3)

2. Respondent No.1/plaintiff No.1 specifically

contended that she is legally wedded wife of

Maraveerappa and that in the said wedlock, they were

blessed with a daughter by name Laxmavva, who is

arrayed as plaintiff No.2. The respondents-plaintiffs

further specifically contended that the suit schedule

properties are joint family ancestral properties and

therefore, they are entitled for equal share in the

properties held by Maraveerappa S/o. Irappa. It was

specifically contended that the present appellant No.1-

defendant No.1 being second wife of Maraveerappa is not

at all entitled for any share in the suit schedule

properties. The respondents-plaintiffs specifically

contended that appellants 2 and 3/defendants 2 and 3,

who are children born out of void marriage are entitled

for a share in the 1/3rd share of Maraveerappa.

3. The present appellants, on receipts of

summons, contested the proceedings. The material on

record indicates that it is only defendant No.1 and 3, who

are appellants herein, have chosen to contest the

proceedings by filing written statement. The present

appellants stoutly denied the legal status of respondent

No.1. The appellants specifically contended that it is the

appellant No.1, who is legally wedded wife of

Maraveerappa and their marriage was solemnized in the

year 1961 in Puradeshwara Temple, Annigeri. It is also

specifically contended that appellant No.1 was not

matured and therefore, she was not sent to marital home

immediately after solemnization of marriage and

therefore, she stayed with her parents. Subsequently,

she joined the marital home of Maraveerappa and in the

wedlock, she has begotten defendants 1 and 2. The Trial

Court having assessed the oral and documentary

evidence answered issue No.2 and 3 in affirmative and

has recorded a categorical finding that the present

appellant No.1 is the second wife of Maraveerappa and

defendants 2 and 3 are illegitimate children of said

Maraveerappa.

4. The present appellants, feeling aggrieved,

preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court in

R.A.No.24/2012. The First Appellate Court on

reappreciation of oral and documentary evidence has

concurred with the judgment and decree of the Trial

Court. The First Appellate Court having referred to the

documents placed on record vide Ex.P6 to 8 has

concurred with the findings of the Trial Court in regard to

legal status of respondent No.1. The ocular evidence

coupled with documentary evidence was meticulously

examined by both the Courts below. Both the Courts

below have concurrently held that respondent No.1 is the

legally wedded wife and respondent No.2 was born in the

wedlock of Maraveerappa and respondent No.1-plaintiff

No.1. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that

the present appellant No.1 is the second wife and the

children i.e. defendants 2 and 3 are born out of a void

marriage. On these set of reasons, the First Appellate

Court has concurred with the judgment and decree of the

Trial Court.

5. Though appellants have stoutly denied the

legal status of respondent No.1, however no clinching

evidence is placed on record to indicate that appellant

No.1 is the legally wedded wife of Maraveerappa and that

respondent No.1 is no way concerned to the appellants'

family. On the contrary, the clinching evidence placed on

record by respondents-plaintiffs would clearly establish

that respondent No.1 is legally wedded wife of

Maraveerappa. Ex.P6 is the summons issued to

respondent No.1 way back in the year 1975 in

C.C.No.10/1973. Ex.P7 is the notice issued in Crl.Revision

Petition No.20/1974 and Ex.P8 is another notice issued in

Crl.Misc. No.16/1975. In the said documents, respondent

No.1 is clearly referred as wife of Maraveerappa. These

documents have come in existence at an undisputed

point of time way back in the year 1975. If these

documents, coupled with Ex.P4, which is birth extract of

Laxmavva i.e. plaintiff No.2 is examined, it clearly

discloses that she was born on 08.04.1967 and in the

said birth certificate, her mother name is shown as

Kalavva and father name is shown as Maraveerappa.

These documents would clearly establish that respondent

No.1 is legally wedded wife of Maraveerappa. Both the

courts below have concurrently held that respondents-

plaintiffs have succeeded in proving their legal status with

deceased Maraveerappa and they have been rightly

granted 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties. Both

the Courts below have concurrently declared that

respondent No.1 is legally wedded wife of Maraveerappa.

The clinching evidence adduced by respondent No.1 is not

at all rebutted by the appellants by producing rebuttal

evidence. No substantial question of law would arise in

the present appeal. The appeal being devoid of merits is

hereby dismissed.

6. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending

interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for

consideration and are dismissed accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE YAN