Indirabai W/O. Siddappa Bhosale vs Sharadha W/O. Mahantesh Bhosale
2022 Latest Caselaw 1121 Kant

                            1


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     DHARWAD BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                         BEFORE

    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

              R.S.A.NO.6215 OF 2012(PAR)

BETWEEN:

SMT. INDIRABAI W/O SIDDAPPA BHOSALE,
AGE: 65 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD,
R/O NARAYANPUR, I CROSS, DHARWAD-580008.
                                              ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.RAMESH BADNUR & SRI.C.R.HIREMATH, ADVS.)

AND:

1. SMT. SHARADHA W/O MAHANTESH BHOSALE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O:C/O S.Y.SHINDHE, PLOT NO.59, ULAVI,
CHANNABASAVESHWAR NAGAR, DHARWAD-580007.

2. KUMARI.BHAVANA,
D/O MAHANTESH BHOSALE,
AGE: 11 YEARS, SINCE MINOR R/BY HER MOTHER AND
GUARDIAN SMT. LALITA W/O MAHANTESH BHOSALE,
I.E., RESPONDENT NO.4.

3. SAROJA D/O SIDDAPPA BHOSALE
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O NARAYANAPUR, 1ST CROSS, DHARWAD-580008..

4. SMT.LALITHA W/O MAHANTESH BHOSALE,
AGE: 36 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD,
R/O NARAYANPUR, I CROSS, DHARWAD-580008.
                                     2


                                                     ....RESPONDENTS

     THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN
O.S.NO.22/2005 DATED:13.12.2010 PASSED BY THE PRL.SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, DHARWAD WHICH WAS CONFIRMED IN
R.A. NO.15/2011 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL AND SESSIONS
DISTRICT JUDGE, DHARWAD, DATED 10.09.2012 AND BE PLEASE
TO DISMISS THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF BY ALLOWING THIS
APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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


                            JUDGMENT

The captioned regular second appeal is filed by

appellant-defendant No.1 questioning the concurrent

judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below granting

1/6th share to respondent No.1- plaintiff in the suit schedule

properties.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The brief of the facts of the case are as under:

The first respondent who is the plaintiff filed a suit for

partition and separate possession in O.S.No.22/2005 by

specifically contending that she is the legally wedded wife of

one Mahantesh Bhosle and defendant No.3 is her sister-in-law

and defendant No.4 is falsely claiming to be the wife of

deceased Mahantesh. The plaintiff specifically pleaded in the

plaint that schedule 'A' properties are the residential houses

and are ancestral properties of defendant No.1 and her

deceased husband-Mahantesh Bhosle and hence, claimed

share in the suit schedule properties.

Defendant No.1 on receipt of summons filed written

statement stoutly denying the entire averments made in the

plaint. The defendant No.1 claimed that schedule 2A property

is her self acquired property and therefore, contended that the

present suit for partition is not maintainable in respect of the

said property. It was further contended that insofar as

compensation awarded in MVC.No.344/2000, defendants 1, 2

and 4 have succeeded in the claim petition and therefore,

plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the compensation

amount. Further, the allegation of the plaintiff that defendant

No.1 is demanding 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property

was also specifically denied by present appellant-defendant

No.1.

The trial Court having appreciated the oral and

documentary evidence and having perused Ex.D6 which is the

original sale deed dated 3.12.1991 relating to the schedule 2A

property which was jointly purchased by defendant No.1 and

deceased husband of plaintiff, the trial Court has answered

issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and held that schedule 2A

property was jointly purchased by defendant No.1 along with

her son i.e. Mahantesh Bhosle. Therefore, the trial Court was

of the view that plaintiff being the legally wedded wife of

deceased Mahantesh Bhosle has proceeded to decree the suit

awarding 1/6th/1/5th share in schedule 2A properties and 1/3rd

share in the compensation awarded in MVC.No.344/2000.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the

trial Court, defendants 1, 2 and 3 preferred an appeal in

R.A.No.15/2011. The first appellate Court having re-

appreciated the oral and documentary evidence negatived the

contention raised by the present appellant-defendant No.1

insofar as schedule 2A property. Having perused the sale

deed vide Ex.D6, the appellate Court also held that the said

property was jointly purchased by defendant No.1 and

Mahantesh Bhosle who is none other than the husband of

plaintiff and therefore, the trial Court was of the view that the

schedule 2A property was jointly purchased by defendant No.1

and her son Mahantesh Bhosle and the plaintiff being the

legally wedded wife of deceased Mahantesh Bhosle was

entitled for share in the schedule 2A property. On these set of

reasoning, the first appellate Court has proceeded to concur

with the findings of the trial Court.

4. Being aggrieved by the concurrent judgments and

decrees of the Courts below, the present appeal is filed by the

first defendant.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

perused the judgments and decrees under challenge.

6. The defendant No.1 is the mother-in-law of

plaintiff. Though defendant No.1 claims that schedule 2A

property is her self acquired property, the said contention runs

contrary to the recitals in the sale deed dated 3.12.1991 as

per Ex.D6. As per Ex.D6, defendant No.1 alone has not

purchased schedule 2A property. In fact, she has purchased

this property along with her son Mahantesh Bhosle.

Therefore, both the Courts were justified in negating the

contention of defendant No.1 that it is her self acquired

property. Both the Courts have held that schedule 2A

property is the ancestral property and have rightly proceeded

to allot 1/6th share to the plaintiff.

7. Insofar as schedule 'B' property is concerned, the

same pertains to the compensation awarded in

MVC.No.344/2000. The plaintiff being the legally wedded wife

of deceased Mahantesh Bhosle, defendant No.1 being the

mother and defendant No.2 though born through the second

wife is also entitled for share. Therefore, both the Courts

below have held that plaintiff is also entitled for share in the

compensation amount. On perusal of the judgments and

decrees of the Courts below, I do not find any illegality or

irregularity. The findings of the Courts below are based on

legal evidence and have rightly granted legitimate share to the

plaintiff in schedule 2A and schedule B properties. No

substantial question of law arises for consideration in this

appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

*alb/-