Karnataka High Court
S Nagarathnamma vs Manjunatha on 31 January, 2022
Bench: N S Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
R.S.A. No.960/2014 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
S. NAGARATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
W/O NARAYANASWAMY
R/O KALLIPALYA
HAMLET OF MASKAL,
GULUR HOBLI,
TUMKUR TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K.G. SADASHIVAIAH, ADV.)
AND:
1. MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
2. DHANALAXMI
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
BOTH RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE
CHILDREN OF RAMAKRISHNAIAH
R/O BANASWADI, SOLADEVANAHALLI POST,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562 123
2
3. RAMAKRISHNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
S/O YELLAGOWDA,
R/O KALLIPALYA,
HAMLET OF MASKAL,
GULUR HOBLI,
TUMKUR TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PATEL D. KAREGOWDA, ADV. FOR R1 AND 2;
R3 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 01.04.2014
PASSED IN R.A.NO.73/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL.
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL
AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD
24.02.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.88/1997 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & C.J.M., TUMKUR.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. This is a second appeal by the second defendant.
2. Manjunatha and Dhanalaxmi, claiming to be the son
and daughter of Ramakrishnaiah i.e., the first defendant, filed
a suit seeking for partition. They stated that their father was
addicted to bad vices and had driven the plaintiffs and their
mother out of the house and the plaintiffs were forced to live
with their grandfather. It was stated that a demand made by
them for partition was turned down and he had thereafter
executed a sale deed in favour of the second defendant. It
was stated that the sale deed did not bind them and that
have entitled for their legitimate share.
3. The father of the plaintiffs i.e., the first defendant
entered appearance and filed a written statement. In the
written statement, he admitted the fact that the plaintiffs
were his children but stated that since there was some
misunderstanding between him and his wife, she had left his
company. It was stated that the plaintiffs were residing with
him and he had no objection to decree the suit.
4. The second defendant, however, filed a separate
written statement denying the very relationship of the
plaintiffs and the first defendant. She claimed that the first
defendant had married the mother of the plaintiffs Gangadevi
prior to 1971 and the said Gangadevi did not even live with
the first defendant for 15 days and she had deserted the first
defendant. She stated that the said Gangadevi had thereafter
left for Bengaluru and married one Shivaramaiah, through
whom, she had the plaintiffs.
5. It was stated that the first defendant in order to raise
loans and to purchase some other properties had sold the suit
properties for valuable consideration in her favour and the
second defendant, who was a widow had raised loans and
purchased the properties and invested huge amount to bring
the land under cultivation.
6. The Trial Court on consideration of the evidence
adducted before it, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs
were the children of the first defendant and were therefore
entitled for a share in the suit properties. The Trial Court held
that the second defendant was unable to prove that the
plaintiffs were the children of one Shivaramaiah, who had
married Gangadevi. The Trial Court also recorded a finding
that the plaintiffs had proved that the suit properties were the
joint family properties and therefore, the sale made by the
first defendant in favour of the second defendant without the
consent of the plaintiffs was not for a legal necessity and did
not bind them.
7. The Trial Court accordingly decreed the suit and held
that the plaintiffs were entitled for 2/3rd share of the suit
schedule properties.
8. Being aggrieved, the second defendant preferred an
appeal.
9. The Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the entire
evidence, found no reason to disagree with the findings
recorded by the Trial Court and it accordingly affirmed the
findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal.
10. The applications filed by the second defendant for
amendment of the written statement and for production of
the additional evidence was also rejected by the Appellate
Court.
11. It is as against these concurring judgments, the present
second appeal has been preferred. In this second appeal, an
application is made by the appellant seeking for a direction to
subject the respondents herein i.e., the plaintiffs and the first
defendant and also the wife of the first defendant namely
Gangadevi themselves to a DNA test.
12. Admittedly, the appellant is only a subsequent
purchaser and she would obviously have no knowledge about
the marriage of the first defendant and the birth of the
plaintiffs out of the said wedlock.
13. The appellant, being a purchaser, would have
absolutely have no locus standi to seek for a direction to
subject the plaintiffs and the first defendant and his wife to
get themselves subjected to a DNA test.
14. In my view, the application is misconceived and is
accordingly dismissed.
15. Admittedly, the father i.e., the first defendant did not
dispute the fact that the plaintiffs were his children. It is also
not in dispute that the suit properties were joint family
properties. In the light of the concurrent finding of both the
Courts that the plaintiffs were the children, and their
paternity was admitted by the first defendant, the plaintiffs
were rightly held to be entitled to 2/3rd share in the suit
properties.
16. No question of law, much less a substantial question of
law arises for consideration in this appeal. Consequently, the
second appeal is dismissed.
17. In view of dismissal of this appeal, all pending
applications stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KG
