Paravva W/O. Madivalappa ... vs Basavva W/O. Tammana Kurubar
2022 Latest Caselaw 379 Kant

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

                         BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

              R.S.A.NO.6058/2012 (DEC/INJ)

BETWEEN

SMT.PARAVVA
W/O MADIVALAPPA
DYAVANNAVAR @ KURUBAR,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICLTURE AND
HOUSE HOLD WORK,
R/O GARAG,
TQ: AND DIST: DHARWAD-580001.
                                             ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI G.I.GACHCHINMATH, ADV.)

AND

1.    SMT.BASAVVA
      W/O TAMMANNA KURUBAR
      @ DYAVANNAVAR, AGED MAJOR,
      OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK AND
      AGRICULTURE,
      R/O SAVADATTI, TQ: SAVADATTI,
      DIST: BELGAUM-590001.

2.    SRI MADIVALAPPA
      S/O TAMMANA KURUBAR
      @ DYAVANNAVAR, AGED MAJOR,
      OCC: AGRICULTURE,
      R/O CIVIL HOSPITAL ROAD,
      DHARWAD,
      TQ: & DIST: DHARWAD-580 001.

3.    SRI BASAPPA
      S/O TAMMANNA KURUBAR,
      @ DYAVANNAVAR, AGED MAJOR,
                              2




     OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O SAVADATTI,
     DIST: BELGAUM-590001.

4.   SMT.BHYIMAVVA
     W/O BHIMAPPA VAGGAR
     AGED MAJOR,
     OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
     R/O THIMMAPUR,
     TQ. & DIST: BELGAUM-580001.

5.   SMT.RUKMAVVA
     W/O BHIMMAPPA TALAGADE,
     AGED MAJOR,
     OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
     R/O RAMAPUR,
     TQ. & DIST: BELGAUM-580001.

6.   SMT.YALLAVVA
     W/O FAKKIRAPPA DODAWAD,
     AGED MAJOR,
     OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
     R/O GARAG,
     TQ. & DIST: BELGAUM-590001.
                                         ... RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.1 : DECEASED)
(BY SRI S.L.MATTI, ADV, FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
(BY SRI B.V.SOMAPUR, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.4 TO 6 : SERVED)

      THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING THIS COURT TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.08.02012
PASSED IN R.A.NO.16/2008 BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND CJM, DHARWAD AND ALSO IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 19.12.2007 PASSED I O.S.NO.275/2003
PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC-
II, DHARWAD IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.


      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                3




                        : JUDGMENT :

This captioned regular second appeal is filed by

unsuccessful defendant No.1(a) questioning the

concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts

below.

2. Facts leading to the above said case are as

follows:

The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for

declaration and injunction by specifically contending

that, the propositus of respondents/defendants

namely Gangappa went in adoption to one

Smt.Gangavva wife of Bharamappa Kurubar under a

registered adoption deed, which is of the year 1938

and therefore, respondents/plaintiffs specifically

contended that, defendant would not get any right

and title on the basis of alleged mutation under

M.E.No.3800 and therefore sought relief of declaration

claiming absolute ownership and for consequential

relief of injunction.

3. The respondents/plaintiffs and present

appellant led in ocular evidence and also adduced

documentary evidence, examined witnesses on their

behalf to substantiate their respective claims. The

Trial Court having assessed oral and documentary

evidence, answered Issue No.2 in the affirmative and

held that defendant namely Gangappa has gone in

adoption to one Gangavva W/o Bharamappa Kurubar

and therefore on account of adoption Gangappa

severed all his ties with the genitive family. Though a

feeble attempt was made by appellant/defendant

claiming that there was an agreement between

Gangappa and Tammannappa before Gangappa went

in adoption, however, no rebuttal evidence is led in to

demonstrate that the present suit property was

transferred by respondents/plaintiffs' ancestors in

favour of ancestors of appellant/defendant herein. The

appellant/defendant has placed reliance on

unregistered document which is produced before this

Court by way of additional evidence.

4. Both the Courts have held that Gangappa

has gone in adoption and therefore, the

appellant/defendant cannot lay a claim over the suit

schedule property when admittedly their grandfather

namely Gangappa went in adoption way back in the

year 1938.

5. Therefore, I do not find any infirmities or

illegalities in the judgments and decrees passed by

the Courts below. No substantial question of law

arises in the present case on hand. Accordingly, the

appeal is devoid of merits and the same stands

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE EM