Hanamappa S/O. Narasappa Sunagar vs Hanamawwa W/O. Hanamappa Sunagar
2022 Latest Caselaw 574 Kant

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH
       DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022
                        BEFORE
 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
             R.S.A.NO.5610/2013 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN

1.   SHRI HANAMAPPA S/O NARASAPPA SUNAGAR,
     AGE : 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O MANGALORE, TQ: YELBURGA,
     DIST: KOPPAL-583237.

2.   SRI IRAPPA S/O HANAMAPPA SUNAGAR,
     AGE : 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O MANGALORE, TQ: YELBURGA,
     DIST: KOPPAL-583237.

3.   SRI MUDAKAPPA S/O HANAMAPPA SUNAGAR,
     AGE : 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O MANGALORE, TQ: YELBURGA,
     DIST: KOPPAL-583237.

4.  SMT.NEELAMMA W/O YAMANAPPA SUNAGAR,
    AGE : 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
    R/O MANGALORE, TQ: YELBURGA,
    DIST: KOPPAL-583237.                   ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI ANAND R.KOLLI & SRI B.C.JNANAYYA, ADVTS.)

AND
SMT.HANAMAWWA W/O HANAMAPPA SUNAGAR,
AGE : 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O MANGALORE, TQ: YELBURGA,
DIST; KOPPAL-583237.                 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI A.S.PATIL FOR C/R)

      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 05.06.2013
PASSED IN R.A.NO.37/2012 BY THE LEARNED DISTRICT JUDGE,
KOPPAL AND THEREBY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE PASSED BY THE SR.CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, YELABURGA
IN O.S.NO.8/2010 DATED 21.08.2012 IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
                               2




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

                       : JUDGMENT :

Though this appeal is listed for admission, with

the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the

parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

2. The captioned second appeal is filed by the

unsuccessful defendants wherein both the Courts

below have declared that respondent/plaintiff is the

absolute owner of the suit schedule properties and

have granted consequential relief of injunction

restraining the present appellants/defendants from

interfering with her peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.

3. The facts leading to the above said case are

as follows:

Respondent/plaintiff claims that she is the

daughter of one Bhimappa @ Sanna Bhimappa.

Respondent/plaintiff has contended that her father

expired on 20.02.2009. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the

sons of respondent/plaintiff, whereas defendant No.4

is the wife of plaintiff's deceased son namely

Yamunappa. Defendant No.1 is the husband of

respondent/plaintiff. Respondent/plaintiff claims that

after demise of her father, she has inherited father's

property under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act,

1956. Respondent/plaintiff has further specifically

contended that the present appellants/defendants

have no semblance of right, title and interest over the

suit land she further pleaded that relationship is not

cordial between the respondent/plaintiff and present

appellants/defendants. Respondent/plaintiff has also

contended that in view of strained relationship, she is

residing at parental house since 20 years. The

appellants/defendants in absence of any right, title

over the suit schedule land are interfering with the

respondent/plaintiff's peaceful possession and

enjoyment over the suit land. Therefore, she was

compelled to file a suit for declaration and

consequential relief of injunction.

4. On receipt of summons, appellants/

defendants tendered appearance and filed written

statement. The appellants/defendants stoutly denied

the entire averments made in the Plaint and

specifically contended that Bhimappa was under the

care and custody of appellants/defendants and during

his lifetime he given his half share to the appellants/

defendants in the suit schedule properties.

5. Both the parties have led in ocular

evidence. Respondent/plaintiff has produced

documentary evidence vide Exs.P.1 to 10, whereas the

appellants/defendants though have led in ocular

evidence have not at all produced any rebuttal

documentary evidence in support of their case.

6. The Trial Court having appreciated the oral

and documentary evidence has answered Issue No.1

in the affirmative declaring that the respondent/

plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule

properties and she is in lawful possession and

enjoyment over the suit schedule property. While

examining Issue No.3, the Trial Court having assessed

the oral and documentary evidence has come to

conclusion that the appellants/defendants except their

sole sworn testimony have not produced any evidence

indicating that Bhimappa during his lifetime has

transferred half share in favour of appellants/

defendants. On these set of reasons, the suit is

decreed and present appellants/defendants are

restrained by way of perpetual injunction from

interfering with the peaceful possession of the

respondent/plaintiff.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and

decree of the Trial Court, the appellants/defendants

preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. The

Appellate Court on re-appreciation of oral and

documentary evidence on record has concurred with

the findings of the Trial Court and accordingly

dismissed the appeal. Against these concurrent

judgments and decrees of the Courts below, the

appellants/defendants are before this Court.

8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the

appellants/defendants and learned counsel appearing

for respondent/plaintiff.

9. The dispute virtually revolves around the

narrow compass. The materials on record clearly

indicating that the property was owned by Bhimappa

who is none other than father of respondent/plaintiff.

After the death of plaintiff's father, respondent/plaintiff

being the daughter has inherited the suit schedule

properties. The materials on record clearly indicate

that the suit land belongs to the maternal family of

respondent/plaintiff. Therefore, appellant No.1 who is

the husband of respondent/plaintiff and appellant

Nos.2 to 4 being children as well as daughter-in-law of

respondent/ plaintiff have no right over the suit

schedule land. It is inherited by respondent/plaintiff

under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. During

the life time of respondent/plaintiff and in absence of

valid transfer of title by Bhimappa during his life time,

the appellants/ defendants cannot assert right and

title over the suit land. Except bald allegations and self

sworn ocular evidence, appellants/defendants have

not produced any cogent and clinging evidence to

indicate that Bhimappa transferred his half share in

favour of appellants/defendants.

10. In that view of the matter, I do not find any

illegalities or infirmities in the judgments under

challenge. No substantial question of law arises. The

appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly the same

stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE EM