Karnataka High Court
Sri Dejappa Mugulia vs Sri Gunapala on 4 June, 2024
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:19177
RSA No. 1526 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1526 OF 2015 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SRI. DEJAPPA MUGULIA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
S/O SRI. ANNAU MUGULIA,
R/AT YERMALA HOUSE,
ARLA VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK,
D.K. DISTRICT-574 211,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS,
1. SMT. THUNGAMMA,
W/O LATE DEJAPPA MUGULIA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
2. SRI. SHASHIDHARA,
Digitally signed S/O LATE DEJAPPA MUGULIA,
by AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.
NARAYANAPPA
LAKSHMAMMA
Location: HIGH 3. SRI. NARAYANA,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA S/O LATE DEJAPPA MUGULIA,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.
4. SHAKUNTHALA,
D/O LATE DEJAPPA MUGULIA,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.
5. SHOBHA,
D/O LATE DEJAPPA MUGULIA,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:19177
RSA No. 1526 of 2015
ALL ARE R/AT YERMALA HOUSE,
ARLA VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK,
D.K. DISTRICT-574 211.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PRASANNA V.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. GUNAPALA,
S/O LATE LAKSHMI,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
2. SMT. JALAJA,
D/O LATE ANNU MUGULIA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
3. SMT. SUSHEELA,
D/O LATE ANNU MUGULIA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
4. SRI. RAGHU MUGLIA,
S/O LATE ANNU MUGULIA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
5. SMT. VASANTHI,
D/O LATE ANNU MUGULIA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
6. SMT. PADMAVATHI,
D/O LATE LAKSHMI,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
7. SMT. SULATHA,
D/O LATE LAKSHMI,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:19177
RSA No. 1526 of 2015
8. SMT. LALITHA,
D/O LATE LAKSHMI,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
YERMALA HOUSE, ARLA VILLAGE & POST,
BANTWAL TALUK,
D.K. DISTRICT-574 211.
...RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENTS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.4.2015 PASSED IN RA
NO.6/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, BANTWAL, D.K, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.12.2009
PASSED IN OS NO.235/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL
JUDGE (JR.DVN) BANTWAL, D.K.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant is before this Court seeking for following
reliefs.
"Wherefore it is respectfully prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set-aside the
Judgement and Decree dated 18.04.2015 in
R.A.No.6/2010 on the file of the learned Prl. Senior
Civil Judge & JMFC., Bantwal, confirming the
Judgement and Decree dated 18.12.2009 in OS
No.235/1998 on the file of the learned Prl. Civil Judge
NC: 2024:KHC:19177
(Jr. Dn.,), Bantwal, D.K., and the suit be dismissed
with costs throughout.
2. In the above second appeal the concurrent finding of the
Trial Court in the judgment dated 18.12.2009 in OS
No.235/1998 and judgment dated 18.04.2015 in RA
No.6/2010 is challenged by the appellant/defendant.
3. OS No.235/1998 had been filed by the first respondent
herein against the appellant and other respondents herein
seeking for partition of the suit 'A' schedule properties
and for mesne profits. The contention of the plaintiff was
that, the suit 'A' schedule properties are the leasehold
properties of one Annu Mugulia i.e., the grand father of
the plaintiff. The occupancy right was conferred by the
land Tribunal as per TMC No.3392/74-75 in the name of
the first defendant i.e., appellant herein on behalf of the
entire family. This enures to the benefit of entire family.
The said suit came to be decreed by declaring that the
properties were that of the joint family and that the
plaintiff was entitled for 1/40th share in the suit schedule
'A' properties. It is further held that the first defendant
NC: 2024:KHC:19177
herein i.e., the appellant herein had not established that
the properties are self acquired properties.
4. The reasons for the same given by the Trial Court is that
the grant made in the year 1974-75 though in the name
of the first defendant was for the benefit of the family.
Since, the statement made by the first defendant in the
Form-7 filed by the first defendant is that he was in
possession of the said land for 18 years, then as on the
date of filing of the aforesaid Form-7, he was 24 years
could not be believed. If that had to be taken into
account, the first defendant could have to be held to be in
possession of the property from age of six years and has
came to the conclusion that Form-7 was filed by the first
defendant on behalf of the family taking into account
possession of the family for last 18 years. It was
considered by the authority and grant made.
5. This finding was challenged by the first defendant in RA
No.6/2010 which came to be dismissed vide judgment
dated 18.04.2015 confirming the finding of the Trial Court
on the very same grounds, the First Appellate Court had
NC: 2024:KHC:19177
come to a conclusion that Form-7 was filed on behalf of
the entire family and is therefore not the individual
property of the first defendant, challenging the same,
appellant/first defendant is before this Court.
6. Having considered the finding of the Trial Court as also of
the First Appellate Court, it is clear that the decisions of
both the Courts is on the basis of the documents and
evidence on record. The finding of both the courts is on
the basis of Form No.7 which has been filed by the first
defendant claiming that he was in possession of and
carrying agricultural activities in respect of the properties
for 18 years. The first defendant-applicant being 24
years of age as on the date of application, if this 18 years
is taken into consideration, then it would amount to first
defendant/applicant being in possession of and carrying
agricultural activities from the time when he was six
years of age. It is in that background that both the
Courts have concluded that the possession and
agricultural activities referred to in Form No.7 by the
applicant is with reference to a joint family and not
individually that of the applicant.
NC: 2024:KHC:19177
7. The above finding of the trial Court and the First
Appellate Court is sound and based on the evidence on
record requiring me to intercede in the matter while
exercising jurisdiction relating to a Regular Second
Appeal.
8. There being no substantial question being raised and the
reasoning of the trial Court and First Appellate Court
being sound, I see no reason to interfere.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KBM
