Karnataka High Court
Lachamma And Ors vs Subhareddy And Ors on 25 October, 2024
Author: M.G.S.Kamal
Bench: M.G.S.Kamal
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7881
RFA No. 200148 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 200148 OF 2018
(PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
1. LACHAMMA W/O LATE GUNDAREDDY,
AGE: 75 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD & AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BELLURA VILLAGE,
TQ. & DIST. BIDAR.
2. CHANDRA REDDY
S/O LATE GUNDAREDDY,
AGE: 57 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by SACHIN OCC: HOUSEHOLD & AGRICULTURE,
Location: HIGH R/O. BELLURA VILLAGE,
COURT OF TQ. & DIST. BIDAR.
KARNATAKA
3. CHINNAREDDY
S/O LATE GUNDAREDDY,
AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BELLURA VILLAGE,
TQ. & DIST. BIDAR.
4. SANJEEVREDDY
S/O LATE GUNDAREDDY,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7881
RFA No. 200148 of 2018
R/O. BELLURA VILLAGE,
TQ. & DIST. BIDAR.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI RAVI B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SUBHAREDDY @ SUBHASHREDDY
S/O BHEEMAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BELLURA VILLAGE,
TQ. & DIST. BIDAR-585401.
2. PARAMMA D/O BHEEMAREDDY
(W/O PENTAREDDY MALIPATIL),
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. MAMADGI, TQ. ZAHERABAD,
DIST. MEDAK-502220.
TELANGANA STATE.
3. SARASWATI D/O LATE BHIMAREDDY
(W/O SANJIVREDDY) CHUKULI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. NIRNA, TQ. HUMNABAD,
BIDAR-585401.
4. ANJAMMA D/O LATE PENTAREDDY,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY QUARTERS,
TQ. VIKARABAD, DIST- 581101.
5. PUNNAMMA D/O LATE PENTAREDDY,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. AURAD-S,
TQ & DIST. BIDAR-585326.
6. ISHWARI W/O TUKKAREDDY,
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD & AGRI,
R/O. BELLURA VILLAGE,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7881
RFA No. 200148 of 2018
TQ. & DIST. BIDAR-585401.
7. JAGDEVI W/O TUKKAREDDY,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O BELLURA VILLAGE,
TQ. & DIST. BIDAR-585401.
8. GUNDAMMA
W/O LATE NARAYANREDDY,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. BELLURA VILLAGE,
TQ. & DIST. BIDAR-585401.
9. PENTAREDDY
S/O LATE NARAYANREDDY,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. BELLURA VILLAGE,
TQ. & DIST. BIDAR-585401.
10. AMBIKA
D/O LATE NARAYANREDDY,
AGE: 22 YEARS,
R/O. BELLURA VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST. BIDAR-585401.
11. DHARMAREDDY
S/O LATE NARAYANREDDY,
AGE: 20 YEARS,
R/O BELLURA VILLAGE,
TQ. & DIST. BIDAR-585401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R5, R6, R7,
R8 AND R10;
V/O DTD. 27/08/19 NOTICE TO R3 AND R11 ARE
HELD SUFFICIENT;
V/O DTD. 07/01/2020 NOTICE TO R2 AND R4 ARE
DISPENSED WITH;
V/O DTD. 16/02/21 NOTICE TO R9 IS DISPENSES WITH)
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7881
RFA No. 200148 of 2018
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE
COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT
BIDAR IN O.S.NO.57/2008, DATED 01.09.2018 AND
CONSEQUENTIALLY TO DECREE THE SUIT OF THE
APPELLANTS/ PLAINTIFFS IN ENTIRETY AS PRAYED FOR.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL)
The plaintiffs are before this Court, aggrieved by the
judgment and decree dated 01.09.2018 passed in
O.S.No.57/2008 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge
and CJM, Bidar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'
for short), by which the suit of the plaintiffs for partition
and separate possession came to be dismissed.
2. Subject matter of the suit is the immovable
property in Sy.No.4/4 measuring 10 acres 17 guntas of
Bellura Village, Bidar Taluk and District (suit land for
short).
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7881
3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that;
(a) One Bhimreddy s/o Hanmanth Reddy was the
propositus. He had three sons namely, Hanamant Reddy,
Tukka Reddy and Nagareddy. That the said Bhimreddy
owned and possessed lands in Sy.Nos.36 and 37, of
Bellura Village, Bidar Taluk, which were the ancestral
properties, in addition, he was also in unauthorized
occupation, possession and cultivation of the Government
land bearing Sy.No.4/4 measuring 10 acres 17 guntas of
Bellura village, Bidar Taluk.
(b) After his demise his sons Hanmantreddy, Tukka
Reddy and Nagareddy succeeded to the aforesaid lands in
Sy.Nos.36 and 37 and 4/4 are situated in Bellura village,
Bidar Taluk. It is further case of the plaintiffs that, first
and third sons of Bhimreddy, namely, Hanmantreddy and
Nagareddy had sons and daughters, whereas the second
son Tukka Reddy passed away issueless. That all the said
three sons of Bhimreddy were in joint cultivation and
possession of the aforesaid three lands. That there was a
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7881
partition of ancestral property namely lands in survey
Nos.36 and 37 between the three sons. However, land in
Sy.No.4/4 measuring 10 acres 17 guntas was kept apart
to be enjoyed jointly for the purpose of grazing the family
cattle. Subsequent to the demise of aforesaid
Hanmanthreddy and Nagareddy the first and third son of
Bhimreddy, successive members of the family have been
in cultivation in joint possession and enjoyment of the said
land in Sy.No.4/4.
(c) Since Hanmanthreddy the eldest son was the
karta of the family, his name was nominally entered in the
records of rights. The said Hanmanthreddy had filed an
application before the Land Tribunal, Bidar for re-grant of
said the land in Case No.LRM/322/1975-76, which after
enquiry re-granted vide order dated 23.08.1976. The said
re-grant was in the name of Bhimareddy son of
Hanmanthreddy. Bhimreddy passed away leaving behind
his wife Tulsamma -defendant No.1 and his son Subhash
Reddy-defendant No.3, the name of another son of
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7881
Bhimareddy by name Pentareddy had been shown as the
owner and possessor of the land. Thus, the said land
continued to be in the joint possession and enjoyment of
the family.
(d) The plaintiffs are the wife and sons of
Gundreddy, who is the son of Nagareddy. The defendants
are the wife and children of Bhimreddy and Pentareddy,
who are the sons of Hanmanthreddy. The aforesaid land in
Sy.No.4/4 was nominally made in the name of defendant
No.2 to the extent of 5 acres 10 guntas and remaining
extent in the name of defendant No.5 to extent of 5 acres.
That taking undue advantage of entries in the record of
rights, defendants No.2 and 5 were intending to transfer
the said land in favour of third persons depriving the
entitlement of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs requested and
demanded for allotment of the share in the suit land on
25.06.2008 which was denied giving raise to cause of
action of the suit. Hence, the suit for partition and
separate possession of the aforesaid properties and for a
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7881
correction of the records of rights and for a consequential
relief of permanent injunction was filed.
4. Written statement is filed by the defendant Nos.
2, 5, 7, 8 and 9 denying the plaint averments. It is
admitted that lands in Sy.Nos.36 and 37 of village Belura
are the ancestral lands. It is however categorically
contended that land in Sy.No.4/4 measuring 10 acres 17
guntas was the self acquired property of ancestors of
defendants namely, Subhashreddy. Allegation of the
plaintiffs that the said land in Sy.No.4/4 was also ancestral
property is denied. It is admitted that there was a partition
of lands in Sy.Nos.36 and 37, so also as ancestral house
prior to the year 1963-64 between Hanumanthreddy and
Nagareddy. That ever since the said partition, respective
families of Hanumanthreddy and Nagareddy are in
possession of the said lands in Sy.Nos.36 and 37 and
records of rights were accordingly entered in their names.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7881
5. It is further contended that as regards land in
Sy.No.4/4 measuring 10 acres 17 guntas is concerned,
same absolutely belong to the grand father of the
defendant namely, Hanumanthreddy which was being
cultivated by him right from the year 1969-70 and in the
year 1972-73 the said land was partitioned between sons
of Hanumanthreddy namely, Bhimareddy and Pentareddy
in which Bhimareddy was allotted 5 acres 7 guntas and
Pentareddy was allotted 5 Acres 10 guntas and their
names were accordingly entered into revenue records. It is
further contended that in the year 1978, Land Tribunal,
Bidar, had declared the said land as a Government Land
and they were directed to be dispossessed from the said
land. Aggrieved by the same a writ petition in
W.P.No.10722/1978 was filed before the High Court of
Karnataka, which by its order dated 17.06.1983 set aside
the order of the Land Tribunal and restored the possession
of the said land to the said persons. Ever since then they
are in possession and enjoyment of the said property.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7881
6. It is further contended that portion of the said
land has been acquired by the State through KIADB, Bidar,
for the purpose of expansion of Air Force Station and the
present suit is filed by the plaintiffs with an eye on the
compensation to be awarded pursuant to said acquisition
and the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest of the
property. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.
7. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed
the following issues for its consideration;
"1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the grant of
suit land in the name of Bhimreddy s/o
Hanmanthreddy enure to the benefit of entire
family as mentioned under G tree in the plaint and
it is a ancestral joint family property of the parties
to the suit?
prove that suit property is their self-acquired
property as the grant was individual?
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is bad for partial
partition?
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition of
the suit schedule properties as prayed for?
5. What order or decree?"
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7881
8. Four witnesses have been examined on behalf
of the plaintiffs as PW.1 to PW.4 and have exhibited 21
documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P21. Three witnesses
have been examined on behalf of the defendants as DW.1
to DW.3 and exhibited 18 documents marked as Ex.D1 to
Ex.D18.
9. On appreciation of the evidence Trial Court
answered issued Nos. 1 and 4 in the negative and issue
Nos.2 and 3 in the affirmative and consequently dismissed
the suit with costs. Being aggrieved by the same,
plaintiffs are before this Court.
10. Sri. Ravi. B. Patil, learned counsel appearing for
the plaintiffs/appellants reiterating the grounds urged in
the memorandum of appeal submitted;
(a) that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the
oral and documentary evidence produced by the
plaintiffs in support of their claim of suit land being in
joint cultivation of Hanumanthreddy and Nagreddy
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7881
prior to the order of re-grant by the Land Tribunal
and also the name of original propositus Bhimreddy
and Hanumathreddy appearing in the revenue
records in respect of the suit property since the year
1963-64.
(b) That the Trial Court misconstrued the said entries
in view of the similarity in the name of original
propositus Bhimareddy s/o Hanumanthreddy with
that of his elder son Hanumanthreddy being known
as Bhimareddy s/o Hanumanthreddy, accordingly,
proceeded to accept the contention of the defendants
without adverting to the entries made in the revenue
records. Since the defendants are claiming
independent right in respect of the suit property, the
burden of proof of independent acquisition of their
right is on the defendant. Since there is always
presumption of joint-ness of property in favour of the
plaintiffs. As such the reasoning assigned by the Trial
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7881
Court is contrary to the pleading and records made
available.
(c) That the Trial Court had failed to appreciate the
evidence of PW.2 to PW.4 who are the independent
witnesses spoken about the joint cultivation of the
suit land by Hanmanthreddy and Nagareddy
thereafter by Gundareddy along with Bhimareddy.
That the testimony of the said witnesses has
remained unchallenged and there was no reason for
the Trial Court to disbelieve the said version.
(d) That the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the
documentary evidence marked through PW.1 being
the revenue entries for the years 1963-64 to 1969-
70 which justify and establish the fact of joint
cultivation of the land even during the year 1963-64.
It is further contended that though there was a
partition in the family with regard to lands in
Sy.Nos.36 and 37 in the year 1963-64, the land in
Sy.No.4/4 was kept aside to be possessed jointly as
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7881
the same was a Government land to be partitioned
amongst the family members after getting
appropriate orders from the concerned authorities.
Thus, he submits the Trial Court has not adverted to
these aspects of the matter and has dismissed the
suit without appreciating the material evidence,
warranting interference at the hands of this Court.
11. Per contra, Sri.Manvendra Reddy, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants
submits;
(a) that original propositus Sri. Bhimareddy s/o
Hanumanthreddy passed away long back prior to the
partition which had admittedly taken place prior to
the year 1963-64 in respect of joint family properties
in Sy.Nos.36 and 37. He submits that the land in
Sy.No.4/4 (suit land) was occupied, possessed and
enjoyed by Hanumanthreddy S/o Bhimreddy who is
grand father of defendant Nos.2 to 4, on his own
accord and the original propositus has no role in the
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7881
matter. He further submits that even the revenue
records produced by the plaintiffs only indicate that,
it was Hanumanthreddy s/o Bhimareddy who was in
possession and enjoyment of the suit land and
establishes/support the case of the defendants in
that regard.
(b) that the Land Tribunal had rejected the
application filed by Hanmanthreddy and had directed
the Tahsildar to take possession of the land which
order was challenged by Pentareddy s/o
Hanmanthreddy husband and father of defendant
Nos.5 to 7 along with other occupiers of the said land
in W.P.No.10722/1978. The said writ petition was
allowed by order dated 17.06.1983 setting aside the
order of the Land Tribunal. Thereafter the survey was
conducted; records in Form No.10 were prepared
reflecting the names of fathers of defendants in the
revenue records. He submits that two sons of
Hanumanthreddy, namely, Bhimareddy and
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7881
Pentareddy partitioned the property, in which 5 acres
7 guntas was allotted to the share of Bhimareddy
and 5 acres 10 guntas was allotted to the share of
Pentareddy and the revenue records were
accordingly mutated in their names.
(c) He further refers to the deposition of PW.1 to
point out that not only the plaintiffs have admitted
partition of ancestral properties in Sy.Nos. 36 and 37
having taking place prior to the year 1963-64 but
have also admitted partition along with two houses
that has taken place between Bhimareddy and
Pentareddy. Referring to the same he submits that
the said admission would only indicate that the
plaintiffs being aware of the suit property being the
exclusive property of Hanumanthreddy and having
kept quite all these years have ventured to file the
suit only to cause trouble and harassment to the
defendants. Contending as above, he seeks dismissal
of the appeal.
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7881
12. Heard and perused the records.
13. Points that arise for consideration is;
"(1) Whether the suit land forms joint
family property of Bhimareddy s/o
Hanumanthreddy who is the original
propositus?
(2) Whether the Trial Court has
appreciated the oral and documentary
evidence produced by the parties in proper
prospective?
(3) Whether the Trial Court is justified in
dismissing the suit?"
14. It is a settled principle of law that grant of land
in favour of a member of joint family would enure to the
benefit of other members of the family. The said principle
postulates firstly, existence of a joint family and secondly,
possession and enjoyment of the property for the benefit
of the joint family. It is also a settled principle of law
that there can be a presumption of a joint family but
there cannot be presumption of joint family property.
Therefore, the initial burden of the property being the
joint family property is on the
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7881
persons who asserts the same. In the instant case,
plaintiffs have come before the court to claim that the suit
property in Sy.No.4/4 measuring 10 acres 17 guntas
situated at Bellura Village, Bidar, originally belonged to the
propositus Bhimareddy s/o Hanumanthreddy along with
other two items of the ancestral property in Sy.Nos.36 and
37 and the residential properties.
15. There is no dispute of the fact that lands in
Sy.Nos.36 and 37 and other residential houses were
partitioned between the first and third sons of Bhimareddy
namely, Hanmanthreddy and Nagareddy prior to the year
1963-64. Contention of the plaintiffs however is that suit
land in Sy.No.4/4 being the Government land was kept
apart for the benefit of the family and was in joint
possession and cultivation of family until filing of the suit.
Necessary also to extract the family pedigree as found in
Para 1 of the plaint, since the same is admitted by the
defendants as extracted hereunder for immediate perusal.
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7881
BHIM REDDY S/O HANMANTHREDDY
HANMANTHREDDY (DIED) TUKKAREDDY NAGREDDY (DIED)
NAGAMMA (WIFE) (DIED) RACHAMMA (WIFE)
(DIED ISSUELESS)
LACHAMMA (P1) CHANDRAREDDY CHINNAREDDY (P3) SANJEEVREDDY
(P2) (P4)
BHIMREDDY (DIED) PENTAREDDY (DIED)
TULSAMMA (WIFE) (D-1) SANGAMMA (WIFE) (D-5)
SUBHASH (D-2) PARAMMA (D-3) SARASWATI (D-4)
TUKKAREDDY (D8) NARAYANREDDY ANJAMMA (D-6X) PUNNEMMA(D-7)
(D-9)
16. There would have been a semblance of truth in
the case of the plaintiffs had they proved their contentions
of suit land was held, possessed originally by the
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7881
propositus namely, Bhimreddy s/o Hanumanthreddy by
the eldest member of the family after his demise prior to
the partition. No documentary evidence in this regard is
produced.
17. Counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs referring to
documents at Ex.P14 and Ex.P14a submits that entries in
the said document reflect the name of original propositus
namely, Bhimareddy s/o Hanumanthreddy and that the
Trial Court had got confused by the similarities in the
names of Bhimareddy s/o Hanumanthreddy,
Hanmanthreddy s/o Bhimareddy and his grand son
Bhimareddy s/o Hanumanthreddy. Thus, he insists that it
is because of this confusion in the names of original
propositus, his first son and the grandson from the first
son, the said documents were not read and appreciated by
the Trial Court.
18. Adverting to the said contentions of the learned
counsel for the appellants this Court bestowed its
consideration to the said documents at Ex.P14 and P.14a.
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7881
Ex.P14 is the records of rights which are written in Marati
vernacular language of the year 1963-64. English
translation of the said document is produced at Ex.P14a.
Close scrutiny of the said documents indicate same
pertains to the land in Sy.No.4/4 which originally
measures 114 acres 32 guntas situated at Bellura village,
Bidar Taluk. Column No.9 of the said document providing
for the names of possessors and the kathedars refers to
following names;
1. Mal Sheetty Thippanna,
2. Bhimreddy Sanga Reddy
3. Hanmanthreddy Bhimreddy,
4. Havappa Siddappa
5. Malreddy, Narasa Reddy
6. Rangareddy
7. Keshreddy,
8. Ganapat P.V
9. Vithaba Guram
10. Balreddy, Lalreddy
19. There is no mention of name of Bhimareddy s/o
Hanmanthreddy. The 3rd name found in the said document
is Hanmanthreddy s/o Bhimareddy. As noted the
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7881
document is of the year 1963-64. Therefore, from the
family pedigree it can be presumed that it is only the
name of Hanumanthreddy, S/o Bhimareddy the first son of
original propositus which finds mention therein. Question
therefore is, whether the said Hanmanthreddy s/o
Bhimareddy possessed the land on his own or as the
kartha of the family.
20. Relevant at this juncture to refer to the
deposition of PW.1 who in his cross-examination recorded
on 07.12.2016 at paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 has deposed
as under;
"2. ನಮ ಕಟುಂಬ ೆ ನಮ ಮು ಾ ತನ ಾಲ ಂದಲೂ 2 ಸ ೆ
ನಂಬರಗಳ ಜ ೕನು ಇದವ" ಎಂದ$ೆ ಸ%, ಅವ"ಗ'ೆಂದ$ೆ ಸ ೆ ನಂ. 36
(ಾಗೂ 37 ಎಂದ$ೆ ಸ%. ಆ ಏರಡೂ ಜ ೕನುಗಳ ನಮ ಕುಟುಂಬ (ಾಗೂ
ನಮ ,ೊಡ-ಪ/ ಅಧ ಅಧ ಹಂ2 ೊಂ3,ೇ ೆ ಎಂದ$ೆ ಸ%. ಆ ಪ4 ಾರ
ಅವರವರ ಕ¨ÉÓಯ ಜ ೕನುಗ6 ೆ ಎಂದ$ೆ ಸ%. ನನ7 ಾತ 1963-64 ರ
ಸ ೆ ನಂ. 36 (ಾಗೂ 37 ಇವ"ಗಳನು7 ನನ7 ತಂ,ೆ (ಾUÀÆ ನನ7 zÉÆಡ-ಪ/
ಇವ%9ೆ ಹಂ2 ೊ:;,ಾ$ೆ ಎಂದ$ೆ ಸ%.
3. ಸ ೆ ನಂ. 4/4 ಒಟು; 110 ಎಕ$ೆ ಇ,ೆ ಎಂದ$ೆ ಸ%. ಅದರ ನಮ
ಊ%ನ 9 ಜನ%9ೆ ತ>ಾ 10 ಎಕ$ೆ 17 ಗುಂ?ೆ ಜ ೕನನು7 ಸ ಾ ರದವರು
ೊ:;ದರು ಎ೦ದ$ೆ ಸ%. ಅದು ಸ ಾ ರದ ಜ ೕನು ಎಂದ$ೆ ಸ%. ಸ ಾ ರ
Aಾ%9ೆ ಜ ೕನನು7 ಮಂಜೂರು Bಾ3 ೊ ಅವರು ತಮ ತಮ
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7881
ಜ ೕನುಗಳ CಾDEೕನದ ,ಾ$ೆ ಎಂದ$ೆ ಸ%. 1978 ರ ಭೂ GಾHಯ
ಮಂಡ6ಯು ಎ>ಾ 9 ಜನರನು7 ಕ¨ÉÓIಂದ (ೊರ9ೆ (ಾJ,ೆ ಎಂದ$ೆ ಸ%.
4. ಭೂ GಾHಯಮಂಡ6ಯ ಆ,ೇಶದ LರುದM ಎ>ಾ 9 ಜನ ಡಬೂ N-
10722/1978 ಅO ಯನು7 BಾನH ಉಚR GಾHAಾಲಯದ ,ಾಖ Tದರು
ಎಂದ$ೆ ಸ%. ಸದ% ಅO ಯನು7 ಪ"ರಸ %Tದ BಾನH ಉಚR
GಾHAಾಲಯವ" ಭೂ GಾHಯಮಂಡ6ಯ ಆ,ೇಶವನು7 ರದುಪ3Tತು ಎಂದ$ೆ
ಸ%. ಆ ಪ4 ಾರ 1988 ರ ಎಲ ರ ಕ¨ÉÓಯನು7 ಮರು CಾUNTತು ಎಂದ$ೆ ಸ%.
5. 1963 J ಂತ ಮೂಂ2Vಂದಲೂ ನನ7 ತಂ,ೆ ಸ(ೋದರರು ಸ ೆ ನಂ. 36
(ಾಗೂ 37 ಇವ"ಗಳನು7 ತಮ (ೆಸ%9ೆ Wಾ ೆ ಬದ>ಾXೆ Bಾ3 ೊಂ3ದರು
ಎಂದ$ೆ ಸ% ಅಲ , ಆದ$ೆ 1963J ಂತ ಮುಂYೆ ನನ7 ಾತನ ಸ(ೋದರ$ಾದ
ಹಣಮಂತ$ೆ3 (ಾಗೂ Gಾಗ$ೆ3- ಇವರು ಸ ೆ ನಂ. 36 ಮತು 37
ಇವ"ಗಳನು7 ತಮ ತಮ (ೆಸ%ನ Wಾ ೆ ಬದ>ಾವXೆ Bಾ3 ೊಂ3ದರು
ಎಂದ$ೆ ಸ%.
6. ಸ ೆ ನಂ. 4/4 ಇದು ಹಣಮಂತ$ೆ3- (ಾಗೂ Gಾಗ$ೆ3- ಇವರ [ೆಂ:
(ೆಸ%ನ ದ ಬ9ೆ\ Aಾವ",ೇ ,ಾಖ>ೆ ಇಲ . ಸ ೆ ನಂ. 4/4ನು7 1972-73 ರ
]ೕಮ$ೆ3- (ಾಗೂ ^ೆಂ?ಾ$ೆ3- ಇವರು 5 ಎಕ$ೆ 7 ಗುಂ?ೆ (ಾಗೂ 5 ಎಕ$ೆ 10
ಗುಂ?ೆಯನು7 ಕ4ಮ ಾ_ ತಮ ತಮ (ೆಸ%ನ Wಾ ೆ ಬದ>ಾವXೆ Bಾ3
ೊಂ3ದರು. ಎಂದ$ೆ ಸ%.
7. ಸವ ನಂ. 4/4ನು7 ಹಣಮಂ ೆರ3- ಮತು ^ೆಂ?ಾ$ೆ3- ಇವರು `ಾರಂ ನಂ.
10 Bಾ3T ೊಂ3,ಾ$ೆ ಎಂದ$ೆ ಸ%. 4/4aೕ/4/23 2 ಎಕ$ೆ 25 ಗುಂ?ೆ,
4/4aೕ/5 ಇದು 1 ಎಕ$ೆ 11 ಗುಂ?ೆ, 4/4aೕ/4/12 8 ಗುಂ?ೆ ಜ ೕನು,
4/4aೕ/4/16 ಇದು 27 ಗುಂ?ೆ, 4/4aೕ/2 17 ಗುಂ?ೆ, ಎಂದು bೇ$ೆ bೇ$ೆ
ಪಹc ಬರುd ೆ ಎಂದ$ೆ ಸ%. ^ೆಂ?ಾ$ೆ3- dೕ% ೊಂಡ ನಂತರ ಈ ಎ>ಾ
ಜ ೕನುಗಳf ಸಂಗBಾ ನ (ೆಸ%ನ Wಾ ೆ ಬದ>ಾವXೆ ಆ_ ೆ ಎಂದ$ೆ
ಸ%."
21. Thus, PW.1 has in categoric and unambiguous
terms admitted that there has been a partition prior to the
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7881
year 1963 between Hanumanthreddy and Nagareddy and
they have been enjoying the property with their names
mutated in revenue records independently thereafter.
22. The only records being relied upon by the
plaintiffs is Ex.P14 which is of the year 1963-64 and no
records prior to the said document are produced. No
record of suit land standing in the name of original
propositus is produced either. Preponderance of
probabilities therefore require in the light of admission
made by the PW.1 with the reading of the said document
at Ex.P14 that the suit land held, possessed and enjoyed
by the Hanumanthreddy the first son of Bhimareddy
subsequent to the partition of the family properties. Thus,
it can be concluded, Firstly, that there were no joint family
consisting of plaintiff's branch and defendant's branch
existed as in the year 1963-64 and Secondly, the suit land
was never the joint family property of the original
propositus Bhimareddy s/o Hanumanthreddy.
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7881
23. Yet another aspect of the matter which as
rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
defendants/respondents is that plaintiffs were aware of the
proceedings and events which have unfolded after the
year 1963 until filing of the suit, namely, rejection of the
application by the Land Tribunal, challenge made by the
Pentareddy along with other occupants of the land in
Sy.No.4/4 before the High Court in W.P.No.10722/1978,
order for dispossession of fathers of the defendants from
the suit property and restoration of the possession of the
suit land in favour of the defendants etc. They are also
aware of the partition that had taken place between
Bhimareddy and Pentareddy sons of Hanumanthreddy,
fathers of defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and 5 to 7 and mutation
of their names in the revenue records with sub survey
numbers assigned to the said lands. This is emanating
from the deposition of PW.1 as found at paragraphs 7 and
8 extracted hereinabove also from the very averments
made in the plaint, at paragraph 4.
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7881
24. If the plaintiffs were aware of the partition of
the suit property between Bhimareddy and Pentareddy
and if they were also aware of their names having been
entered in the revenue records, they not taking any action
would lead to a situation of drawing adverse inference with
regard to the their claim of they being in joint possession
and enjoyment of the property along with the defendants.
25. For the aforesaid reasons and analysis this
Court is of the considered view that the plaintiffs have
failed to prove that the suit property is the joint family
property and the Trial Court is justified in dismissing the
suit negating the claim of the plaintiffs.
26. In view of the aforesaid reasons the appeal is
dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 01.09.2018
passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.57/2008 is confirmed.
Sd/-
(M.G.S.KAMAL)
JUDGE
KBM, RU
