Karnataka High Court
Devidas And Rs vs Tarasingh And Ors on 3 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6606
RSA No. 200076 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.200076 OF 2018 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. DEVIDAS S/O LATE JAIRAM,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2. PRAKASH S/O LATE JAIRAM,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
3. ANAND S/O LATE JAIRAM,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
4. SRIDEVI D/O LATE JAIRAM,
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
5. JAGADEVI D/O LATE JAIRAM,
Digitally signed AGE: 17 YEARS, MINOR,
by RENUKA THROUGH GUARDIAN MOTHER APPELLANT NO.6,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 6. SITABAI W/O LATE JAIRAM,
KARNATAKA AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
ALL ARE R/O MAHAGAON-585 316,
TQ. & DIST. KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI A. M. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. TARASINGH S/O SOMLA,
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6606
RSA No. 200076 of 2018
2. SHIVARAYA S/O SOMLA,
AGE: 61 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
3. SHARDABAI W/O TARASING,
AGE: 58 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
4. SOMLANAIK S/O KESHU NAIK,
AGE: 76 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
ALL ARE R/O MAHAGAON,
TQ. & DIST. KALABURAGI-585 316.
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI R. V. NADAGOUDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 TO R4 ARE SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
05.11.2016 PASSED BY III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
KALABURAGI IN R.A.NO.68/2014, CONSEQUENTLY THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.10.2014 PASSED BY THE
I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GULBARGA IN
O.S.NO.226/2012, BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6606
RSA No. 200076 of 2018
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and the learned counsel for respondent No.1.
2. The present appeal is filed challenging the
concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First
Appellate Court, wherein the First Appellate Court agreed
with the finding of the Trial Court in dismissing the suit for
partition filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants.
3. The relationship of the parties is not in dispute.
The plaintiffs are the legal representatives of late Jairam.
The said Jairam claimed that he is the brother of
defendants No.1 and 2 and he sought partition in respect
of the properties purchased in the name of the defendants
on the premise that the suit properties purchased in the
name of the defendants are the properties acquired from
the joint family nucleus.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6606
4. Defendant No.1 took a stand that he was
employed in Gulf and he purchased the property from his
own earnings and he produced the sale deeds which are
executed in his name. The Trial Court rejected the
plaintiffs' claim that the suit properties are acquired from
the joint family nucleus. The plaintiffs could not establish
any nucleus. Hence, the suit was dismissed.
5. The First Appellate Court on an appeal filed by
the plaintiffs dismissed the appeal agreeing with the
finding of the Trial Court.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the
plaintiffs/appellants would contend that both the Courts
below erred in holding that the suit properties are the self
acquired properties of the defendants. He would further
contend that the evidence on record is not properly
appreciated.
7. This Court has perused the impugned
judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court as well
as the First Appellate Court.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6606
8. Admittedly, the suit properties are purchased in
the name of defendant No.1 under four registered sale
deeds. Admittedly, he was gainfully employed in Gulf. The
plaintiffs though contended that the suit properties are
purchased from the joint family income, could not adduce
any evidence to hold that there was a joint family property
which earned income to form the nucleus to purchase the
suit properties. Even before this Court, the appellants are
not in a position to point out property to form the nucleus
to purchase the suit properties in the name of defendant
No.1.
9. This being the position, no substantial question
of law would arise for consideration in this appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
LG
