Karnataka High Court
Smt Chanabasavva W/O Shivarudrappa ... vs Smt Kasturi Alleged Herself As The on 4 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2144
RSA No. 211 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 211 OF 2007 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SMT. CHANABASAVVA W/O SHIVARUDRAPPA KARI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND
HOUSEHOLDWORK,
R/O. SECTOR NO.12,
NEAR DOUBLE ROAD,
MAHANTESH NAGAR,
BELGAUM, PIN- 590001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI CHETAN MUNNOLLI,
SMT SWATHI KULKARNI AND
SRI RAGHUVEER R. SATTIGERI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SMT. KASTURI ALLEGED HERSELF AS THE
W/O BASAVANTAPPA KARI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK,
VN
BADIGER R/O. SUTAGATTI, TALUK: BAILHONGAL,
DISTRICT: BELGAUM- 590001.
Digitally signed by
V N BADIGER
Location: High
2. THE MANAGER BANK OF INDIA,
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
FORT ROAD BRANCH, FORT ROAD,
Date: 2025.02.05
15:14:21 +0530 BELGAUM- 590001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SRINAND A. PACHCHAPURE, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED: 25.10.2006 IN R.A. NO.313/2004
ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE, BELGAUM, REVERSING
THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED: 2.12.1999 IN OS.NO.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2144
RSA No. 211 of 2007
851/1995 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.),
BELGAUM.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH)
This Regular Second Appeal is preferred by the plaintiff,
challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2006 in RA
No.313/2004 on the file of Principal District Judge, Belgaum
(for short, hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'),
allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree
dated 02.12.1999 in OS No.851/1995 on the file of III
Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Belgaum (for short, hereinafter
referred to as 'Trial Court'), decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.
2. For the sake of the convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff has
married Shivarudrappa Kari and the plaintiff is having
immovable properties. It is also stated in the plaint that, the
plaintiff is having Savings Bank Account No.3220 (for short,
hereinafter referred to as SB Account) in the defendant No.2
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2144
Bank and also having fixed deposit. It is also stated that on
01.12.1990, the plaintiff instructed the defendant No.2 to
withdraw a sum of Rs.15,000/- from her SB Account and she
has paid additional sum of Rs.5,000/- in cash for the purpose of
depositing Rs.20,000/- in the fixed deposit. Accordingly,
Rs.20,000/- was kept in fixed deposit. It is also stated that the
defendant No.2 Bank has requested the plaintiff to suggest the
name of any person along with her to be a depositor in a fixed
deposit and as such the name of defendant No.1 was entered in
the fixed deposit receipt. It is the specific case of the plaintiff
that, entire amount of Rs.20,000/- is deposited from her
account and cash paid by her and therefore, the plaintiff is
entitled for entire sum of Rs.20,000/- including accrued interest
from the Fixed deposit. Since, defendant No.1 made a claim for
the same, the plaintiff has filed OS No.851/1995 seeking
declaration that the plaintiff is entitled for entire proceeds of
the Fixed deposit.
4. On service of notice, defendants entered
appearance and filed written statement. It is the case of
defendant No.1 that, the defendant No.1 married Basavantappa
Kari and at the time of marriage, her husband has agreed to
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2144
deposit Rs.20,000/- as security in the fixed deposit and since,
the plaintiff is the wife of Shivarudrappa (brother of
Basavantappa Kari) and as such the deposit of Rs.5,000/- was
withdrawn from the account of her husband - Basavantappa
Kari and transferred to the account of the plaintiff. Hence, it is
the case of the defendant No.1 that, the defendant No.1 also
entitled for share in the fixed deposit and accordingly, sought
for dismissal of the suit.
5. Based on pleadings and records, the Trial Court
formulate issues for its consideration. In order to establish
their case, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and produced 22
documents which were marked as Ex.P1 to P22 and defendants
have examined two witnesses as DW1 and DW2 and got
marked 5 documents as Ex.D1 to D5.
6. The Trial Court after considering the material on
record by its judgment and decree dated 02.12.1999 decreed
the suit and directed the defendant No.2 Bank to pay the suit
amount with interest to the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved by the
same, the defendant No.1 has preferred RA No.313/2004 (old
RA No.11/2000) on the file of III Additional Civil Judge (Jr.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2144
Dn.), Belgaum. The appeal was resisted by the plaintiff. The
First Appellate Court after considering the material on record by
its judgment and decree dated 25.10.2006 allowed the appeal,
consequently, set aside the judgment and decree dated
02.12.1999 in OS No.851/1995. Feeling aggrieved by the
same, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal.
7. This Court vide order 17.06.2013 formulated the
following substantial question of law:
"Whether the lower appellate court was
justified in reversing the judgment and decree
passed in OS No.851/1995 without framing proper
points for consideration?"
8. I have heard Sri.Chetan Munnoli, learned counsel
for the appellant and Sri. Srinand A. Pachchapure, learned
counsel for the respondent No.1.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
contended that the fixed deposit was made by debiting
Rs.15,000/- from SB Account of the plaintiff and Rs.5,000/-
was deposited through cash by the plaintiff and therefore, the
Trial Court having taken note of the documents on record, has
rightly decreed the suit, however, same has been misconstrued
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2144
by the First Appellate Court and accordingly, sought for
interference by this Court.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents refers to Ex.D.2-ledger account of the husband of
the defendant No.1 - Basavantappa Kari and submitted that
the deposit of Rs.5,000/- was made through the withdrawal of
Rs.5,000/- from the account of the husband of defendant No.1
and therefore, the defendant No.1 is also entitled for same and
accordingly sought for dismissal of the appeal.
11. In the light of submissions made by learned counsel
appearing for the parties, Shivarudrappa Kari and
Basasvantapp Kari are the brothers and plaintiff is the wife of
Shivarudrappa Kari and defendant No.1 is the wife of
Basavantappa Kari. On careful examination of the pass book
and original certificate of Bank referred to at Ex.P18 and P19
wherein, Rs.15,000/- was debited from the account of the
plaintiff. However, taking into account the case of the
defendant is concerned as the parties are closely relative viz-a-
viz the defendant No.1 has produced Ex.D2 - ledger account of
her husband which fortifies that Rs.5,000/- was withdraw from
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2144
the account of the husband of the defendant No.1 and
deposited in the fixed deposit.
12. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration
the letter dated 27.11.1995 (Ex.P.19) wherein, the fixed
deposit account is held in the joint name of both the plaintiff
and defendant No.1, accordingly, both the plaintiff and
defendant No.1 are entitled for half (½) share in the fixed
deposit along with the interest accrued therein. Both the Courts
below have not considered the factual aspect on record in the
right perspective and ignored Ex.P.19 while passing the
impugned judgment and decree. Accordingly, the substantial
question of law answered partly in favour of the plaintiff and
partly in favour of defendant No.1.
13. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is disposed off.
(ii)Judgment and decree in RA
No.313/2004 dated 25.10.2006 on the file
Principal District Judge, Belgaum, and judgment
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2144
and decree in OS No.851/1995 dated
02.12.1999 on the file of III Additional Civil
Judge (Jr. Dn.), Belagaum, are decreed in part.
(iii) Both the plaintiff and defendant No.1
are entitled for half (½) share in the fixed
deposit No.22/562 (Ex.P.19).
(iv) Defendant No.2 Bank is directed to
release of share of the fixed deposit in favour of
plaintiff and defendant No. 1 equally forthwith, if
the fixed deposit is not released. In the event
amount is released either of the parties, it is
open for the party aggrieved to claim half of the
suit claim with interest accrued thereon.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SMM
