Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 713 (KAR)

N. Kasturi v. H. N. Suma

2017-04-06

L.NARAYANA SWAMY

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. This regular first appeal is filed by the defendants in O S No.7521/2009 on the file of the XXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bangalore City (CCH-39) being aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2014 granting 1/4th share in suit schedule property and for separate possession of her share by metes and bounds. 2. The parties would be referred to as per their ranking in the court below for the sake of convenience. 3. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: The plaintiff claimed, the suit schedule property was purchased by her father-in-law namely N Narayan under a sale deed dated 12.12.1979 and thereafter he constructed a building therein. The said N Narayan died on 12.12.1980 leaving behind his wife i.e., defendant No.1, a son i.e., husband of the plaintiff and two daughters i.e. defendants No.2 & 3. She further stated that at the time of marriage of defendants No.2 and 3 huge amounts were spent and they were given gold and jewellery. As such, she stated that the defendants 2 and 3 have given up their claim over the schedule property. Hence she filed the suit claiming half share in the property. 4. The defendants appeared before the court below and filed common written statement. It was disputed, N Narayan having purchased the schedule property. They admitted N Narayan had constructed a building. They have disputed plaintiff's marriage with N Srinivas and her entitlement to share in the schedule property. 5. The court below framed the following issues: (1) Whether plaintiff proves that suit property was self-acquired property of her father-in-law late Sri N Narayan? (2) Whether plaintiff proves that she is entitled to ½ share in suit property? (3) Whether plaintiff proves that she is the legally wedded wife of late Sri N Srinivas son of Sri N Narayan? (4) Whether plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought for? (5) What decree or order? 5. The plaintiff was examined as PW-1 and she got marked Ex.P1 to P25. The defendant No.2 was examined as DW-1 and no documents are marked in evidence. 6. (4) Whether plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought for? (5) What decree or order? 5. The plaintiff was examined as PW-1 and she got marked Ex.P1 to P25. The defendant No.2 was examined as DW-1 and no documents are marked in evidence. 6. The court below after considering the materials on record has come to the conclusion that schedule property is the self acquired property of her father-in-law, she is the legally wedded wife of N Srinivas and the plaintiff is entitled to one-fourth share and accordingly partly decreed the suit. Being aggrieved, the defendants have filed the present appeal. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and one Sri Gajanana, party in person for the respondent and gone through the impugned judgment. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that plaintiff was not the legally wedded wife of Sri N Srinivas and therefore she was not entitled to any share in the suit property. The court below has erroneously passed the impugned judgment, which is liable to be set aside and suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. 9. The party-in-person who made submissions as a special power of attorney for the plaintiff, in support of the impugned judgment. 10. The point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is, whether the impugned judgment suffers from any legal infirmity so as to call for interference at the hands of this Court? 11. My finding on the above point is in the negative for the following reasons. 12. It is not disputed by the defendants that Sri N Narayana had constructed a building in the schedule property. However, they disputed purchase of the property by him. The plaintiff has produced the certified copy of the sale deed dated 12.12.1979 at Ex.P1 and rectification deed dated 21.1.1998 at Ex.P2. Ex.P1 and P2 show that schedule site was purchased by deceased Narayan from M Kalappa and by virtue of Ex.P2 boundaries in Ex.P1 were corrected. Ex.P1 and P2 supported by deposition of defendant No.2 whereby she has admitted in her cross-examination that her father had purchased the schedule property, establish that N Narayan had purchased the schedule site. So far as construction of the building, it is not in dispute. 13. The plaintiff claimed that she was the legally wedded wife of Sri N Srinivas, which is disputed by the defendants. 14. So far as construction of the building, it is not in dispute. 13. The plaintiff claimed that she was the legally wedded wife of Sri N Srinivas, which is disputed by the defendants. 14. The plaintiff on oath has deposed that she had married N Srinivas S/o late N Narayan on 5.9.2005 as per Hindu Rites on 5.9.2005 at Sri Venkateswara Kalyana Mantap. After the marriage, she stayed at Cauvery Layout, Nagarbhavi Main Road, Bangalore along with her mother-in- law, defendant No.1. In support of the same, the plaintiff has produced Ex.P8 record of enumeration, income certificate at Ex.P9, election identity card at Ex.P10 and domicile certificate at Ex.P12. The plaintiff is shown as wife of late N Srinivas and her residence is also shown as Cauvery Layout. She has also relied upon Ex.P22 certified copy of medical record from K C General Hospital which showed that after the death of N Srinivas on 3.9.2007 at K C General Hospital, his dead body was handed over to the plaintiff. Thus the plaintiff has produced sufficient documents to show that she was the legally wedded wife of N Srinivas. Though in the cross- examination the defendants tried to contend that the said documents are created by the plaintiff, the defendants have failed to substantiate the same. It is not in dispute that N Narayan died intestate leaving behind his wife, defendant No.1, two daughters, defendants 2 & 3 and a son i.e., N Srinivas. Thus holding that they all inherit equally, the court below held the plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share in the suit property. Though the plaintiff contends that daughters gave up their right, no material is placed on record. 15. The court below has properly assessed the evidence on record and has come to correct conclusion. No error or infirmity could be found in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the point raised for consideration is answered. For the above reasons, the present appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.