Case Note & Summary
The regular first appeal was filed by the appellant, who was the plaintiff No.1 in the original suit, challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2007 passed by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in O.S.No.6014/1997. The original suit was filed by the plaintiffs, claiming to be the daughters of one Ammayyamma, seeking partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share each in the suit property. The plaintiffs contended that Ammayyamma was the absolute owner of the property, having acquired it after her earlier land was acquired for a hospital. They alleged that she died on 06.09.1991, leaving behind the plaintiffs and the defendant as her children. They further stated that Ammayyamma had executed a Will bequeathing a portion of the property to the daughter of the first plaintiff, with the remaining portions bequeathed to the defendant. However, the defendant had taken possession and rented out the portion meant for the granddaughter, collecting substantial rent. The defendant denied the relationship, asserting that his mother was a different Ammayyamma, wife of Ramaiah, and that he was the only legal heir. The Trial Court framed issues on joint family property, parentage, and the Will. After evidence, it found that the suit property was not joint family property, but the plaintiffs proved Ammayyamma was their mother. The Will was not proved. However, the Trial Court accepted the defendant's evidence that he was the son of Ammayyamma and Ramaiah, and thus not related to the plaintiffs, leading to dismissal of the suit. In appeal, the appellant argued that the Trial Court erred in relying on documents like school certificates, tax receipts, and an electricity letter to establish parentage, as these did not conclusively prove marriage or parentage. The appellant contended that the evidence of plaintiffs' witnesses supported their case and that the documents were insufficient. The High Court heard the arguments and reserved the matter for judgment. The provided excerpt does not contain the court's analysis or final decision, and therefore the outcome of the appeal is not known from the text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the suit for partition by erroneously holding that the defendant is not related to the plaintiffs and that the suit property is not joint family property, based on improper appreciation of documentary and oral evidence regarding parentage.
Case Details
2025 LawText (KAR) (06) 10
Nagaraj Damodar for appellant; Prakash M.H. for R1(b&c); Suman M. for R2
1. Anjinappa (since deceased by LRs Manjunath and Kumar), 2. Smt. Anjanamma
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Partition suit filed by plaintiffs claiming share in property of deceased mother Ammayyamma.
Remedy Sought
Plaintiffs sought partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share each in suit property.
Filing Reason
Defendant denied relationship and refused to allot shares; alleged collection of rent from portion of property bequeathed to plaintiff No.1's daughter.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court in O.S.No.6014/1997 dismissed the suit on 22.09.2007, holding that plaintiffs failed to prove joint family property and that defendant is not related to them; defendant proved he is son of Ammayyamma and Ramaiah.
Issues
Whether the suit property is joint family property?
Whether the plaintiffs prove that Ammayyamma is their mother?
Whether Ammayyamma executed a Will in respect of a portion of the suit property in favour of plaintiff's daughter Maheswari on 27.06.1986?
Whether the defendant proves that Anjinappa is the son of Ammayyamma w/o Ramaiah and not related to the plaintiffs?
Whether the defendant proves that the suit property is not joint family property?
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share each?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that Trial Court erred in finding Ramaiah as husband of Ammayyamma without marriage proof.
Appellant contended that school certificate and other documents insufficient to prove parentage; no marriage certificate or invitation card produced.
Appellant asserted that documents like Ex.D1 to D28 were not conclusive and were obtained on interested person's statements.
Appellant argued that tax receipts do not prove title and were obtained during pendency of suit.
Appellant claimed that Ex.D23 electricity letter was fabricated and created for the case.
Appellant submitted that evidence of plaintiffs' witnesses PW3 and PW4, including the vendor, clearly established that plaintiffs and defendant are children of Ammayyamma and Subbarayappa.
Judgment Excerpts
The Trial Court having appreciated both oral and documentary evidence placed on record answered Issue No.1 as negative in coming to the conclusion that the suit schedule property is not a joint family property as contended by the plaintiffs however, answered Issue No.2 as affirmative in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs prove that the deceased Ammayyamma is their mother
The Trial Court having assessed the evidence on record comes to the conclusion that the defendant proves that the deceased Anjinappa is the son of late Ammayyamma W/o late Ramaiah and not related to the plaintiffs
The Trial Court has erroneously appreciated that the defendant is the son of one Ramaiah without any proper evidence on question and finding is contrary to the material available on record.
Procedural History
Plaintiffs filed O.S.No.6014/1997 before the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, for partition. Defendant filed written statement denying relationship. Trial Court framed issues and recorded evidence of PW1 to PW5 and DW1 to DW4, marking documents Ex.P1 to P4 and Ex.D1 to D28. By judgment dated 22.09.2007, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, plaintiff No.1 filed the present Regular First Appeal No.2523/2007 under Order XLI Rule 1 read with Section 96 CPC before the High Court. During pendency, defendant died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The appeal was heard and reserved for judgment on 07.04.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XLI Rule 1, Section 96
