Case Note & Summary
The case involved two regular first appeals under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed against the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2008 in O.S.No.3578/1987 passed by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, which partly decreed a suit for partition and separate possession. The original plaintiff, M.J. Vittal, claimed his 1/4th share in the properties left behind by his deceased parents, S.S. Murthy Rao and Smt. Rangamma, comprising a residential house in Sadashivanagar (Schedule A), movable properties including a sewing machine, typewriter, jewels and household articles (Schedule B), and workshop equipment (Schedule C). The plaintiff and the defendants were all descendants of S.S. Murthy Rao and Smt. Rangamma, forming a Hindu undivided family governed by Mitakshara law. The plaintiff contended that his parents died intestate, whereas defendant No.1 (S. Krishna Rao) asserted that Murthy Rao executed a Will on 11.02.1981, Smt. Rangamma executed a Will on 11.02.1981 and another on 25.07.1983 along with a Codicil on 07.12.1983, thereby defeating the plaintiff's claim. The trial court framed multiple issues primarily concerning the nature of the properties as joint family properties, the validity and genuineness of the Wills and Codicil, and allegations of fraud and undue influence. After recording evidence from both sides, the trial court partly decreed the suit, leading to the present appeals. In RFA No.488/2008, the legal representatives of the first defendant challenged the decree in favor of the plaintiff, while in RFA No.489/2008, the second and third defendants (sons of the first defendant) also appealed. The High Court heard arguments from senior counsel on both sides and reserved the matter for judgment on 22.09.2022. However, the provided excerpt of the judgment does not contain the court's final analysis, findings, or operative order; it ends abruptly during the narration of evidence. Consequently, the precise ratio decidendi, the grounds on which the appeals were decided, and the ultimate relief granted remain unknown from the text.
Issue of Consideration
Case Details
2023 LawText (KAR) (03) 53
R.F.A.NO.488/2008(PAR) C/W R.F.A.NO.489/2008(PAR)
ANANT MANDAGI, VIKRAM UNNI RAJAGOPAL, SREEVATSA, FRUED RICHARDSON, M.RAGHUNATHACHAR, AMIT MANDAGI, K.S.RAMESH, AKSHAY SREEVATSA
SRI S KRISHNA RAO (deceased by LRs SMT.K.BHAGIRATHI and SMT.BHANUMATI K RAO) in RFA 488/2008; SRI K JAGANNATH RAO and SRI K RAGHUNATH RAO in RFA 489/2008
M J VITTAL, SRI K JAGANNATH RAO, SRI K RAGHUNATH RAO, MRS SUNANDA NARAYANA RAO, MRS SUDHA BAILEY, DR SUDHINDRA NARAYANA RAO, MR RAVI N RAO, MR PRITHVI N RAO, K R KRISHNA MURTHY RAO, SMT JANHAVI, SRIKHER, SMT GEETHA BAI, SMT JAMUNA SRINIVAS, BADRI VITTAL
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Suit for partition and separate possession of immovable and movable properties claimed as joint family properties.
Remedy Sought
Plaintiff M J Vittal sought 1/4th share in the properties left by his parents S.S. Murthy Rao and Smt. Rangamma, described in Schedules A, B, and C.
Filing Reason
Defendant No.1 set up Wills and codicil executed by the parents, denying the plaintiff's share, and refused amicable partition.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court in O.S.No.3578/1987 partly decreed the suit on 03.01.2008. The exact nature of the decree is not detailed in the provided text, but the appeals challenge it.
Judgment Excerpts
S.S. Murthy Rao constituted a Hindu undivided family, governed by Mitakshara school of Hindu Law and all the children of S.S. Murthy Rao were married during his life time.
first defendant set up the Will in respect of suit schedule properties alleged to have been executed by Sri Murthy Rao and Smt. Rangamma and Codicil executed by Smt. Rangamma and since there is no amicable settlement, plaintiff was constrained to file the suit seeking partition.
Procedural History
Plaintiff M.J. Vittal filed O.S.No.3578/1987 before the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, seeking partition of properties left by his parents. The suit was contested by the defendants, who relied on Wills and a codicil. The trial court framed issues and recorded evidence of both sides. On 03.01.2008, the trial court passed a judgment and decree partly decreeing the suit. Aggrieved, the first defendant (by LRs) and defendants 2 and 3 filed separate appeals under Section 96 CPC to the High Court. The High Court heard the appeals and reserved judgment on 22.09.2022. The excerpt of the High Court's judgment provided does not contain the final decision.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96
