The fourth defendant expressed that she h ad been married during her childhood and she was number going to companytinue with Shri Gurulingappa.
The other heirs having rejected Lingappas request f or partition he instituted O.S. No.
The first defendant supported t he case of the plaintiff the other defendants companytested t he suit and averred that the fourth defendant was lawful ly married wife of Gurappa.
522 restoring the decree of the tri al Court for 1/3 share and dismissed R.S.A. 591/1973 holdi ng that the fourth defendant was number legally married wife of Gurappa.
On 13.1.1971 the trial Court passed a preliminary decr ee for partition of 1/3 share of Gurappas properties in t he hands of defendants 2 to 4 by metes and bounds.
Whether the 1st defendant proves that she had valid tit le to the suit property and the alienation by her in favour of the plaintiff is valid and legal?
On the pleadings the followi ng issues, inter alia, were settled Whether the plaintiff proves the execution of the sa le deed by defendant No.
Gurappa brought his fath er with him and the re marriage was fixed.
Outsider s, namely, Shri S.R. Hiremath, N.M. Patil were present.
387/1968 in the Court of Additional Munsif, Hubli impleading Channavva, Shakuntal a bai, Annapoornavva and Nilavva describing her as havi ng illegal companynection with deceased Gurappa as first, secon d, third and fourth defendants, respectively, for partition of 1/3 share in the suit house and the moveable properties, a nd for possession thereof.
At the time of r e marriage she was aged about 19 or 20 years.
His moth er Rachappa and his wife were present at the time of re ma r riage in addition to those who came from Bijapur.
DW 10 Neelakantappa Patil companyroborated DWs.8 and 9 in material particulars.
The clothi ng was presented by each party to the other.
A priest was officiati ng the re marriage.
She also did number know if there were instances of dissolution of marriages among the relations of Gurulinga p pa.
She denied the suggestion that there was numberdissoluti on of the marriage and that she companytinued to be the wife of Gurulingappa.
Amo ng his relations, his eider sister, his companysin, Gurulingapp a, his sister and the fourth defendant were present.
He clearly stated that as per the custom of the caste, the re was numberhing more to be done for the dissolution.
Then the married companyple o f fered their pranams to God.
As per the direction of the priest t he bride made pranams to the elders present there.
1967 for Rs.5,00 0.
The secon d, third and fourth defendants appealed to the Civil Judge at Hubli impleading the plaintiff and the first defendant as respondents in regular Appeal No.
31/1971 and the learn ed Civil Judge by his judgment dated 21.2.
522 a nd 591 of 1973.
He gives vivid description of the ceremony inclu d ing the persons who were present.
Gurap pa and Jamakhandi were already there.
This wi t ness further deposed that in 1943, the Udiki marriage of t he fourth defendant took place at Miraj.
His wifes eid er sister was also married in Udiki form.
He got his eid er sister and his brother in law from Bijapur.
Whether the defendant No.
1979 of t he Karnataka High Court in Regular Second Appeal Nos.
1973 companyfirmed t he decree only modifying it to the extent of 1/6 share inste ad of 1/3 share holding the fourth defendant to be legal ly married wife of Gurappa.
Hence this appeal by defendants two and three.
1979 allowed the plaintiff appeal R.S.A. No.
The above said function of tying Mangals u tra took place in Gods room.
From the Judgment and Decree dated 24.1.
The second, third and fourth d e fendants appealed therefrom in R.S.A. 591/1973 and t he plaintiff appealed in R.S.A. 522/1973.
This witne ss too was thoroughly cross examined but companyld number be shak en from his testimony.
Mr. R.B. Datar, the learned companynsel for the appellant s, stating that the case hinges on the question of validity of fourth defendants marriage, submits that the High Court while holding that t he fourth defendant was number legally married wife of Gurap pa overlooked vital evidence on record in proof of her custo m ary Udiki marriage with Gurappa who himself declared her as his wife wherefore she earned family pension after h er husbands Gurappas death.
Gurappa retired in 1961 a nd settled permanently at Hubli companystructing the suit house a nd himself occupied a part and let out the other part on ren t. After the death of Gurappa on 29.11.1976 his issueless fir st wife Channavva demanded 1/3 share in his moveable and i m moveable properties, but finding it difficult to acquire h er share sold her right to 1/3 share to Lingappa son of late Veerappa on 29.3.
He testified that t he priest enchanted mantrum and thereafter handed over t he Guladali to Gurappa and, as directed by the priest to t ie Guladali around the neck of his wife, Gurappa tied t he Guladali.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Channav va first wife however used to pay occasional visits to Gura p pa.
1928 b ut finding her issueless and sending her to her parents vi l lage, he married in 1935 his second wife Chinnavva who bo re him two daughters Shakuntalabai and Annapoornavva.
Mallappa Kulkarni had two sons Veerappa and Gurapp a. Veerappa is survived by his son Lingappa.
It appears that this witness was thoroughly cross examined b ut companyld number be dislodged.
Chinnavva second wife died in 1943 whereafter Gurap pa is said to have married Nilavva.
The lady who had already undergone Udi ki marriage was requested to present the clothes to the brid e groom and gold was brought by Gurappa and that was hand ed over to the priest who in turn gave it to the bride.
He h ad written a letter to S.R. Hiremath requesting him to companye over there.
The High Court by t he impugned judgment dated 24.1.
Thereafter, the priest tied t he ends of the clothes of bride and bridegroom who thereafte r, prostrated before the elders to receive their blessings.
1979 in regular Second Appeal Nos 522/1973 and 1/1973 which arose out of the following facts.
3373 of 1979.
He did number give t he names of the persons having entered into Udiki form of marriage at that time but said that there were thousands of instances.
S. Javali and Ranjit Kumar for the Respondents.
DW 9 Gangadhara deposed that he knew as to Gurap pa having been married in Udiki form and that the fourth d e fendant Neelava was his Udiki wife.
The dissolution of the marriage of fourth defen d ant took place in his Railway Quarters at Hubli.
Whether the plaintiff has derived any valid title by virtue of the sale deed in his favour?
B. Datar for the Appellants.
DW 8 Parappa, eider brother of the four th defendant testified about her re marriage with Gurapp a. According to him there was a custom in the Lingayat companymun i ty for dissolution of the marriage and he companyld give o ut certain instances of Udiki form of marriage in their famil y, relations and friends.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by N. SAIKIA, J. This defendants appeal by special lea ve is from the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dat ed 24.1.
Prese n tation of saris and blouses was made by Udiki form of ma r riage.
Mangalsutra had been brought and it was given to t he priest who enchanted some Mantrum and, thereafter, it w as given to Gurappa who in turn tied it round the neck of t he fourth defendant.
He was present at t he marriage.
4 proves that she is legal ly wedded wife of the deceased Gurappa?
Gurappa, a railw ay employee, married Channavva first wife on 16.2.
In his own family his eider sister marriage was gone through in Udiki form.
It was about 7.30 or 8.00 P.M. when the dissol u tion took place.
He requested the other persons also to companye there.
