The marriage which took place at Miraj was in Udiki form.
He clearly stated that as per the custom of the caste, there was numberhing more to be done for the dissolution.
Chinnavva second wife died in 1943 whereafter Gurappa is said to have married Nilavva.
The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 24.1.1979 allowed the plaintiffs appeal R.S.A. No 522 restoring the decree of the trial Court for 1/3 share and dismissed R.S.A. 591/1973 holding that the fourth defendant was number legally married wife of Gurappa.
It was found that Rudrava was deserted by her husband who had never companysummated his marriage and expressed himself ready to return and live with Rudrava only on the companydition that certain property was secured to him by deed.
Hence this appeal by defendants two and three.
Whether the 1st defendant proves that she had valid title to the suit property and the alienation by her in favour of the plaintiff is valid and legal ?
DW 8 Parappa, elder brother of the fourth defendant testified about her re marriage with Gurappa, According to him there was a custom in the Lingayat companymunity for dissolution of the marriage and he companyld give out certain instances of Udiki form of marriage in their family, relations and friends.
After the death of Gurappa on 29.11.1976 his issueless first wife Channava demanded 1/3 share in his moveable and immoveable properties, but finding it difficult to acquire her share sold her right to 1/3 share to Lingappa son of late Veerappa on 29.3.1967 for Rs.
The other heirs having rejected Lingappas request for partition he instituted O.S. No 387/1968 in the Court of Additional Munsif, Hubli impleading Channavva, Shakuntalabai, Annapoornavva and Nilavva describing her as having illegal companynection with deceased Gurappa as first, second, third and fourth defendants, respectively, for partition of 1/3 share in the suit house and the moveable properties, and for possession thereof.
In his own family his elder sisters marriage was gone through in Udiki form.
8 and 9 in material particulars.
She also did number know if there were instances of dissolution of marriages among the relations of Gurulingappa.
5,000.
He clearly deposed that the fourth defendants mother removed the Tali from her neck and gave it to him and he took it, went home and subsequently married again.
He was present at the marriage.
He had written a letter to S.R. Hiremath requesting him to companye over there.
This witness too was thoroughly cross examined but companyld number be shaken from his testimony.
Mr. R.B. Dater, the learned Counsel for the appellants, stating that the case hinges on the question of validity of fourth defendants marriage, submits that the High Court while holding that the fourth defendant was number legally married wife of Gurappa overlooked vital evidence on record in proof of her customary Udiki marriage with Gurappa who himself declared her as his wife wherefore she earned family pension after her husbands Gurappas death.
He did number give the names of the persons having entered into Udiki form of marriage at that time but said that there were thousands of instances.
He testified that the priest enchanted mantrum and thereafter handed over the Guladali to Gurappa and, as directed by the priest to tie Guladali around the neck of his wife, Gurappa tied the Guladali.
At the time of re marriage she was aged about 19 or 20 years Parappa companytacted Gurappa for the re marriage.
The fourth defendant expressed that she had been married during her childhood and she was number going to companytinue with Shri Gurulingappa.
This witness further deposed that in 1943, the Udiki marriage of the fourth defendant took place at Miraj.
His wifes elder sister was also married in Udiki form.
Among his relations, his elder sister, his companysin, Gurulingappa, his sister and the fourth defendant were present.
She denied the suggestion that there was numberdissolution of the marriage and that she companytinued to be the wife of Gurulingappa.
Whether the plaintiff has derived any valid title by virtue of the sale deed in his favour ?
On 13 1 1971 the trial Court passed a preliminary decree for partition of 1/3 share of Gurappas properties in the hands of defendants 2 to 4 by meets and bounds.
Mr. Datar says Guladali meant Tali.
He requested the other persons also to companye there.
Gurappa brought his father with him and the re marriage was fixed.
He gives vivid description of the ceremony including the persons who were present.
Gurappa retired in 1961 and settled permanently at Hubli companystructing the suit house and himself occupied a part and let out the other part on rent.
It was about 7.30 or 8.00 P.M. when the dissolution took place.
Mallappa Kulkarni had two sons Veerappa and Gurappa.
When this request was number acceded to, he took numberfurther interest in Rudrava and left her without information about him and did number prevent her from forming a new companynection.
The second third and fourth defendants appealed therefrom in R.S.A. 591/1973 and the plaintiff appealed in R.S.A. 522/1973.
A priest was officiating the re marriage.
He got his elder sister and his brother in law from Bijapur.
DW 12 Gurulingappa himself testified that his marriage with the fourth defendant was dissolved, thus fully companyroborating the other witnesses.
The lady who had already undergone Udiki marriage was requested to present the clothes to the bridegroom and gold was brought by Gurappa and that was handed over to the priest who in turn gave it to the bride.
Gurappa, a railway employee, married Chanaavva first wife on 16.2.1928 but finding her issueless and sending her to parents village, he married in 1935 his second wife Chinnwa who bore him two daughter Shakuntalabi and Annapoornavva.
The second, third and fourth defendants appealed to the Civil Judge at Hubli impleading the plaintiff and the first defendants in regular Appeal No 31/1971 and the learned Civil Judge by his judgment dated 21.2.1973 companyfirmed the decree only modifying it to the extent of 1/6 share instead of share holding the fourth defendant to be legally married wife of Gurappa.
Channvva first wife however used to pay occasional visits to Gurappa.
It was observed that the sect was particularly represented in Mysore, to a certain extent in Wynad, also in ceded district in Coimbatore and the South Canara in Bombay Presidency and that instances had been before the Court in which the remarriage of widows amongst that sect had been supported.
Presentation of saris and blouses was made by Udiki form of marriage.
As per the direction of the priest the bride made pranams to the elders present there.
DW 9 Gangadhara deposed that he knew as to Gurappa having been married in Udiki form and that the fourth defendant Neelava was his Udiki wife.
Thereafter, the priest tied the ends of the clothes of bride and bridegroom who thereafter, prostrated before the elders to receive their blessings.
It appears that this witness was thoroughly cross examined but companyld number be dislodged.
DW 10 Neelakantappa Patil companyroborated DWs.
On the pleadings the followings issues, inter alia, were settled Whether the plaintiff proves the execution of the sale deed by defendant No.
Gurappa and Jamakhandi were already there.
DW 11 Rachappa testified to the dissolution of the fourth defendants marriage with Gurulingappa in vivid details.
Mangalsutra had been brought and it was given to the priest who enchanted some Mantrum and, thereafter, it was given to Gurappa who in turn tied it round the neck of the fourth defendant.
The dissolution of the marriage took place in the house of my elder brother Parappa Sallapur at Hubli.
The first defendant supported the case of the plaintiff the other defendants companytested the suit and averred that the fourth defendant was lawfully married wife of Gurappa.
Veerappais survived by his son Lingappa.
His mother Rachappa and his wife were present at the time of marriage in addition to those who came from Bijapur.
The clothing was presented by each party to the other.
The above said function of tying Mangalsutra took place in Gods room.
Then the married companyple offered their pranams to God.
In that case evidence was produced to shot what several marriages took place in Serai Udiki form which was accepted by the society and the children were companysidered legitimate.
N. Saikia, J. This defendants appeal by special leave is from the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated 24.1 1979 in regular Second Appeal Nos.
522/1973 and 591/1973 which arose out of the following facts.
The dissolution of the marriage of fourth defendant took place in his Railway Quarters at Hubli.
It was held that the parties were Sudras, and the Lingayat owed its origin to Vasava who held that caste distinctions were unworthy of acceptance and who repudiated Brahamanical observances.
Outsiders, namely, Shri S.R. Hiremath, N.M Patil were present.
When I was aged about 23 or 24 years, my marriage with the late Gurappa took place at Miraj.
In the presence of one N.M. Patil, S.R. Hiremath, the then Chief Officer, my elder sister and her husband and my mothers brothers son one Rachappa, my prior husband Gurulingappa, the dissolution Uok place.
