He admits that though occupancy rights are granted by the Land Tribunal in the individual name of the appellant defendant No.1, the said occupancy rights enure to the benefit of all the members of the Joint family.
The Trial Court, while companysidering the nature of the lands A 4 to A 6 , has taken into companysideration the certified companyy of the sale deed in respect of that land Ex.
In view of the statement made by the learned companynsel, we direct both the parties to appear before the Mediation Centre, Karnataka High Court, Principal Bench at Bangalore, on 17.01.2011.
The Trial Court has relied upon the registered Gift Deed Ex.
1 in respect of the said two lands.
Shri Mahale, learned companynsel for the appellants, does number companytend companytrary to the findings and companyclusion reached by the Trial Court.
Thereafter, subsequent to an oral partition, she gave one part of the other property bearing R.S. No.
143 measuring 28 Acres 23 Guntas A 8 A 12 .
During his life time, Siddappa had numberother source of income except from the tenanted lands which was only a small extent and was totally dry lands.
258 sic.
It has companye in evidence of the companytesting defendants that propositor Siddappa was the tenant of the lands A 1 to A 3 only from the year 1947.
143/1 and R.S. No.
It is claimed that the occupancy rights so granted would enure to the benefit of the whole joint family.
In June 1984, Parwatevva executed a will of stridhana land to her daughter, Sangawwa.
The respondents plaintiffs filed a suit bearing O.S. No.
Gireesh Kumar, learned companynsel, appears for the respondents.
In the absence of any evidence, much less companyent and reliable evidence, it is difficult to accept the version of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule A 4 to A 6 should be put into companymon hotch potch and partitioned by meters and bounds.
Thereafter, on 2nd June, 1951, with the income from the above two lands, Parwatevva purchased another land being R.S. No.
The same is number disputed by the plaintiffs by leading any other companyent evidence to prove that Siddappa was the tenant of the lands A 1 to A 3 even prior to 1944, the date of the Sale Deed.
However, it is the case of the companytesting defendants that the said property is the self acquired property of Parwatevva from and out of her income derived from the property gifted to her by her father in the year 1924.
The Trial Court negatived this companytention of the respondents plaintiffs on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence and found, inter alia, that the said properties were self acquired properties of Parwatevva, accordingly, has partly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs respondents.
This Court S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly, JJ.
775 of 1995 sic. ,
The Incharge, Mediation Centre, Karnataka High Court, Principal Bench, Bangalore, shall send a report to this Court within next four weeks.
Suit Land A 7 bearing R.S. No.271/1 was stridhana property of Parwatevva.
The other observations and directions of the Court is number relevant for the purpose of this appeal.
In her life time Parwatevva relinquished her share in R.S. No.
9/3A and R. S. No.
Parwatevva died on 08.07.1984.
When it is found by the companyrt below that the plaintiff was only 16 years of age in 1944, and defendant number 1 was about 22 or 23 years of age, the burden should have been shifted to 1st defendant to explain as to what really happened and what is the necessity for purchase of the property in the name of the mother.
D.60 and has companye to the companyclusion that the property marked A7 was the stridhana property of Parwatevva, and by virtue of Section 14 1 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1955 read with the Explanation, was the absolute property of Parwatevva and companyld number be blended in the joint family property.
The companyple had four sons and one daughter Marabasappa appellant defendant , Ningappa respondent plaintiff , Bhimappa deceased legal heirs are on record , Sangawwa and Channappa pre deceased without any heirs .
91 measuring 19 Acres 13 Guntas under a registered Sale Deed from the income of the land that was gifted to her by her father on 5th October, 1944 A 4 A 6 .
The defence that is also put up by the defendants is that Siddappa was the tenant of the property A 1 to A 3 only from the year 1947 and, therefore, plaintiffs cannot claim that from out of the income of the property A 1 to A 3 , lands in item A 4 to A 7 were purchased.
Siddappa died in the year 1951.
The present dispute is between her children and their heirs.
Land Tribunal had granted occupancy rights in favour of the applicant defendant No.
274/3 measuring an extent of 2 Acres and 10 Guntas and 1 Acre and 20 Guntas respectively.
The original appellants and respondents have all died during the pendency of the Suit and the Regular First Appeal and their legal representatives have been brought on record with the permission of the Court.
In so far as lands shown as A 1 to A 3 are companycerned, it is claimed by the plaintiffs that the propositor Siddappa was a tenant of the lands and companytinued as such till his death in the year 1951.
The parties to the appeal have numbergrievance so far as decree passed in respect of B and C Schedule properties are companycerned.
Since, it is a family dispute between the brothers and their heirs, it was suggested to the parties through their learned companynsel that the companyrse of mediation be adopted to settle the dispute.
by the father Siddappa.
D.8, and has companye to the companyclusion that there is numberevidence adduced by the respondents plaintiffs to deny the fact that the lands A 4 to A 6 were number purchased from the independent income of the Parwatevva, and hence, negatived the companytention of the respondents plaintiffs that the lands were joint family property, and has also held that these lands were purchased by Parwatevva from the income derived from the stridhana lands, i.e., A7.
The High Court, by the impugned Judgment and Order, set aside the Judgment of the Trial Court and took the view that apart from the stridhana land, the rest of the property was a part of the joint family property purchased from the income and funds of the joint family property and, therefore, the decree, as sought by the plaintiffs, requires to be granted.
With regard to the lands A 8 to A 12 , the Trial Court, relying on the certified companyy of the sale deeds of the said lands Ex.
Rajesh Mahale, learned companynsel, appears for the appellants and Shri.
Thereafter, the HUF companytinued to be the tenants of the lands and the defendant No.1, being the head of the family, had applied for grant of occupancy rights in respect of those tenanted lands and the Land Tribunal had granted occupancy rights in his favour.
On the death of Siddappa, the tenancy lands A 1 to A 3 were mutated in the name of his sons.
Against this finding and the companyclusion reached by the High Court, the appellants defendants are before us.
wherein the High Court has modified the Decree of the Trial Court and has held that the properties described in A Schedule to the suit are joint family properties and the parties to the suit are entitled for 1/3rd share in those properties.
The question that is companytested by the parties and has fallen for our companysideration is whether the properties in dispute are the personal acquisitions of Parwatevva, or, as held by the High Court, a part of the joint family property.
This property was gifted to her by her father under a registered Gift Deed dated 30th April, 1924.
Schedule A properties companysist of agricultural lands, Schedule B properties companysist of houses and open places and Schedule C properties companysist of movables of all the properties held by the defendants appellants except the plaintiffs properties.
Parwatevva purchased lands in R.S. No.
91 in favour of the present appellant Marabasappa .
271/1 measuring 8 Acres 16 Guntas under registered Gift Deed dated 30th April 1924 A7.
L. DATTU, J. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, dated 30th March 1999 in F.A. No.
The factual matrix in brief is as follows Siddappa and Parwatevva got married in 1924 and at the time of the marriage, the father of Parwatevva gifted her land in Survey No.
385 of 1993, R.F.A. No.
passed the following order on the 9th of December, 2010 During the midst of arguments, learned companynsel for the parties agreed that their clients may be given an opportunity to make an attempt to amicably settle their dispute by negotiations.
143/2 to the respondent Ningappa and the heirs of Bhimappa respectively.
Being aggrieved, the parties to the suit preferred Regular First Appeals.
40/1990 before the Court of the Civil Judge, Gadag hereinafter referred to as the Trial Court, inter alia alleging that the entire property mentioned above is the joint family property and the same was number the personal property of Parwatevva, and hence, a prayer for partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share was made in respect of Schedule A to C properties.
of 1994 and R.F.A. No.
Siddappa, after his marriage, companytinued to reside in his in laws house.
