MARABASAPPA Vs. NINGAPPA
LAWS(SC)-2011-9-53
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
Decided on September 08,2011

MARABASAPPA Appellant
VERSUS
NINGAPPA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

PADMAVATHI W/O S JAGADISH KUMAR VS. JAYAMMA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-5-132] [REFERRED TO]
NATASHA VERMA VS. EMAAR MGF LAND LTD. [LAWS(NCD)-2015-11-50] [REFERRED TO]
MANIBEN CHUNILAL MISTRY (SINCE DECD ) THROUGH NIRMALAB VS. HASMUKHLAL TRIBHOVANDAS MISTRY(SINCE DECEASED) & 1 ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2018-2-142] [REFERRED TO]
K.RAMALINGAM VS. K.RAGHURAMAN [LAWS(MAD)-2012-10-62] [REFERRED TO]
NAGENDAR VS. DATTARAM [LAWS(KAR)-2022-9-948] [REFERRED TO]
PARWATI DEVI DEVI & ORS. VS. MUNSI SAO & ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2016-5-85] [REFERRED TO]
N. A. KRISHNA REDDY VS. SHANTHAMMA [LAWS(KAR)-2017-4-70] [REFERRED TO]
GANESAN VS. SUGANTHA KUNDALAM [LAWS(MAD)-2022-10-128] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRAN VS. RADHAKRISHNAN [LAWS(MAD)-2023-10-77] [REFERRED TO]
PHULAVATI VS. PRAKASH [LAWS(KAR)-2019-11-66] [REFERRED TO]
S.A. Chondawwa and others VS. Smt. Nallamakkada Lalitha, D/o. Sri. N. Poovaiah Kavadi Village Ammathi, Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District and others [LAWS(KAR)-2012-4-183] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NARESH AND ORS. VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, SULTANPUR AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-12-113] [REFERRED TO]
R. SUBBAMMAL VS. K. SUBBALAKSHMI [LAWS(KAR)-2024-2-170] [REFERRED TO]
ANANDRAO VS. JAGANRAO [LAWS(MPH)-2013-5-10] [REFERRED TO]
BHIMAPPA HANAMANTAPPA MULLUR AND ORS. VS. MARUTI YALLAPPA MULLUR AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-4-253] [REFERRED TO]
ANANTARAM MOHAPATRA VS. TRINATH MOHAPATRA [LAWS(ORI)-2017-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLA PRASAD VS. D.D.C. [LAWS(ALL)-2013-8-26] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

H.L. Dattu, J. - (1.)This appeal is directed against the judgment and Order of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, dated 30th March 1999 in R.F.A. No. 385 of 1993, R.F.A. No. 258 (sic.) of 1994 and R.F.A. No. 775 of 1995 (sic.), 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 other observations and directions of the Court is not relevant for the purpose of this appeal.
(2.)The question that is contested by the parties and has fallen for our consideration 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.
(3.)The factual matrix in brief is as follows:
Siddappa and Parwatewa got married in 1924 and at the time of the marriage, the father of Parwatewa gifted her land in Survey No. R.S. No. 271/1 measuring 8 Acres 16 Guntas under registered Gift Deed dated 30th April 1924 ("A7"). Siddappa, after his marriage, continued to reside in his in-laws house. During his life time, Siddappa had no other source of income except from the tenanted lands which was only a small extent and was totally dry lands. Parwatewa purchased lands in R.S. No. 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)). Thereafter, on 2nd June, 1951, with the income from the above two lands, Parwatewa purchased another land being R.S. No. 143 measuring 28 Acres 23 Guntas (A(8)-A(12)). Siddappa died in the year 1951. The couple had four sons and one daughter -Marabasappa (Appellant-Defendant), Ningappa (Respondent-Plaintiff), Bhimappa (deceased - legal heirs are on record), Sangawwa and Channappa (predeceased without any heirs).



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.