IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL R.S.A.NO.2240/2018 (INJ) BETWEEN:
S.A. GUNDAPPA AGED 52 YEARS SHYANAHALLY KALALE DAKLE YESLUR HOBLY SAKLESHPUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT. … APPELLANT (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA S.N., ADV.) AND:
S.A. KENCHAMMA AGED 70 YEARS W/O LATE ANNEGOWDA SHYANAHALLY KALALE DAKLE YESLUR HOBLY SAKLESHPUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT. … RESPONDENT THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.01.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.03/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAKALESHPUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.02.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.74/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, SAKALESHPURA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard.
2. This defendant’s second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sakleshpura in R.A.No.03/2017 passed on 11.01.2018. By the impugned judgment, the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 21.2.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Sakleshpura, in O.S.NO.74/2014 where under the trial Court decreed the suit of the present respondent for permanent injunction.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred henceforth with their ranks before the trial Court.
4. The subject-matter of the suit are the lands bearing Survey No.101/6 measuring 1 acre 27 guntas; survey No.101/2 measuring 18 guntas, Survey No.103/5 measuring 12 guntas; Survey No.29/1 measuring 30 guntas and Survey No.56/21 measuring 2 acres.
5. The respondent is the mother of the appellant. She acquired the suit properties from her maternal family under the registered gift deed- Ex.P9 dated 7.12.1965. The said gift deed was executed by her mother in her favour.
6. The plaintiff contended that the defendant, her son, is threatening to dispossess her from suit properties and posing threats to her life and therefore sought for permanent injunction.
7. The defendant in his written statement contended that he is in joint possession with the plaintiff and she has effected partition in her property between herself, his brother and himself and in that partition the suit properties are allotted to his share. To substantiate his contention, he produced Ex.D1, the alleged unregistered partition deed.
8. The Courts below on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence disbelieved the theory of partition under Ex.D1 and granted decree for permanent injunction.
9. There is delay of 110 days in filing the appeal. Having regard to the concurrent findings rendered by Courts below on sound appreciation of evidence, this Court is satisfied that no purpose will be served on issuing notice on application for condonation of delay. Therefore, IA I/2018 and consequently, the appeal are dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *alb/-.