Devamma vs Shanthaiah

H.G. Ramesh, J.—This Appeal is filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree passed by the III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mysore, in R.A. No. 303/2004, dated 4.9.2008.

The lis is between the relatives i.e., plaintiffs are the children of sister of one Chikkajogisidda and defendants claim to be the legal representatives of Chikkajogisidda, born to the second wife of Chikkajogisidda. So far as suit schedule property is concerned, it is a land situated at Gujjegowdanapura Village, Jaipura Hobli, Mysore Taluk. Plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S. No. 46/1993 before the II Munsiff, Mysore, praying for declaration that they are the absolute owners of A and B schedule properties and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs B schedule property. The trial Court after enquiry, having raised relevant issues for consideration, held that plaintiffs mother - Puttamadamma got right over the suit schedule property by virtue of death of Chikkajogisidda who died intestate and also by virtue of first defendant marrying after the demise of Chikkajogisidda. Ex.P-2 the Gift Deed reveals that Chikkajogisidda died intestate and accordingly, the trial Court held that plaintiffs have proved their title. It is also noted that defendants have not produced any proof to show their right and title over suit schedule property. The trial Court further held that Ex.D-3 produced by the defendants does not tally with A schedule property. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants preferred appeal in R.A. No. 303/2004 before the III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mysore. The District Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, this second appeal.

The stand of the defendants-appellants is that on the death of first wife of Chikkajogisidda during 1945, mother of defendants married Chikkajogisidda, as such, they inherited the property and accordingly, sought to contend that there is no proper appreciation of evidence by the trial Court. The right accrues to the defendants as they are born to second wife of Chikkajogisidda. The lower Appellant Court taking note of the recitals of Ex.P-2 opined that Chikkajogisidda died issueless and there was nobody to look after him. That itself clearly goes to show that contentions of the plaintiffs are true. On the other hand, defendants are the children of one Rangaiah son of Shettyhally Kariyaiah, whereas Chikkajogisidda was also called as Chikkasiddaiah @ Rangaiah. Both the Courts below having taken note of the fact that defendants have not produced any material to prove their case that they are born to Chikkajogisidda so as to claim right and title over the suit schedule property, rather plaintiffs'' mother being the only daughter surviving in the family, she is entitled to possession over the suit property. In a concurrent finding, both the Courts below held that the property has to be made available to the plaintiffs as not an iota of material is placed by the defendants in respect of suit schedule property.

In view of the above, I do not find illegality in the orders passed by both the Courts below. No substantial question of law arise for consideration. Hence, Appeal is dismissed.

The application Misc.Cvl. No. 1673/2009 filed for production of additional documents does not survive for consideration as there is no case to reconsider. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.