M.B. GANGADHARAPPA Vs. BOMMAGONDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to as per their rank in the trial Court.

(2.) THIS appeal is filed by the Plaintiff in O.S. No. 373 of 1990 on the file of the Munsiff, Tarikere. The suit was filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant/Respondent for declaration of 1/4th share, partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties and for mesne profits. The claim of the Plaintiff was that he was the son of the Defendant through first wife and the suit properties being joint family properties, he is entitled for a share. The suit was resisted by the Defendant by filing written statement. The Defendant has denied the relationship pleaded by the Plaintiff. According to him, the suit schedule properties are not joint family properties. Defendant has stated that the Plaintiff was in no way concerned with the suit schedule properties. Consequently, the Defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit. On the basis of the pleadings the trial Court framed issues. The Plaintiff got examined as PW -1 and another witness as PW -2 and documents Exs.P -1 to P16 were marked. The Defendant got examined himself as DW -1 and another witness as DW -2 and documents Exs. D -1 to D -3 were marked. The trial Court, on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence on record, held that Plaintiff failed to prove that he was the son of the Defendant as pleaded by them. Accordingly, the trial Court answered all the issues against the Plaintiff and dismissed the suit by its Judgment dated 9.4.1992. Being aggrieved by the same, the Plaintiff filed appeal in Regular Appeal No. 31 of 1992. The lower appellate Court formulated points for its determination and answered them against the Plaintiff by assigning reasons. Concurring with the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, the Plaintiff has filed this second appeal.

(3.) While admitting this appeal, this Court framed the following substantial question: Whether the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are vitiated by the misreading of evidence in the light of Section 50 of the Evidence Act?