M B GANGADHARAPPA Vs. BOMMAGONDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant. The suit for partition and possession of the plaintiffs 1/4th share was dismissed by both the Courts below and hence this second appeal.

(2.) CLAIMING to be the only son through the 1st wife of Doddachowdamma of the defendant and contending that the defendant took the second wife by name Channaveeramma, the plaintiff claimed a share in the joint family properties as l/4th. The defendant denied the paternity; the contention was that Channaveeramma is the only wife and the suit was resisted.

(3.) BOTH the Courts found that the plaintiff has not proved the marriage of his mother with first defendant and consequently the plaintiff was non-suited. The short point and the question of law raised is therefore in this case is whether the denial of paternity of the father, the first defendant to the plaintiff is true and acceptable? It is significant to note that in the written statement, the marriage is alone denied and whether the boy was born to that lady through the first defendant was not denied in spite of specific allegation to the effect that the plaintiff is his son born to that lady through the first defendant. The specific contention of the plaint was "after the birth of the plaintiff, the mother of plaintiff led a difficult life for a few days with the defendant and later on she was forced to take shelter in her parent's house", and the plaintiff was brought up by his mother under the support by the defendant. But this pleading was not specifically denied within the meaning of Order VIII, rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code. In fact when the plaintiff spoke in evidence that he and his mother resided with the defendant for a period of 10 years and the same was not disproved by cross-examination by the first defendant.