CHIKKAMMA Vs. N SURESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal is filed under Section 96 of the CPC by the defendants 1 to 3 in O. S. No. 131 of 1988 on the file of the learned Principal civil Judge, Mandya, decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff/1st respondent. The parties will be referred to as plaintiff and defendants in the course of this judgment.

(2.) THE plaintiff sought for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit schedule properties contending that his father late nanjegowda had three wives namely the 1st defendant-Chikkamma, the late Kempamma and the mother of the plaintiff Boramma who is the 5th defendant in the suit. The defendants 2 and 3 are the daughters of nanjegowda through the 1st defendant-Chikkamma. The defendant 4-Bhagyamma is the daughter of late Nanjegowda through his second wife the late Kempamma and defendant 6 is the sister of the plaintiff and daughter of the 5th defendant. It is stated that the plaintiff was born on 14-5-1969 and that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 are the members of a Hindu Joint Family and the suit Items 1 to 16 are the joint family properties of late Sri Nanjegowda and suit Items 17 and 18 are properties acquired out of the income of the joint family properties by late nanjegowda as the kartha of the joint family. That the plaintiff and the defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and that the plaintiff is the only male issue to late Nanjegowda who died on 7-1-1977 when the plaintiff was a minor. That the 1st defendant who is first wife of late Nanjegowda got her name entered in the revenue records and Municipal Registers in respect of the suit properties without the knowledge of the plaintiff and defendants 5 and 6. That the 1st defendant sold suit Items 17 and 18 to the defendants 7 and 8 which came to the knowledge of the plaintiff only after he attained the age of majority. That the plaintiff on coming to know that the 1st defendant was intending to alienate the suit properties, the plaintiff demanded his share which was refused and hence, the suit for partition and separate possession. The plaintiff has also contended that the alienation of suit items 17 and 18 to defendants 7 and 8 are not binding on him.

(3.) THE defendants 1 to 3 filed their written statements denying any relationship with the plaintiff and defendants 5 and 6. They also denied that the 5th defendant is the wife of late Nanjegowda and also denied that the plaintiff and the defendant 6 being the children of late Nanjegowda. The defendants 1 to 3 contended that it is only the 1st defendant who is the widow of late Nanjegowda and only defendants 2 and 3 are the children of Nanjegowda. They stated that the late Nanjegowda never married late Kempamma or the 5th defendant-Boramma. They also denied the date of birth of the plaintiff and also denied that the suit properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6. ,